Federal Register Vol. 83, No.42,

Invasive plants have been identified as a major threat to the biological diversity and ecological integrity in and near the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF). Invasive plants displace native plants; reduce habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock; diminish populations of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; alter soil properties and productivity; change the intensity and frequency of wildfires; and impact recreation opportunities.

The HTNF encompasses approximately 5.6 million acres across the state of Nevada, with land in Carson, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Washoe, and White Pine counties. There are approximately 28,500 acres identified as being infested with invasive, non-native, and/or State-listed noxious weeds. These invasive plant infestations have a high potential to expand on lands within and adjacent to the HTNF, degrading desired plant communities and the values provided by those communities.

Forestlands are also threatened by “potential invaders,” invasive plants that have not been found on the HTNF but are known to occur in adjacent lands, counties, or states. Infestations can be controlled and eradicated, and native vegetation can be restored, through the use of specific management practices. A clear and comprehensive integrated invasive plan management strategy would allow for the implementation of timely and effective invasive plant management and prevention for projects and programs on the HTNF. In the absence of an aggressive invasive plant management program, the number, density, and distribution of invasive plants on the forest will continue to increase.

The purpose of this analysis is to update current management to provide for integrated and timely management of invasive species, now and in the future, with the goal of promoting healthy and thriving native plant communities across the HTNF. The proposal is in response to an underlying need to implement management direction as described in the Regulatory Framework section below.

The need for comprehensive and aggressive management of invasive plant species is multifaceted:

Invasive plants are diminishing the natural resource values of the forest: Forest resources are negatively impacted by existing and expanding invasive plant infestations. Invasive species are known to out-compete native plants, which can reduce productivity and biodiversity, cause habitat loss, and have economic impacts.

There must be a timely response to new infestations, new invasive plant species, and landscape-scale disturbances: On the HTNF, invasive plants are spread by use of transportation systems, livestock grazing, and off-road fire suppression activities. They are also spread by wild animals, wind, and water. Wildland fires are frequent on HTNF lands, and afterwards the burned areas typically become more densely infested with invasive plants such as cheatgrass and non-native thistles. The forest needs the flexibility to treat expanded and/or newly identified infestations in a timely manner, based on local site conditions and identified Forest priorities.

Existing and future invasive plant populations in the HTNF require active and adaptive management: Invasive plant infestations already exist throughout the HTNF, and without management they will increase in density and distribution. Active and adaptive integrated pest management is necessary to contain invasive plants within existing boundaries, reduce infestation densities, and retard the establishment of new infestations. Control efforts should be focused on infestations that can realize the greatest resource benefits: those with the highest risk of spread, those that have not become established, and those with the best likelihood of control success.

Rehabilitation and restoration of infested areas can inhibit the spread and establishment of invasive plants: Appropriate rehabilitation efforts are a critical component of a fully functional invasive plant management program. The goals of rehabilitating degraded areas may include preventing new infestations, preventing the reoccurrence of eradicated infestations, and/or reducing the density and spread of existing infestations. Post-fire rehabilitation efforts may incorporate one or more of the established control techniques outlined in the proposed action.

Federal, State, and Forest Service laws, regulation, policy and direction relating to invasive plant management must be implemented and followed: Implementing invasive species laws and policies requires aggressive invasive plant management. This analysis would identify the strategies that the HTNF would use to comply with laws and policies pertaining to invasive plant management.

The HTNF proposes to implement adaptive and integrated invasive plant treatments on current and future infested areas using tools and products currently available, and those that may become available in the next 15 years. Activities would be implemented with partners at the federal, state, and local level where opportunities exist. To provide for “Early Detection Rapid Response” (EDRR), the Forest would design a plan that allows treatment of invasive plant infestations located outside of currently identified infested areas. Infestations outside of currently identified areas may include new sites that arise in the future, or sites that currently exist, but have not been identified in Forest inventories to date. The intent of EDRR is to allow timely control, so that new infestations can be treated when they are small, preventing establishment and spread, while reducing the costs and potential side effects of treatment.

Proposed control methods would be based on integrated pest management principles and methods known to be effective for each target species. They include, but are not limited to, manual mechanical techniques, such as mowing and pulling; biological control agents, such as pathogens, insects, and controlled grazing; prescribed fire; and herbicides (including aerial and ground-based application methods) that target specific invasive plant species. Restoration actions include planting, seeding, and fertilizing using a variety of equipment and methods. Control, eradication, and restoration methods could be employed alone or in combination to achieve the most effective results. Treatments over a number of years may be necessary to achieve control, eradication, and restoration goals.

Treatment methods would be based on the extent, location, type, and character of an infestation and would be implemented using project design features developed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects.

Restoration activities would be designed and implemented based on the conditions found in and around infested areas. Both active and passive (allowing plants on site to fill in a treated area) revegetation would be considered. Restoration techniques would be assessed and implemented in order to promote native plant communities that are resistant to infestation by invasive plants.

The Forest Service will be the lead federal agency in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.5(b) and is responsible for the preparation of the EIS. The Forest Service is in the process of inviting other federal, state, and local agencies to participate as cooperating agencies. At this time, these include the Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Departments of Wildlife, Nevada Department of Agriculture and local Conservation Districts. Scoping will determine if any other cooperating agencies are needed.

The responsible official for this EIS is William A. Dunkelberger, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431.

The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to treat invasive plants and conduct restoration activities on the Nevada portion of the HTNF, and if so, what methods and strategies (including adaptive management and EDRR) will be used to contain, control, or eradicate invasive plants.

A permit from the State of Nevada would be required prior to use of prescribed fire. Pesticide applicators would be certified as required by the Nevada Department of Agriculture, and all other permits required by regulatory agencies would be obtained prior to implementation.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies, American Indian Tribes, as well as other individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed project. Comments on the proposed project should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action, describing as clearly and completely as possible any issues or concerns the commenter has with the proposal. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this EIS, and will be available on request for public inspection (see 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21). For full consideration, scientific articles or other items cited in support of comments should be submitted in their entirety by the commenter. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

Comments that would be most useful are those concerning developing or refining the proposed action, site specific concerns, and those concerns that can help us develop treatments that would be responsive to our goal to control, contain, or eradicate invasive plants.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Public meetings are anticipated to be held following publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Background

On November 7, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the eighth administrative review of innersprings from China, for the period of review (POR), February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.1 We invited parties to submit comments on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses The product is currently classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and has also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 9404.29.9005, 9404.29.9011, 7326.20.0070, 7326.20.0090, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).2 The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.3

As noted above, we received no comments on the Preliminary Results.

As no parties submitted comments on the Preliminary Results, Commerce has not modified its analysis from that presented in the Preliminary Results, and no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. Further, Commerce has made no changes to the application of AFA to PT Sunhere's exports of China-origin innersprings.4 As noted in the Preliminary Results, in selecting an AFA rate, Commerce's practice has been to assign non-cooperative respondents the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review; 5 thus, we assigned PT Sunhere's exports of China-origin innersprings an individual rate of 234.51 percent based on total AFA, which is the highest rate on the record in this proceeding.6

We have not calculated any assessment (or cash deposit) rates in this administrative review, because we applied AFA to PT Sunhere. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For PT Sunhere's Chinese-origin merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be 234.51 percent); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity (i.e., 234.51 percent); and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to PT Sunhere, there are no calculations to disclose.

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

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

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

The Scallop Advisory Panel will receive an update on measures expected to be adopted in Framework Adjustment 29. They will also review the general workload for 2018 based on Council priorities and initial progress on these work items. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

The Scallop Committee will receive an update on measures expected to be adopted in Framework Adjustment 29. They will also review the general workload for 2018 based on Council priorities and initial progress on these work items. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of HMS, including bluefin tuna, by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. The pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS primarily targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna in various areas and seasons. In 1997, NMFS determined that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock was overfished. In addition, the 1998 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation on western Atlantic bluefin tuna required that Contracting Parties, including the United States, minimize dead discards of bluefin tuna to the extent practicable, and set a country-specific dead discard allowance. Given the status of bluefin tuna and recommendations from ICCAT, at that time, NMFS analyzed a range of different time/area options for locations with high bluefin tuna bycatch in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish (1999 HMS FMP), and subsequently implemented the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Closed Area, which is effective annually from June 1 through June 30, in the final rule implementing the 1999 HMS FMP (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999) to reduce bluefin tuna dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery. In 2006, NMFS finalized the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, which was intended to simplify management and better coordinate domestic conservation and management of Atlantic HMS. This Consolidated HMS FMP also carried forward many of the objectives of the 1999 FMP for Atlantic tunas, sharks and swordfish (e.g., reduce dead discard and post-release mortality of Atlantic HMS in directed and non-directed fisheries; reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality). In the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS also recognized the importance of western Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico and considered alternatives that would provide additional protection or incentives to dissuade fishermen from keeping incidentally caught bluefin. Weak hooks have been mandatory in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery since 2011 (76 FR 18653, April 5, 2011). Weak hooks straighten under pressure and research conducted from 2007-2015 showed weak hook use could decrease bluefin tuna catch by 46 to 56.5 percent in the Gulf of Mexico. Continued reductions of bluefin tuna catch in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery have been observed since the implementation of weak hooks. Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014) implemented several measures for the pelagic longline fishery including, but not limited to, gear restricted areas, individual bluefin tuna quotas (IBQ), and catch reporting of each pelagic longline set using vessel monitoring systems.

Since implementation of Amendment 7 in 2015, NMFS has noted decreased bluefin tuna landings and dead discards concurrent with the new focus on vessel accountability in fishing practices. However, effort within the pelagic longline fishery has also decreased and quotas established for target species (e.g., swordfish) are not being met. We presented a range of potential management issues and options for consideration at recent Advisory Panel meetings that might: (1) Optimize the ability of permit categories to harvest target species and still meet goals consistent with rebuilding and management plans and other species management objectives; and (2) revitalize the target longline fisheries, including increased swordfish landings within existing quotas. We specifically received comments from pelagic longline participants and other interested parties, including comments at the Spring and Fall 2017 Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel meetings, to examine whether older fleet-wide measures such as gear requirements, area restrictions, or time/area closures may no longer be necessary to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch and still meet the objectives of the Amendment 7. The HMS Advisory Panel expressed support for the continued development of management options to be presented at the Spring 2018 Advisory Panel meeting.

NMFS encourages participation, by all persons affected or otherwise interested in bluefin tuna area-based and weak hook management measures, in the process to determine the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed in a draft environmental impact analysis and regulatory action. All such persons are encouraged to submit written comments (see ADDRESSES), or comment at one of the scoping meetings or public webinar. Persons submitting comments are welcome to address the specific measures in the scoping document.

NMFS intends to hold scoping meetings in the geographic areas that may be affected by these measures, including locations on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and will consult with the regional fishery management councils in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. After scoping has been completed and public comment gathered and analyzed, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to proceed with preparation of a draft environmental impact analysis and proposed rule, which would include additional opportunities for public comment. The scope of the draft environmental impact analysis would consist of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the following: Not amending the current regulations (i.e., taking no action); developing a regulatory action that contains management measures such as those described in the scoping document; or other reasonable courses of action. This scoping process also will identify, and eliminate from further detailed analysis, issues that may not meet the purpose and need of the action. NMFS expects to present the scoping document at the Spring 2018 HMS Advisory Panel meeting, the scheduled scoping meetings and webinar, and the regional fishery management councils, as listed in Table 1.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public scoping meetings and on conference calls to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the scoping meetings and conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the Agency; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The meeting locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Craig Cockrell at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. A NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject matter. If attendees do not respect the ground rules they will be asked to leave the scoping meeting or conference call.

Because the rulemakings overlap for some gear types, the public scoping meetings being held in Panama City, FL, Manteo, NC, and Manahawkin, NJ will be held in conjunction with public scoping meetings for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (shortfin mako shark management measures). The Amendment 11 presentation will likely be given first unless polling of the audience indicates another approach is appropriate. After each presentation, public comment for that issue will be received. Meeting attendees interested in this issue are encouraged to show up at the beginning of the meeting to help determine the order of the presentations. The second presentation will not start any later than 6 p.m.

The process of developing a regulatory action is expected to take approximately two years. In addition to future HMS Advisory Panel input, public comment and future analyses, there are other relevant events anticipated that may impact the development of this regulatory action, including implementation of a quota rule for Atlantic bluefin tuna and North Atlantic albacore, the three-year review of the IBQ program, and the ICCAT annual meeting in November 2018.

Until the draft environmental impact analysis and proposed rule are finalized or until other regulations are put into place, the current regulations remain in effect.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Deletions

On 1/26/2018 (83 FR 18), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and service deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on March 7, 2018, of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. 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) 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: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate information related to strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Reserve Components.

Agenda: The RFPB will hold a meeting from 7:55 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 7:55 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. will be closed to the public and will consist of remarks to the RFPB from following invited speakers: the National Defense University (NDU), Center for Strategic Research, Distinguished Research Fellow will discuss NDU's review of the National Defense Strategy and the integration of the Reserve Components' forces within the strategy; the Under Secretary of the Air Force will discuss the Air Force's posture, the status on the Report of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force recommendations, and plans to adapt the Total Air Force to meet future challenges; the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) will continue briefing the findings of the current IDA study on the Reserve Components performance during Operation Enduring Freedom; the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will discuss the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness' goals, and updates on Reserve Component personnel system reforms currently under consideration; the Special Assistant to the Director of the Army National Guard will discuss the Army National Guard goals, readiness objectives, and challenges for the “Operational Reserve” as part of the Total Force; and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security will discuss the role of the National Guard and Reserve in meeting future challenges related to Homeland Defense. The portion of the meeting from 2:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. will be open to the public and will consist of briefings from the following: The Chair of the RFPB's Subcommittee on Supporting & Sustaining Reserve Component Personnel will provide an update to the RFPB on the subcommittee's proposed recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning the OUSD P&R Duty Status Reform proposal and the co-sponsored National Guard Bureau's and OASD Manpower & Reserve Affairs Reserve Integration's study on Reserve Component Travel Pay; the Chair of the RFPB's Subcommittee on Enhancing DoD's Role in the Homeland will provide an update to the RFPB on the subcommittee's proposed recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning the Department of Defense support of civil authorities, FEMA requirements, the integration of the Reserve Component DoD's Cyber Mission Force, and other Homeland issues; and a member of the Subcommittee on Ensuring a Ready, Capable, Available and Sustainable Operational Reserve will provide an update to the RFPB on the subcommittee's proposed recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning the Air Reserve Component (ARC2 Mission) innovation for utilization and process improvements of the Reserves within the US Air Force.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(a)(1) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 2:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Alex Sabol, the Designated Federal Officer, not later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance at 1:30 p.m. to provide sufficient time to complete security screening to attend the beginning of the Open Meeting at 2:00 p.m. on March 7. To complete the security screening, please be prepared to present two forms of identification. One must be a picture identification card. In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the portion of this meeting scheduled to occur from 7:55 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in coordination with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public because it is likely to disclose classified matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit written statements to the RFPB about its approved agenda or at any time on the RFPB's mission. Written statements should be submitted to the RFPB's Designated Federal Officer at the address, email, or facsimile number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If statements pertain to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting in question. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the RFPB until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written statements and provide copies to all the RFPB members before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Please note that since the RFPB operates under the provisions of the FACA, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the RFPB's website.

Correction

In the Federal Register notice of January 22, 2018 (83 FR 2967), on page 2967 in the third column under the heading III. Eligibility Information, immediately following paragraph 2. Cost Sharing or Matching, we add the following paragraph:

3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants to directly carry out project activities described in its application to the following types of entities: institutions of higher education, public and private non-profit organizations, and agencies.

(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities identified in an approved application.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2324(d)(4); 20 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.

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

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

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

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The major purposes of the CSP are to expand opportunities for all students, particularly traditionally underserved students, to attend charter schools and meet challenging State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the United States; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school authorizing process.

CSP—Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer Grants) are intended to support charter schools that serve early childhood, elementary school, or secondary school students by providing grant funds to eligible applicants for the opening of new charter schools (CFDA number 84.282B) and for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools (CFDA number 84.282E). Eligibility for a grant under this competition is limited to charter school developers in States that do not currently have a CSP State Entity grant (CFDA number 84.282A) under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Eligibility in a State with a CSP State Educational Agency (SEA) grant under the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (CFDA number 84.282A) is limited to charter school developers applying for grants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools (CFDA number 84.282E) and only if the Department has not approved an amendment to the SEA's approved grant application authorizing the SEA to make subgrants for replication and expansion. Charter schools that receive financial assistance through Developer Grants provide programs of elementary or secondary education, or both, and may also serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students.

Background: This notice invites applications from eligible applicants for two types of grants: (1) Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools (CFDA number 84.282B) and (2) Grants to Charter School Developers for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CFDA number 84.282E). Under this competition, each CFDA number, 84.282B and 84.282E, constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends to award grants under each CFDA number for applications that are of sufficient quality. Information pertaining to each type of grant is provided in subsequent sections of this notice.

The ESSA, enacted in December 2015, reauthorized and amended the ESEA. The amendments included significant changes affecting the CSP, including the Developer Grants competition.1 Consequently, this notice contains definitions, application requirements, and selection criteria from the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,2 as well as priorities, definitions, application requirements, and selection criteria that we are establishing in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Eligible applicants are those that are qualified based on the requirements set forth in this notice. For more information on eligibility, please see section III.1. of this notice.

All charter schools receiving CSP funds must meet the definition of a charter school in section 4310(2) of the ESEA, including the requirements that a charter school comply with various non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, section 444 of GEPA, and part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (i.e., rights afforded to children with disabilities and their parents), and applicable State laws.

Priorities: This notice includes three competitive preference priorities. We are establishing Competitive Preference Priorities 1, 2, and 3 for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Competitive Preference Priorities: These priorities are competitive preference priorities.

For CFDA number 84.282B, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional four points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1 and up to an additional four points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. The maximum number of points an application for CFDA number 84.282B can receive under these priorities is eight.

For CFDA number 84.282E, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional two points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2, and an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3. The maximum number of points an application for CFDA number 84.282E can receive under these priorities is six.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Supporting High-Need Students by Increasing Access to High-Quality Educational Choice. (Up to four points under CFDA number 84.282B, and up to two points under CFDA number 84.282E).

Background: This priority focuses on projects serving children with disabilities, English learners (ELs), students in federally recognized Indian Tribes, and students served by rural local educational agencies. With respect to children with disabilities, the priority is intended to support projects that would serve these students at rates that are equal to or greater than those of surrounding public schools. With respect to ELs, it is intended to promote projects that would similarly serve these students at rates that are equal to or greater than those of surrounding public schools in communities with high concentrations of these students. The Department encourages applicants addressing this priority to include surrounding public schools' rates of enrollment for children with disabilities and ELs in their applications.

The Department believes that charter schools can provide critically needed options for both children with disabilities and ELs. Moreover, research indicates that charter schools show gains on State assessments for children with disabilities in mathematics, and for ELs in mathematics and reading that are higher than those for their counterparts in traditional public schools.3 In addition, a secondary study by the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools analyzing data from the Department's Civil Rights Data Collection for 2011-2012 found a narrowing, but still existing, gap in enrollment of children with disabilities in charter schools compared to traditional public schools.4

In addition, the Department understands that students who are members of federally recognized Indian Tribes and their communities face unique challenges. Therefore, through this priority the Department encourages applicants to use charter schools as part of the efforts to strengthen public education for Native American communities. Furthermore, the Department recognizes that rural schools confront a particular set of challenges and seeks to support rural education leaders in using charter schools, as appropriate, as part of their overall efforts to improve educational outcomes.

Priority: This priority is for projects that are designed to increase access to educational choice and improve academic outcomes and learning environments for one or more of the following groups of students:

(i) Students in communities served by rural local educational agencies

(ii) Children with disabilities

(iii) English learners

(iv) Students who are members of federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Dual or Concurrent Enrollment Programs and Early College High Schools (Up to four points under CFDA number 84.282B, and up to two points under CFDA number 84.282E).

Background: This priority is for projects that offer a program enabling secondary school students to begin earning credit toward a postsecondary degree or credential prior to high school graduation. Research has shown that dual or concurrent enrollment programs and early college high schools have positive effects including boosting college access and degree attainment, especially for students typically underrepresented in higher education.5

Priority: The extent to which the proposed project is designed to increase student access to, participation in, and completion of dual or concurrent enrollment programs or early college high schools.

Competitive Preference Priority 3—Single School Operators. (Zero or two points under CFDA number 84.282E)

Background: This priority is specifically for applications for Grants to Charter School Developers for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CFDA number 84.282E). Under this priority, we give preference to applicants that currently operate a single charter school. We are including this priority to encourage applications from developers that currently operate a single charter school but seek to replicate or expand it.

Priority: Applications submitted under CFDA number 84.282E that provide evidence that the applicant currently operates one, and only one, charter school.

Application Requirements: Applications for grants under CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282E must address the following application requirements. An applicant may choose to respond to these requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria in section V.1 of this notice. The source of each requirement is listed in parentheses. Where no source is provided, we establish the requirement, for FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter schools (CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282E).

Applicants for grants under CFDA number 84.282B or 84.282E must provide the following:

(a) A description of the roles and responsibilities of the eligible applicant, partner organizations, and charter management organizations, including the administrative and contractual roles and responsibilities of such partners (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(I) of the ESEA);

(b) A description of the quality controls agreed to between the eligible applicant and the authorized public chartering agency involved, such as a contract or performance agreement, how a school's performance in the State's accountability system and impact on student achievement (which may include student academic growth) will be one of the most important factors for renewal or revocation of the school's charter, and how the SEA and the authorized public chartering agency involved will reserve the right to revoke or not renew a school's charter based on financial, structural, or operational factors involving the management of the school (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(II) of the ESEA);

(c) A description of how the eligible applicant will solicit and consider input from parents and other members of the community on the implementation and operation of each charter school that will receive funds (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(IV) of the ESEA);

(d) A description of the eligible applicant's planned activities and expenditures of funds to support the activities described in section 4303(b)(1) of the ESEA, and how the eligible applicant will maintain financial sustainability after the end of the grant period (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(V) of the ESEA);

(e) A description of how the eligible applicant will support the use of effective parent, family, and community engagement strategies to operate each charter school that will receive funds under this program (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(VI) of the ESEA);

(f) A description of how the eligible applicant has considered and planned for the transportation needs of students for each school that will receive funds (Section 4303(f)(1)(E) of the ESEA);

(g) A description of how each school that will receive funds will support all students once they are enrolled to promote retention, including by reducing the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom;

(h) A description of how each school that will receive funds will have a high degree of autonomy over budget and operations, including autonomy over personnel decisions (Section 4303(f)(2)(A) of the ESEA);

(i) A description of how the applicant will ensure that each charter school that will receive funds will recruit, enroll, and retain students, including children with disabilities, ELs, and other educationally disadvantaged students, including the lottery and enrollment procedures that will be used for each charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated, and, if the applicant proposes to use a weighted lottery, how the weighted lottery complies with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA;

(j) A description of how the applicant will ensure that all eligible children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in accordance with part B of the IDEA;

(k) A description of how each school that will receive funds meets the definition of charter school under section 4310(2) of the ESEA as well as how the autonomy and flexibility granted to each charter school that will receive funds is consistent with the definition of a charter school;

(l) If an applicant proposes to open a new charter school (CFDA number 84.282B) or proposes to replicate or expand a charter school (CFDA number 84.282E) that provides a single-sex educational program, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed single-sex educational programs are in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) (“Title IX”) and its implementing regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34.

(m) A request and justification for any waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements over which the Secretary exercises administrative authority, except any such requirement relating to the elements of a charter school in section 4310(2) of the ESEA, that the applicant believes are necessary to implement its proposed project (Section 4303(d)(5));

(n) A complete logic model for the grant project. The logic model must include the applicant's objectives for implementing a new charter school or replicating or expanding a high-quality charter school with funding under this competition; and

(o) The applicant's most recent available independently audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Grants for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CFDA number 84.282E).

In addition to the preceding application requirements, applicants for CFDA number 84.282E must address the following application requirements.

(a) For each charter school currently operated or managed by the applicant, provide—

(1) Information that demonstrates that the school is treated as a separate school by its authorized public chartering agency and the State, including for purposes of accountability and reporting under Title I, Part A of the ESEA;

(2) Student assessment results for all students and for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA;

(3) Attendance and student retention rates for the most recently completed school year and, if applicable, the most recent available four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; and

(4) Information on any significant compliance and management issues encountered within the last three school years by the existing charter school being operated or managed by the eligible entity, including in the areas of student safety and finance.

Project Director's Meeting: Applicants approved for funding under either CFDA number 84.282B or 84.282E must attend a two-day meeting for project directors during each year of the project. An applicant may include the cost of attending this meeting in its proposed budget.

Definitions: The following definitions, where cited, are from 34 CFR 75.225 and 77.1, and sections 4310 and 8101 of the ESEA. We establish the definition of educationally disadvantaged student and rural local educational agency for FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure. (34 CFR 77.1)

Authorized public chartering agency means a State educational agency, local educational agency, or other public entity that has the authority pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a charter school. (Section 4310(1) of the ESEA)

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set. (34 CFR 77.1)

Charter management organization means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight. (Section 4310(3) of the ESEA)

Charter school means a public school that—

(a) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this definition;

(b) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;

(c) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;

(d) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;

(e) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;

(f) Does not charge tuition;

(g) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), section 444 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly referred to as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974”) and part B of the IDEA;

(h) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—

(1) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or

(2) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in paragraph (1);

(i) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;

(j) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;

(k) Operates in accordance with State law;

(l) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school; and

(m) May serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students. (Section 4310(2) of the ESEA)

Child with a disability has the same meaning given that term in section 602 of the IDEA. (Section 8101(4) of the ESEA)

Developer means an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out. (Section 4310(5) of the ESEA)

Dual or concurrent enrollment program means a program offered by a partnership between at least one institution of higher education and at least one local educational agency through which a secondary school student who has not graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma is able to enroll in one or more postsecondary courses and earn postsecondary credit that—

(a) Is transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership; and

(b) Applies toward completion of a degree or recognized educational credential as described in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (Section 8101(15) of the ESEA)

Early childhood education program means (a) a Head Start program or an Early Head Start program carried out under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), including a migrant or seasonal Head Start program, an Indian Head Start program, or a Head Start program or an Early Head Start program that also receives State funding; (b) a State licensed or regulated child care program; or (c) a program that (i) serves children from birth through age six that addresses the children's cognitive (including language, early literacy, and early mathematics), social, emotional, and physical development; and (ii) is (I) a State prekindergarten program; (II) a program authorized under section 619 or part C of the IDEA; or (III) a program operated by a local educational agency. (Section 8101(16) of the ESEA)

Early college high school means a partnership between at least one local educational agency and at least one institution of higher education that allows participants to simultaneously complete requirements toward earning a regular high school diploma and earn not less than 12 credits that are transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership as part of an organized course of study toward a postsecondary degree or credential at no cost to the participant or participant's family. (Section 8101(17) of the ESEA)

Educationally disadvantaged students means students in the categories described in section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which include economically disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, migrant children, ELs, neglected or delinquent children, and homeless children.

English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—

(a) Who is aged 3 through 21;

(b) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(c)(1) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(2)(i) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and

(ii) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(3) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(d) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(1) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(2) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(3) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (ESEA section 8101(20))

Expand, when used with respect to a high-quality charter school, means to significantly increase enrollment or add one or more grades to the high-quality charter school. (Section 4310(7) of the ESEA)

High-quality charter school means a charter school that—

(a) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;

(b) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance;

(c) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates, where applicable, for all students served by the charter school; and

(d) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates, where applicable, for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (Section 4310(8) of the ESEA)

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes (34 CFR 77.1)

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance. (34 CFR 77.1)

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project. (34 CFR 77.1)

Replicate, when used with respect to a high-quality charter school, means to open a new charter school, or a new campus of a high-quality charter school, based on the educational model of an existing high-quality charter school, under an existing charter or an additional charter, if permitted or required by State law. (Section 4310(9) of the ESEA)

Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title V, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's website at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, selection criteria, definitions, and requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 4305(a)(2) of the ESEA, and, therefore, this competition qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on certain priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, as specified in this notice, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will apply to the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Program Authority: Title IV, part C of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j).

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $500,000,000 for the CSP program for FY 2018, of which we intend to use an estimated $15,000,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $150,000-250,000 per school per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $200,000 per school per year.

Maximum Award: See Reasonable and Necessary Costs in section III.4 for information regarding the maximum amount of funds that may be awarded per new school.

Estimated Number of Awards: 30-45.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are developers that have—

(a) Applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school; and

(b) Provided adequate and timely notice to that authority. (Section 4310(6) of the ESEA).

Additionally, the charter school must be located in a State with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools (section 4310(2) of the ESEA) and in which a State entity currently does not have a CSP State Entity grant (CFDA number 84.282A) under section 4303 of the ESEA.6 (Section 4305(a)(2) of the ESEA). In accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1), we further establish that eligibility in a State with a CSP SEA grant (CFDA 84.282A) under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, is limited to grants for replication and expansion 7 (CFDA 84.282E) and only if the Department has not approved an amendment to the SEA's approved grant application authorizing the SEA to make subgrants for replication and expansion.8

As a general matter, the Secretary considers charter schools that have been in operation for more than five years to be past the initial implementation phase and, therefore, ineligible to receive CSP funds under CFDA number 84.282B to support the opening of a new charter school or under CFDA number 84.282E for the replication of a high-quality charter school; however, such schools may receive CSP funds under CFDA number 84.282E for the expansion of a high-quality charter school.

2. Audits: All grantees must ensure that the charter schools they operate or manage conduct independent, annual audits of their financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and ensure that any such audits are publicly reported. (Section 4303(f)(2)(E)(ii) of the ESEA).

3. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

4. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

5. Reasonable and Necessary Costs: The Secretary may elect to impose maximum limits on the amount of grant funds that may be awarded per new charter school created or replicated, per charter school expanded, or per new school seats created.

For this competition, the maximum limit of grant funds that may be awarded per new, replicated, or expanded charter school is $1,250,000.

In accordance with 2 CFR 200.404, applicants must ensure that all costs included in the proposed budget are reasonable and necessary in light of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Any costs determined by the Secretary to be unreasonable or unnecessary will be removed from the final approved budget.

A charter school that previously has received CSP funds for replication or expansion or for planning or initial implementation of a charter school under CFDA number 84.282A or 84.282M (as administered under the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)) may not use funds under this grant for the same purpose. However, such charter school may be eligible to receive funds under this competition to expand the charter school beyond the existing grade levels or student count. Likewise, a charter school that receives funds under this competition is ineligible to receive funds for the same purpose under section 4303(b)(1) or 4305(b) of the ESEA, including opening and preparing for the operation of a new charter school, opening and preparing for the operation of a replicated high-quality charter school, or expanding a high-quality charter school (i.e., CFDA number 84.282A or 84.282M).

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003).

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for this competition, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.

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

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

3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

4. Funding Restrictions: Grantees must use the grant funds to open and prepare for the operation of a new charter school; to open and prepare for the operation of a replicated high-quality charter school; or to expand a high-quality charter school, as applicable. Grant funds must be used to carry out allowable activities, described in section 4303(h) of the ESEA, which include the following:

(a) Preparing teachers, school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel, including through paying costs associated with—

(i) Providing professional development; and

(ii) Hiring and compensating, during the applicant's planning period specified in the application for funds, one or more of the following:

(A) Teachers.

(B) School leaders.

(C) Specialized instructional support personnel.

(D) Acquiring supplies, training, equipment (including technology), and educational materials (including developing and acquiring instructional materials).

(E) Carrying out necessary renovations to ensure that a new school building complies with applicable statutes and regulations, and minor facilities repairs (excluding construction).

(F) Providing one-time, startup costs associated with providing transportation to students to and from the charter school.

(G) Carrying out community engagement activities, which may include paying the cost of student and staff recruitment.

(H) Providing for other appropriate, non-sustained costs related to the opening of new charter schools, or the replication or expansion of high-quality charter schools, as applicable, when such costs cannot be met from other sources.

A grant awarded by the Secretary under this competition may be for a period of not more than five years, of which the grantee may use not more than 18 months for planning and program design. (Section 4303(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA). We establish that applicants may only propose to support one charter school per grant application, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section in this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the narrative to no more than 50 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for applicants submitting applications under CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282E are listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, respectively. These selection criteria, where cited, are based on section 4303 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 75.210. We are establishing the remaining selection criteria for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The maximum possible score for addressing all of the criteria in each section is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion.

In evaluating an application for a Developer Grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(a) Selection Criteria for Grants for the Opening of New Charter Schools (CFDA number 84.282B).

(i) Contribution in Assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students (up to 15 points).

The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for educationally disadvantaged students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary considers the quality of the plan to ensure that the charter school the applicant proposes to open will recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students and serve those students at rates comparable to surrounding public schools.

(ii) Quality of the Project Design (34 CFR 75.210(c)(1)and (c)(2)(i) and (ii)) (up to 30 points).

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

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 15 points); and

(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 15 points).

(iii) Quality of Project Personnel (34 CFR 75.210(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)(ii)) (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:

(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 2 points); and

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 18 points).

(iv) Quality of the Management Plan (34 CFR 75.210(g)(1) and (g)(2)(i)) (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(v) Continuation Plan (Section 4303(f)(1)(A)(vi)(II) of the ESEA) (up to 15 points).

The extent to which the eligible applicant is prepared to continue to operate charter schools that would receive grant funds in a manner consistent with the eligible applicant's application once the grant funds under this program are no longer available.

(b) Selection Criteria for Replication and Expansion Grants (CFDA number 84.282E).

(i) Contribution in Assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students (15 points).

The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for educationally disadvantaged students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary considers the quality of the plan to ensure that the charter school the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students and serve those students at rates comparable to surrounding public schools.

(ii) Quality of the Project Design (34 CFR 75.210(c)(1) and (c)(2)(i) and (ii)) (up to 30 points).

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

(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 15 points); and

(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 15 points).

(iii) Quality of Project Personnel (34 CFR 75.210(e)(1) and (e)(3)(ii)) (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:

(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 1 point);

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 9 points).

(iv) Quality of the Management Plan (34 CFR 75.210(g)(1) and (g)(2)(i)) (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(v) Quality of the Eligible Applicant (20 points).

The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the charter school to be replicated or expanded is a high-quality charter school, including:

(1) The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, attending the charter schools the applicant operates or manages. These subgroups of students include: Economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and students who are ELs.

(2) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.

(3) The extent to which charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have been closed; have had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; have had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; have had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management; have experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school's charter; and have had any significant issues with respect to student safety.

(vi) Continuation Plan (Section 4303(f)(1)(A)(vi)(II) of the ESEA) (up to 15 points).

The extent to which the eligible applicant is prepared to continue to operate charter schools that would receive grant funds in a manner consistent with the eligible applicant's application once the grant funds under this program are no longer available.

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

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

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

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20(c).

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

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

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures:

(a) Program Performance Measures. The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has two performance indicators to measure progress toward this goal: (1) The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and (2) the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts. Additionally, the Secretary has established a third measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).

These three measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. The evaluation must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for the charter school. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

(b) Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as required under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.

(2) Baseline data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) If the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision-making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.

(4) Data Collection and Reporting. The applicant must also describe in the application: (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

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

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

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

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

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

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910—NEW;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Packaged System e-Catalog (e-Catalog);

(3) Type of Request: New;

(4) Purpose: DOE's “CHP Technical Potential in the U.S.” shows significant technical potential in commercial buildings and industrial facilities in the < 10MW size range. Due to building characteristic similarities, this size range is particularly disposed to standardization of CHP systems. The e-Catalog creates a mechanism to take advantage of this standardization including the risk and cost reduction that are expected to ensue. This request for information consists of a voluntary data collection process for e-Catalog participation: To enroll CHP packagers and CHP solutions providers; develop an e-Catalog of packaged CHP systems; and relay the benefits of packaged CHP system performance to industry. Typical respondents are expected to be CHP project developers, CHP designers and packagers, and state and local energy program offices. Each respondent should have experience with compiling the data requested. Participation in the e-Catalog is voluntary, and it is expected that respondents would already have access to the information requested in this collection.

There are four types of information to be collected from primary participants: (1) Background data, including contact information and basic information about the CHP packager's experience with CHP design, durability and performance testing—collected in the CHP Packager Enrollment Form; (2) Background data, including contact information and basic information about the CHP solutions provider's experience with CHP design, durability and performance testing, installation, operation and maintenance—collected in the CHP Solutions Provider Enrolment Form; (3) contact information and program description of market engagement programs that support Packaged CHP systems—collected in the Market Engagement Registration Form; and (4) Information, including packaged system component descriptions, design data, full-load and part-load performance data at three ambient conditions—collected in Packaged CHP System Application Form; Background data will primarily be used as a means to recognize CHP packers and solution providers, and establish the e-Catalog.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 50;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 177;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 739;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $30,506.

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 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.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038.

On December 22, 2017, GridAmerica filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit for the Granite State Power Link Project (GSPL Project). GridAmerica is a direct wholly owned unregulated subsidiary of National Grid USA (“National Grid USA” and its subsidiaries, collectively, “National Grid”). The Applicant has its principal place of business in Waltham, MA.

GridAmerica proposes to construct, operate, maintain and connect a 1,200 megawatt (MW) overhead high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission cable system to deliver electricity from Quebec. The GSPL Project will consist of new electric transmission facilities between the Canadian Provence of Quebec and Monroe, New Hampshire. From the U.S. border, two new 315 kilovolt (kV) overhead double circuit alternating current (AC) lines, supported by a single structure, will extend from the international border between Canada and the United States for approximately 0.5 miles to an alternating current/direct current (AC/DC) converter station located in Norton, Vermont. A new ±400kV overhead High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) electric transmission line will connect the new Norton Converter Station to a new DC/AC converter station located in Monroe, New Hampshire. The path of the transmission line will parallel the right-of-way of an existing Quebec-New England HVDC line. From the Monroe Converter station, a new single circuit 345kV line will extend approximately 215 feet to a new substation constructed by New England Power where it will then interconnect into the New England electric grid. The proposed GSPL Line will extend a distance of approximately 59 miles from the U.S.-Canada border to Monroe, NH.

Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888, (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities), 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person may comment on this application by filing such comment at the mailing address or by emailing Christopher Lawrence at [email protected] provided above. A copy of each comment should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such comments shall be filed with: Mr. Joseph Rossignoli Director, U.S. Business Development, GridAmerica Holdings Inc., 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA 02451, [email protected] and Mr. Timothy Roskelley, Anderson & Kreiger LLP, 50 Milk Street, Boston, MA 02109, [email protected].

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE may consider the environmental impacts of the proposed project; the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions; and any other factors that DOE may also deem relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-2.

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.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: EPA contractors will be required to disclose business relationships and corporate affiliations to determine whether EPA's interests are jeopardized by such relationships. Because EPA has the dual responsibility of cleanup and enforcement and because its contractors are often involved in both activities, it is imperative that contractors are free from conflicts of interest so as not to prejudice response and enforcement actions. Contractors will be required to maintain a database of business relationships and report information to EPA on either an annual basis or when each work order is issued.

Form numbers: ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1550.11, OMB Control No. 2030-0023.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are businesses or organizations performing contracts for the EPA.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory to continue performance on the respective contract, in accordance with respective contract clause terms.

Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).

Frequency of response: 1,245.67 hours per response.

Total estimated burden: 14,652 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: Estimated total annual costs are $3,214,288.05. This includes an estimated contractor burden cost of $2,798,168.85 and an estimated agency burden cost of $416,119.20. These amounts were calculated using the hours above and the labor rates from the 2017 Bureau of Labor National Mean Statistics and the General Schedule.

Changes in estimates: There is no change in the number of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared to the ICR currently approved by OMB.

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

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0910.

Title: Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-102 to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 967 respondents; 967 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 967 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The information submitted to the Commission will provide public service answering points (PSAPs), providers of location technology, investors, manufacturers, local exchange carriers, and the Commission with valuable information necessary for full Phase II E911 service implementation. These reports will provide helpful, if not essential information for coordinating carrier plans with those of manufacturers and PSAPs. The reports will also assist the Commission's efforts to monitor Phase II developments and to take action, if necessary, to maintain the Phase II implementation schedule.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0999.

Title: Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report and Section 20.19, Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act).

Form Number: FCC Form 655.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 934 respondents; 934 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 13 hours per response (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310 and 610 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 12,140 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No costs.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Information requested in the reports may include confidential information. However, covered entities are allowed to request that such materials submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection as a revision to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60-day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance for the collection. The revision is necessary to implement the final rules promulgated in the 2015 Fourth Report and Order, FCC 15-155 (Fourth Report and Order), which expanded the scope of the rules due to a shift from Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) to digital mobile service. We estimate that there will be a small increase in the number of respondents/responses, total annual burden hours, and total annual cost from the previously approved estimates.

The collection is necessary to implement certain disclosure requirements that are part of the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rule. In a Report and Order in WT Docket No. 01-309, FCC 03-168, adopted and released in September 2003, implementing a mandate under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, the Commission required digital wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to make certain digital wireless phones capable of effective use with hearing aids, label certain phones they sold with information about their compatibility with hearing aids, and report to the Commission (at first every six months, then on an annual basis) on the numbers and types of hearing aid-compatible phones they were producing or offering to the public. These reporting requirements were subsequently amended on several occasions, and the existing, OMB-approved collection under this OMB control number includes these modifications.

On November 19, 2015, the Commission adopted final rules in a Fourth Report and Order, FCC 15-155 (Fourth Report and Order), that, among other changes, expanded the scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions to cover handsets used with any digital terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a substantial portion of the public, including through the use of pre-installed software applications. Prior to 2018, the hearing aid compatibility provisions were limited only to handsets used with two-way switched voice or data services classified as Commercial Mobile Radio Service, and only to the extent they were provided over networks meeting certain architectural requirements that enable frequency reuse and seamless handoff. As a result of the Fourth Report and Order, beginning January 1, 2018, all device manufacturers and Tier I carriers that offer handsets falling under the expanded scope of covered handsets are required to comply with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions, including annual reporting requirements on FCC Form 655. For other service providers that are not Tier I carriers, the expanded scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions applies beginning April 1, 2018.

Following release of the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission is required to amend the FCC Form 655 to reflect the newly expanded scope of handsets covered by the hearing aid compatibility provisions, as well as to capture information regarding existing disclosure requirements clarified by the Commission in the Fourth Report and Order. As a consequence of the Fourth Report and Order, FCC Form 655 filing and other requirements will apply to those newly-covered handsets offered by device manufacturers and service providers that have already been reporting annually on their compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions, as well to any device manufacturers and service providers that were previously exempt because they did not offer any covered handsets or services prior to 2018.

As a result, the Commission is requesting a revision of this collection in order to implement the final rules promulgated in the Fourth Report and Order, which expanded the scope of the rules due to a shift from Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) to digital mobile service. We estimate that the expanded scope will increase the potential number of respondents subject to this collection and correspondingly increase the responses and burden hours. The minor language changes to the instructions to FCC Form 655 and to the form itself clarifying this expanded scope will help the Commission compile data and monitor compliance with the current version of the hearing aid compatibility rules while making more complete and accessible information available to consumers.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0182.

Title: Section 73.1620, Program Tests.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,470 respondents; 1,470 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-5 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,521 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements for this collection are as follows:

47 CFR 73.1620(a)(1) require permittees of a nondirectional AM or FM station, or a nondirectional or directional TV station to notify the FCC upon beginning of program tests. An application for license must be filed within 10 days of this notification.

47 CFR 73.1620(a)(2) require a permittee of an AM or FM station with a directional antenna to file a request for program test authority 10 days prior to date on which it desires to begin program tests. This is filed in conjunction with an application for license.

47 CFR 73.1620(a)(3) require a licensee of an FM station replacing a directional antenna without changes to file a modification of the license application within 10 days after commencing operations with the replacement antenna.

47 CFR 73.1620(a)(4) requires a permittee of an AM station with a directional antenna to file a request for program test authority 10 days prior to the date on which it desires to begin program test.

47 CFR 73.1620(a)(5) requires that, except for permits subject to successive license terms, a permittee of an LPFM station may begin program tests upon notification to the FCC in Washington, DC provided that within 10 days thereafter an application for license is filed. Program tests may be conducted by a licensee subject to mandatory license terms only during the term specified on such license authorization.

47 CFR 73.1620(b) allows the FCC to right to revoke, suspend, or modify program tests by any station without right of hearing for failure to comply adequately with all terms of the construction permit or the provision of 47 CFR 73.1690(c) for a modification of license application, or in order to resolve instances of interference. The FCC may also require the filing of a construction permit application to bring the station into compliance with the Commission's rules and policies.

47 CFR 73.1620(f) requires licensees of UHF TV stations, assigned to the same allocated channel which a 1000 watt UHF translator station is authorized to use, to notify the licensee of the translator station at least 10 days prior to commencing or resuming operation and certify to the FCC that such advance notice has been given.

47 CFR 73.1620(g) requires permittees to report any deviations from their promises, if any, in their application for license to cover their construction permit (FCC Form 302) and on the first anniversary of their commencement of program tests.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1151.

Title: Sections 1.1420, 1.1422 and 1.1424, Pole Attachment Access Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 763 respondents; 36,136 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 20-45 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement, and third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 224.

Total Annual Burden: 448,921 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No questions of a confidential nature are asked.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting OMB approval for a three-year extension of this information collection. In Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket No. 09-51, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 11-50, the Commission adopted rules that relate to the implementation of section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, regarding access to poles that are owned or controlled by utilities. Under the Commission's rules, utilities must provide cable television systems and telecommunications carriers (collectively, “attachers”) with non-discriminatory access to attach facilities to poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way owned or controlled by the utilities (collectively, “pole attachments”). However, utilities may deny in writing those pole attachment applications where there is insufficient capacity on a pole, or for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering purposes. Commission rules also create a series of deadlines or “timelines” by which attachers request and receive permission from utilities for pole attachments. The first stage of the timeline requires utilities to survey the requested poles where access is requested and to perform an engineering analysis. Utilities may notify attachers when they have completed their surveys of the affected poles. With regard to the second stage of the timeline, utilities must present to attachers an estimate of charges for preparing a pole for a new attachment (“make-ready” work). With regard to the make-ready stage of the timeline, utilities are required to send notices of impending make-ready work to entities with existing attachments on the pole. Such notification letters are sent when a make-ready schedule is established. If the make-ready period is interrupted, or if the pole owner asserts its right to a 15-day extension of time to perform make-ready work, then notification letters also are required from the utility to the new attacher.

Additionally, the Order adopted a rule requiring utilities to make available and keep up-to-date a reasonably sufficient list of approved contractors to perform surveys and make-ready work in the communications space of a utility pole. If an attacher uses a utility-approved contractor, then it must notify the utility and invite the utility to send a representative to oversee the work.

Finally, the Order also broadened the existing enforcement process by permitting incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to file complaints alleging that the pole attachment rates, terms, or conditions demanded by utilities are unjust or unreasonable. If an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that it is similarly situated to an attacher that is a telecommunications carrier or a cable television system (through relevant evidence, including pole attachment agreements), then it can gain comparable pole attachment rates, terms, and condition as the similarly-situated carrier. The paperwork burdens for this provision are contained in OMB Control No. 3060-0392. The Order also encourages incumbent LECs that benefit from lower pole attachment costs to file data at the Commission that demonstrate that the benefits are being passed on to consumers.

Background

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, 73 FR 70732-70814, establish a framework by which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers may voluntarily report information to Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), on a privileged and confidential basis, for the aggregation and analysis of patient safety events.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

AHRQ has accepted a notification from the NCH Healthcare System, PSO, a component entity of the NCH Healthcare System, PSO number P0191, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the NCH Healthcare System, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 31, 2018.

The NCH Healthcare System, PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at http://www.pso.ahrq.gov.

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM 2 , or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The APOE allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

The scope of this Panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2017, and will terminate on January 19, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and other CMS programs.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs and other CMS programs.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the March 21, 2018 meeting will include the following:

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by contacting the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or by telephone at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. This meeting will be held in a federal government building, the Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) Building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13) establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state for any official purpose unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into federal buildings. The current list of states from which a federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief.

We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

• Presentation of a government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into HHH Building, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

In the Federal Register of April 4, 2014 (79 FR 19620), we announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products” and invited comment by June 9, 2014. We received numerous comments on the draft guidance and have modified the final guidance where appropriate. In addition, we made editorial changes to improve clarity and to focus on labeling issues. The final guidance recognizes a definition of honey that is broader than what was noted in the draft guidance and that reflects comments that said that bees use nectar from plants other than flowers. We declined, however, to further define “chief floral source” (as suggested by other comments) because it is addressed by the Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 515.300, “Honey-Source Declaration” (available online at http://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm074437.htm), and it is the responsibility of the producer to ensure that the source of its honey, if included on the label, is not false or misleading. In response to multiple comments asking us to clarify how flavored honey should be named, we revised the answer to this question to make it clear that honey with a characterizing flavor should be labeled in accordance with 21 CFR 101.3(b) and 102.5(a). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated April 2014.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (21 CFR 10.30).” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

In the Federal Register of May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33742), we published a final rule amending our Nutrition and Supplement Facts label regulations. The final rule provides a definition of dietary fiber as non-digestible soluble and insoluble carbohydrates (with three or more monomeric units), and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants; isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates (with three or more monomeric units) determined by FDA to have physiological effects that are beneficial to human health (§ 101.9(c)(6)(i)) (21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(i)). One mechanism by which a manufacturer could request an amendment to the list of isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that meet the dietary fiber definition is by using the citizen petition process in 21 CFR 10.30. If an isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrate meets the dietary fiber definition, then it would be added to the list of dietary fibers in § 101.9(c)(6)(i).

In the Federal Register of November 23, 2016, (81 FR 84516), we announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (21 CFR 10.30)” and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by January 23, 2017, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. In the Federal Register of January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4225), we extended the comment period to February 13, 2017. We received several comments on the draft guidance and have modified the final guidance where appropriate. Changes to the guidance include: (1) The inclusion of studies on diseased populations under certain circumstances as part of our evaluation of the totality of the scientific evidence; (2) additional detail and clarity on the physiological endpoints that we consider when reviewing the scientific evidence; and (3) additional detail regarding factors we consider when evaluating the strength of the scientific evidence.1 In addition, we made editorial changes to improve clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated November 2016.

The guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in § 101.9 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0813.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” On November 27, 2013, the DSCSA (Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the DSCSA added section 581 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee), which sets forth definitions for the DSCSA. “Suspect product” is defined in section 581(21) of the FD&C Act, and “illegitimate product” is defined in section 581(8).

FDA is announcing the availability of this draft guidance to describe the Agency's interpretation of terms used in the definitions of “suspect product” and “illegitimate product” in the DSCSA, for purposes of trading partners' verification obligations (including notification) under section 582(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4), respectively of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4)). The draft guidance lays out FDA's current understanding of the following key terms for such purposes: Counterfeit, diverted, fraudulent transaction, and unfit for distribution.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on definitions of suspect product and illegitimate product for verification obligations under the DSCSA. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

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

I. Background

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance is intended to help industry comply with the statutory requirement, under section 403(q)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(1)(A)(i)), that food that is intended for human consumption and offered for sale bear nutrition information that provides a serving size that reflects the amount of food customarily consumed and is expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate to the food. To comply with this requirement, manufacturers must determine and label their food products with the appropriate label serving size based on the amount of the product customarily consumed.

In the Federal Register of May 27, 2016, we issued a final rule entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments” (81 FR 34000). The final rule amends our regulations in § 101.12(b) (21 CFR 101.12(b)) to update or modify certain pre-existing RACCs, and to establish RACCs for new product categories.

In the Federal Register of January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1344), we announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category; Draft Guidance for Industry” and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by March 6, 2017, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We received several comments on the draft guidance and have modified the content, where appropriate, for this final guidance. Changes to the guidance include the addition of flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored) as an example in the “Nut and seed butters, pastes, or creams” product category. In the Federal Register of November 2, 2016, we published a Request for Information and Comments requesting information and comments on the appropriate product category and RACC for flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored) (81 FR 76323). Based upon the information and comments received, and our own assessment, we have determined that flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored) are comparable to nut butters and belong in the “Nut and seed butters, pastes, or creams” product category with a RACC of two tablespoons. In addition to this and other clarifying substantive changes that we made to the guidance, we made editorial changes to improve clarity and to help ensure consistency with § 101.12(b). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated January 2017.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

The ICH, formerly known as the International Conference on Harmonisation, was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in Europe, Japan, and the United States without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety and effectiveness. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce regional differences in technical regulatory requirements for pharmaceutical products while preserving a consistently high standard for drug efficacy, safety, and quality. In 2015, the ICH was reformed to establish ICH as a true global initiative that expands beyond the previous ICH members. More involvement from regulators around the world is expected, as they join counterparts from Europe, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland as ICH observers and regulatory members. Expanded involvement is also anticipated from global regulated pharmaceutical industry parties, joining as ICH observers and industry members. The reforms build on a 25-year track record of successful delivery of harmonized guidelines for global pharmaceutical development and their regulation.

ICH guidelines are developed following a five-step process. In Step 1, experts from the different ICH regions work together to prepare a consensus draft of the Step 1 Technical Document. The Step 1 Technical Document is submitted to the ICH Assembly to request endorsement under Step 2a of the process. Step 2b is a “Regulators only” step in which the ICH regulatory members review the Step 2a Final Technical Document and take any actions, which might include revisions that they deem necessary, to develop the draft “Guideline.” Step 3 of the process begins with the public consultation process conducted by each of the ICH regulatory members in their respective regions, and this step concludes with completion and acceptance of any revisions that need to be made to the Step 2b draft guideline in response to public comments. Adoption of the new guideline occurs in Step 4. Following adoption, the harmonized guideline moves to Step 5, the final step of the process when it is implemented by each of the regulatory members in their respective regions. The ICH process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the ICH regions since 1990. More information on the current ICH process and structure can be found at the following website: http://www.ich.org/home.html. (FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.)

The topics for discussion at this public meeting include the current guidelines under development under the ICH. These guidelines include the following:

Topics Currently Under Regional Public Consultation (Step 3 of ICH Process):

Selected Topics Recently Finalized (Step 4 of ICH Process):

Electronic Standards and MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities):

Additional Ongoing Topics:

I. Background

In the Federal Register of May 27, 2016 (81 FR 34000), we issued a final rule pertaining to serving sizes for food. The final rule amends the definition of a single-serving container; requires dual-column labeling for certain containers; updates, modifies, and establishes certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs); amends the serving size for breath mints; and makes certain technical amendments to various aspects of preexisting serving size regulations. The final rule, which is codified at §§ 101.9 and 101.12 (21 CFR 101.9 and 101.12), became effective July 26, 2016, and has a compliance date of July 26, 2018, for manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual food sales, and July 26, 2019, for manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales. On October 2, 2017, FDA published a proposed rule to extend the compliance dates by approximately 1.5 years—to January 1, 2020, for manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual food sales and to January 1, 2021, for manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales—and explained that, pending completion of the rulemaking with respect to the compliance dates, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates announced in the final rule (82 FR 45753). A final determination regarding the compliance dates is pending.

We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined that the final rules on nutrition labeling, taken as a whole, will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), we are making available the SECG to explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the rule.

We are issuing the SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

The guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in §§ 101.9 and 101.12 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the SECG at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which added new sections 581 and 582 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee and 360eee-1), set forth new definitions and requirements related to product tracing. The DSCSA outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system by November 27, 2023, that will identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States.

Under section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act, certain trading partners in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain (manufacturers, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and repackagers) are required to capture, maintain, and provide the subsequent purchaser of certain prescription drug products with product tracing information. These requirements took effect on January 1, 2015, for manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and repackagers, and on July 1, 2015, for dispensers.

As required by section 582(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA established initial standards in 2014 to facilitate the interoperable exchange of transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements between trading partners (79 FR 70878, November 28, 2014). Those standards help trading partners comply with the requirements of section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act to provide the subsequent trading partners with product tracing information, in paper or electronic format, through the extension and/or use of current systems and processes.

This draft guidance elaborates on the initial standards that FDA established in 2014. It is intended to assist trading partners in standardizing the data that are contained in the product tracing information they must provide to subsequent purchasers. It is also intended to help trading partners understand the data elements that should be included in the product tracing information, particularly in situations where they are permitted by law to provide other trading partners with product tracing information that omits certain elements that would otherwise be required. In addition, the draft guidance recommends documentation practices that trading partners can use to satisfy the requirements of section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA about standardization of data and documentation practices for the exchange of product tracing information. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This draft guidance includes information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FDA intends to solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would represent modifications to those previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations or guidances.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data; International Council for Harmonisation.” In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The standing members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the members of the ICH Association.

The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The ICH Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.

In the Federal Register of June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35781), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data.” The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by August 2, 2016.

After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in September 2017.

The guidance provides guidance on genomic sampling and management of genomic data from interventional and non-interventional clinical studies. The guidance addresses use of genomic samples and data irrespective of the timing of analyses and both prespecified and non-prespecified use. The focus is on the general principles of collecting, processing, transporting, storing, and disposing of genomic samples or data, within the scope of an informed consent policy or practice. The technical aspects of genomic sampling are also discussed when appropriate, recognizing the rapidly evolving technological advances in genomic sampling and data generation. The guidance also intends to increase awareness and provide a reminder regarding subjects' privacy, protection of the data generated, the need to obtain suitable informed consent, and the need to consider transparency of findings in line with local legislation and regulations.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755. The collections of information in the guidance “E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1)” have been approved under 0910-0843.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, or https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

The inaugural Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAG), issued in 2008, was the first comprehensive guidelines on physical activity issued by the federal government. The PAG serves as the benchmark and primary, authoritative voice of the federal government for providing science-based guidance on physical activity, fitness, and health for Americans. The second edition of the PAG will build upon the first edition and provide a foundation for federal recommendations and education for physical activity programs for Americans, including those at risk for chronic disease.

Description of the Committee's Mission and Composition: The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee or PAGAC) was established to perform a single, time-limited task. The work of the Committee was solely advisory in nature. It was charged to examine the current PAG, take into consideration new scientific evidence and current resource documents, and develop a scientific report to the Secretary of HHS that outlines its science-based advice and recommendations for development of the second edition of the PAG. The Committee consisted of 17 members, who were appointed by the Secretary in June 2016. The Committee disbanded upon submission of its Scientific Report to the Secretary of HHS. Information on the Committee membership is available at www.health.gov/paguidelines/second-edition/committee/.

Written Public Comments: Written comments on the Scientific Report are encouraged from the public and will be accepted through April 2, 2018. Written public comments can be submitted and/or viewed at www.health.gov/paguidelines/pcd using the “Submit Comments” and “Read Comments” links, respectively. HHS requests that commenters provide a brief summary of the points or issues in the comment text box. If commenters are providing literature or other resources, complete citations or abstracts and electronic links to full articles or reports are preferred instead of attaching these documents to the comment. The Department does not make decisions on specific policy recommendations based on the number of comments for or against a topic, but on the scientific justification for the recommendation. All comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET on April 2, 2018, after which the time period for submitting written comments to the federal government expires. After submission, comments will be reviewed, processed, and then posted for public viewing.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0952], and must be received by April 2, 2018.

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

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

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0011.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 58819, December 14, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited one comment. The commenter stated that it's their belief that the current system of the Coast Guard with respect to the new owner or transfer of ownership, should be at the discretion of the system that has always been in place. Coast Guard response: Nothing about the private aid to navigation process is changing and therefore we have not revised this information collection request in response to the comment. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Title: Applications for Private Aids to Navigation and for Class I Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0011.

Summary: Under the provision of 14 U.S.C. 81, the Coast Guard is authorized to establish aids to navigation. 14 U.S.C. 83 prohibits establishment of aids to navigation without permission of the Coast Guard. 33 CFR 66.01-5 provides a means for private individuals to establish privately maintained aids to navigation. Under 43 U.S.C. 1333, the Coast Guard has the authority to promulgate and enforce regulations concerning lights and other warning devices relating to the promotion of safety of life and property on artificial islands, installations, and other devices on the outer continental shelf involved in the exploration, development, removal, or transportation of resources there from. 33 CFR 67.35-1 prescribes the type of aids to navigation that must be installed on artificial islands and fixed structures. Under the provision of 33 U.S.C. 409, the Secretary of Homeland Security is mandated to prescribe rules and regulations for governing the marking of sunken vessels. This authorization was delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard under Department of Homeland Security Delegation number 0170 and the marking of sunken vessels are set out in 33 CFR part 64.11. To change any regulation, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires rule making to be published in the Federal Register and that the notice shall include a statement of time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings. The information collected for the rule can only be obtained from the owners of sunken vessels. The information collection requirements are contained in 33 CFR 66.01-5, and 67.35-5.

Need: The information on these private aid applications (CG-2554 and CG-4143) provides the Coast Guard with vital information about private aids to navigation and is essential for safe marine navigation. These forms are required under 33 CFR 66 & 67. The information is processed to ensure the private aid is in compliance with current regulations. Additionally, these forms provide the Coast Guard with information which can be distributed to the public to advise of new, or changes to private aids to navigation. In addition, collecting the applicant's contact information is important because it allows the Coast Guard to contact the applicant should there be a discrepancy or mishap involving the permitted private aid to navigation. Certain discrepancies create hazards to navigation and must be responded to and immediately corrected or repaired.

Forms: CG-2554, Private Aids to Navigation Application, and CG-4143, Application for Class I Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures.

Respondents: Owners of private aids to navigation.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 2,000 hours to 1,709 hours a year due to a decrease in the number of respondents.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; Title 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0134], and must be received by May 1, 2018.

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

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

Title: Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0012.

Summary:Title 46, U.S.C. 10311 requires each master or individual in charge of a vessel, to prepare a Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner for each mariner being discharged from the vessel. These documents are used to establish evidence of sea service aboard U.S.flagged merchant vessels for merchant mariners to upgrade their credentials, establish proof of eligibility for union and other benefits, and in litigation when vessel service is an issue.

Need: The information collected provides the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of sea service used in determining eligibility for issuance of a merchant mariner credential, to determine eligibility for various benefits such as medical and retirement, and to provide information to the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) on the availability of mariners in a time of a national emergency.

Forms: CG-718A, Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner.

Respondents: Shipping companies, master or individuals in charge of a vessel.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 1,478 hours.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0138], and must be received by May 1, 2018.

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

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

Title: Application and Permit to Handle Hazardous Material.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0005.

Summary: The information is used to ensure the safe handling of explosives and other hazardous materials around port and aboard vessels.

Need: Tile 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231 authorize the Coast Guard to establish standards for the handling, storage, and movement of hazardous materials on a vessel and waterfront facility. Regulations in 33 CFR 126.17, 49 CFR 176.100, and 176.415 prescribe the rules for facilities and vessels.

Forms: CG-4260, Application and Permit to Handle Hazardous Materials.

Respondents: Shipping agents and terminal operators that handle hazardous materials.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 182 hours to 308 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number of responses.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0135], and must be received by May 1, 2018.

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

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

Title: State Access to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0068.

Summary: This information collection is the mechanism for a Governor, or their designated representative, of a state to make a request for payment from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for removal cost consistent with the National Contingency Plan required for the immediate removal of a discharge, or the mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of discharge, of oil.

Need: This information collection is required by 33 CFR part 133, for implementing 33 U.S.C. 2712(d)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The information provided by the State to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) is used to determine whether expenditures submitted by the state to the OSLTF are compensable, and, where compensable, to ensure the correct amount of reimbursement is made by the OSLTF to the state. If the information is not collected, the Coast Guard and the National Pollution Funds Center will be unable to justify the resulting expenditures, and thus be unable to recover costs from the parties responsible for the spill when they can be identified.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Governor of a state or their designated representative.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 03 hours a year.

Notice is hereby given that on February 23, 2018, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain ethernet gateway products known as AirLink gateways, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H250154, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the programming and downloading operations performed in the United States, using U.S.-origin software, substantially transform non-TAA country AirLink gateways. Therefore, the country of origin of the AirLink gateways is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

Notice is hereby given that on 02/21/18, CBP issued a final determination concerning the aluminum honeycomb panels, which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. The final determination, HQ H290528, was issued at the request of Aliva Chemica E Sistemi SRL, under procedures set forth at 19 C.F.R. Part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP was asked to consider whether the cutting, bending, and assembly of aluminum parts constitutes a substantial transformation. In the final determination, CBP concluded that these activities do not constitute a substantial transformation and the origin of the honeycomb panels remains the original country of manufacturing.

Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

Notice is hereby given that on February 21, 2018, CBP issued two final determinations concerning the country of origin of tablet computers, smart phones, and systems, which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. These final determinations, HQ H284834 and HQ H284617, were issued at the request of 1Vision, LLC and Care Innovations, LLC, respectively, under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determinations, CBP was asked to consider whether disabling the general applications of a tablet computer or smart phone and loading specialized software onto the device, enabling a patient to provide medical information to the VA, constituted a substantial transformation. In one final determination, CBP was further asked if the integration of the altered tablets and smartphones into a larger telehealth system constituted a substantial transformation. In the final determinations, CBP concluded that these activities do not constitute a substantial transformation and the origin of the tablet computers, smart phones, and systems remains the original country of manufacturing.

Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

The Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), regarding the benefits that result from United States citizens traveling to foreign nations to engage in hunting.

Formed in December 2017, the Council is an advisory body whose duties include, but are not limited to:

(a) Developing a plan for public engagement and education on the benefits of international hunting.

(b) Reviewing and making recommendations for changes, when needed, on all Federal programs, and/or regulations, to ensure support of hunting as:

1. An enhancement to foreign wildlife conservation and survival; and

2. An effective tool to combat illegal trafficking and poaching.

(c) Recommending strategies to benefit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's permit office in receiving timely country data and information so as to remove barriers that impact consulting with range states.

(d) Recommending removal of barriers to the importation into the United States of legally hunted wildlife.

(e) Ongoing review of import suspension/bans and providing recommendations that seek to resume the legal trade of those items, where appropriate.

(f) Reviewing seizure and forfeiture actions/practices, and providing recommendations for regulations that will lead to a reduction of unwarranted actions.

(g) Reviewing the Endangered Species Act's foreign listed species and interaction with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, with the goal of eliminating regulatory duplications.

(h) Recommending methods for streamlining/expediting processing of import permits.

The Council will convene to discuss issues including:

1. International wildlife conservation programs conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

2. U.S. Government efforts to combat wildlife trafficking; and

3. Other Council business.

The final agenda will be posted on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/iwcc.

To attend this meeting, register by close of business on the dates listed in Public Input. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to the Council Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Space is limited and requests to attend will be accommodated in the order they are received.

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date in Public Input, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Designated Federal Officer in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and/or one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Interested parties must contact the Council Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), to be placed on the public speaker list for this meeting. Nonregistered public speakers will not be considered during the meeting. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to the Council Designated Federal Officer up to 30 days subsequent to the meeting. Requests to address the Council during the public comment period will be accommodated in the order the requests are received.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). They will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Federal Consulting Group enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Federal Consulting Group minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The Office of Management and Budget regulation at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. The Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget to renew its approval of this collection of information for three years.

The proposed renewal of this information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency programs and/or services within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with the Claes Fornell International Group (CFI Group) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to offer the ACSI to Federal government agencies.

The CFI Group, a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management, offers a comprehensive model that quantifies the effects of quality improvements on citizen satisfaction. The CFI Group has developed the methodology and licenses it to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, an independent organization which produces the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). This national indicator is developed for different economic sectors each quarter, which are then published in The Wall Street Journal. The ACSI was introduced in 1994 by Professor Claes Fornell under the auspices of the University of Michigan, the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the CFI Group. The ACSI monitors and benchmarks customer satisfaction across more than 200 companies and many U.S. Federal agencies.

The ACSI is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal government programs and/or services. Along with other economic objectives—such as employment and growth—the quality of outputs (goods and services) is a part of measuring living standards. The ACSI's ultimate purpose is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens.

ACSI surveys conducted by the Federal Consulting Group are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The agency information collection is an integral part of conducting an ACSI survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the survey without first obtaining permission from the Federal Consulting Group and the participating agency. In no case shall any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the Federal Consulting Group, participating agencies, or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, participating Federal agencies may only provide information used to randomly select respondents from among established systems of records provided for such routine uses.

Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.

This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid OMB control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0007. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. Response to the surveys is voluntary.

Title of Collection: American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Government Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1090-0007.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals, Business, and State, Local, or Tribal Governments who have utilized Federal Government services.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Participation by Federal agencies in the ACSI is expected to vary as new customer segment measures are added or deleted. However, based on historical records, projected average estimates for the next three years are as follows:

Average Expected Annual Number of Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 100 with 800 respondents per survey.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 80,000.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 12 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,000.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Once per survey.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Federal Consulting Group enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Federal Consulting Group minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The Office of Management and Budget regulation at 5 CFR 1320, which implements the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. The Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group has submitted a request to Office of Management and Budget to renew its approval of this collection of information for three years.

This information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency websites within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with ForeSee to offer this assessment to federal agencies.

ForeSee is a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management on the web and related media. Its methodology (Customer Experience Analytics or CXA) is a derivative of one of the most respected, credible, and well known measures of customer satisfaction in the country, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The ForeSee CXA methodology combines survey data and a patented econometric model to precisely measure the customer satisfaction of website users, identify specific areas for improvement, and determine the impact of those improvements on customer satisfaction and future customer behaviors.

The ForeSee CXA is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal Government websites. The ultimate purpose of ForeSee CXA is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens, including those from the Federal government.

The E-Government website Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be completed subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a). The agency information collection will be used solely for the purpose of the survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the survey without first obtaining permission from the Federal Consulting Group and the participating agency. In no case shall any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the Federal Consulting Group, participating agencies, or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, participating Federal agencies may only provide information used to randomly selected respondents from among established systems of records provided for such routine uses.

Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.

This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0008. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. For expeditious administration of the surveys, the expiration date will not be displayed on the individual instruments. Response to the surveys is voluntary.

Title of Collection: American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government website Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1090-0008.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals, Business, and State, Local, or Tribal Governments who have visited Federal Government websites.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Participation by Federal agencies will vary as new websites are added or deleted. However, based on our experience from the previous three-year approval period, the number of surveys has been very consistent with little change and estimate for the next three years are as follows:

Average Expected Annual Number of Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 250 with 5,000 respondents per survey.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,250,000.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 2.5 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 52,083.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Once per survey.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: This information collection pertains to onshore oil and gas geophysical exploration on Federal lands. Surface-disturbing activities associated with such exploration generally are regulated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or by the U.S. Forest Service (FS), depending on which agency manages the surface estate. This information collection request also includes permits for oil and gas geophysical exploration on Federal lands other than those managed by the BLM or the Forest Service when an agency of the Department of Defense refers an application for exploration to the BLM (see 43 CFR 3153.1); or when an application for exploration involves a project that would cross lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The BLM and FS need the information in order to manage surface operations that are under their respective jurisdictions.

Title of Collection: Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration.

OMB Control Number: 1004-0162.

Form Numbers: BLM Forms 3150-4 and 3150-5; FS Forms 2800-16 and 2800-16a.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Those who wish to participate in the evaluation, development, and utilization of oil and gas resources for mineral potential.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 23.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 23.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 20 minutes to 1 hour, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 17.67.

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

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $25.

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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon:

A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for Oregon/Washington, BLM. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director for Oregon/Washington during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director for Oregon/Washington within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.