62698 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

see the Issues and Decision Changes Since the Preliminary Results appropriate. These cash deposit 4 Memorandum. Based on the comments received from requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Scope of the Order interested parties, Commerce made no changes to the subsidy rate calculations Administrative Protective Order The merchandise covered by the order since the Preliminary Results. is CVP 23 identified as Color Index No. This notice also serves as a reminder Final Results of the Administrative 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358– to parties subject to administrative Review 30–1, with the chemical name of protective order (APO) of their diindolo [3,2-b:3’,2’-m] In accordance with 19 CFR responsibility concerning the triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5,15- 351.221(b)(5), Commerce determines the destruction of proprietary information diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and molecular following net countervailable subsidy disclosed under APO in accordance 5 with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely formula of C34H22Cl2N4O2. For a rate for Pidilite for the period January 1, complete description of the scope of the 2017 through December 31, 2017: written notification of the return or order, see the Issues and Decision destruction of APO materials or Memorandum. Subsidy conversion to judicial protective order is Company rate hereby requested. Failure to comply Analysis of Comments Received (percent) with the regulations and terms of an (ad valorem) APO is a sanctionable violation. All issues raised in interested parties’ Pidilite Industries Limited ...... 3.13 briefs are addressed in the Issues and Notification to Interested Parties Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Disclosure These final results are issued and Decision Memorandum is a public published in accordance with sections document and is on file electronically Because Commerce made no changes 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. via Enforcement and Compliance’s to the subsidy rate calculations since the Dated: September 28, 2020. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Preliminary Results, there are no further Centralized Electronic Service System calculations performed to disclose to Jeffrey I. Kessler, (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to interested parties in connection with Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. registered users at http:// these final results.7 access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete Assessment Rate Appendix version of the Issues and Decision In accordance with 19 CFR List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Memorandum can be accessed directly Decision Memorandum at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to I. Summary The signed and electronic versions of issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 II. Background the Issues and Decision Memorandum III. Scope of the Order are identical in content. A list of the days after the date of publication of these final results of review, to liquidate IV. Subsidies Valuation Information issues raised by interested parties, and V. Analysis of Programs to which we responded in the Issues shipments of subject merchandise VI. Analysis of Comments and Decision Memorandum, is provided produced and/or exported by Pidilite Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should in the appendix to this notice. and entered, or withdrawn from Countervail the Duty Drawback Program warehouse, for consumption on or after Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should Methodology January 1, 2017 through December 31, Countervail the Export Promotion of 2017, at the ad valorem assessment rate Capital Goods Scheme Commerce conducted this listed above. Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should administrative review in accordance Countervail the Income Tax Deduction with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Cash Deposit Requirements for Research and Development Expenses Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For The following cash deposit Program Under Section 35 (2AB) of the each of the subsidy programs found to requirements will be effective upon Income Tax Act of 1961 VII. Recommendation be countervailable, Commerce publication of the notice of the final determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., results of this administrative review for [FR Doc. 2020–21965 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am] a government-provided financial all shipments of the subject BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P contribution that gives rise to a benefit merchandise entered, or withdrawn to the recipient, and that the subsidy is from warehouse, for consumption on or specific.6 For a full description of the after the date of publication, as provided DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE methodology underlying Commerce’s by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) National Institute of Standards and conclusions, see the Issues and Decision The cash deposit rate for the companies Technology Memorandum. listed in these final results will be equal to the subsidy rates established in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 4 final results of this review; (2) for all See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Administration Memorandum for the Final Results of the non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of to collect cash deposits at the most- Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the Republic of Deprecation of the United States (U.S.) Turkey; 2017,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby recent company-specific or all-others Survey Foot adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision rate applicable to the company, as Memorandum). AGENCY: The National Institute of 5 The bracketed section of the product 7 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), Standards and Technology and National description, [3,2-b:3’,2’-m], is not business Commerce is normally required to disclose Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean proprietary information; the brackets are simply calculations performed in connection with the final Service (NOS), National Oceanic and part of the chemical nomenclature. results of an administrative review within five days 6 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act of its public announcement or, if there is no public Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) announcement of, within five days after the date of Department of Commerce (DOC). of the Act regarding benefit; and 771(5A) of the Act publication of the final results of an administrative ACTION: Notice; final determination. regarding specificity. review.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices 62699

SUMMARY: The National Institute of minimum disruption, correcting a implementation (see https:// Standards and Technology (NIST) and measurement dilemma that has geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatums/ the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), persisted for over 60 years. A notice delayed-release.shtml for details). National Ocean Service (NOS), National announcing a 90-day extension of the Despite the possibility of delay of the Oceanic and Atmospheric review and analysis period to address modernization of the NSRS beyond Administration (NOAA), have taken public comments was published in the 2022, the planned date of December 31, collaborative action to provide national Federal Register (85 FR 41560) on July 2022, for deprecation of the U.S. survey uniformity in the measurement of 10, 2020, and further indicated that the foot will not change and is independent length. This notice announces the final final determination would be published from the NSRS modernization timeline. decision to deprecate use of the ‘‘U.S. by September 28, 2020. A benefit of retaining the original date survey foot’’ on December 31, 2022. After December 31, 2022, any data for the deprecation of the U.S. survey Beginning on January 1, 2023, the U.S. derived from or published as a result of foot is that it will ensure that it will survey foot should not be used and will surveying, mapping, or any other occur prior to the rollout of the be superseded by the ‘‘international activity within the U.S. that is expressed modernized NSRS. The difference in foot’’ definition (i.e., 1 foot = 0.3048 in terms of feet should only be based on timelines will have no effect on users of meter exactly) in all applications. The the definition of one foot being equal to the existing NSRS, because NGS will international foot is currently used 0.3048 meter (exactly). This definition continue to support the U.S. survey foot throughout the U.S. for a large majority was named the ‘‘international foot’’ in for components of the NSRS where it is of applications and is typically referred the 1959 Federal Register notice (24 FR used now and in the past. In other to as simply the ‘‘foot.’’ Over time this 5348) that officially changed the foot words, as explained below, to minimize terminology will become more prevalent definition for the U.S. In 1959, the other disruption in the use of U.S. survey foot in land surveying and mapping foot definition was named the ‘‘U.S. for existing NSRS coordinate systems, communities. Either the term ‘‘foot’’ or survey foot,’’ with the mandate that it be the change will apply only to the ‘‘international foot’’ may be used, as used only for geodetic surveying, and modernized NSRS. that it be replaced by the international required for clarity in technical Comments Received applications. This notice describes foot definition. public comments received, along with With this notice, the mandate to In the October 17, 2019, notice, NIST the plan, resources, training, and other replace the U.S. survey foot with the and NOAA requested comments from activities provided by NIST and NOAA international foot definition for all all interested persons on the announced to assist those affected by this transition. applications has been achieved, and changes by December 2, 2019. Seventy- after December 31, 2022, there will be two comments were received in DATES: Use of the U.S. survey foot will only one approved definition of the foot response to that notice. The comments be deprecated on December 31, 2022. in the U.S. The preferred term is simply received, and this final determination, ADDRESSES: All comments submitted in the ‘‘foot,’’ which is the name currently are available online at the response to the October 17, 2019, used for most applications. When ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ website (http:// Federal Register notice request for needed to avoid confusion with the U.S. www.regulations.gov) within Docket No. public comment may be accessed at survey foot, use of the term NIST–2019–0003. The purpose of the https://www.regulations.gov, docket ‘‘international foot’’ is an acceptable solicitation was to announce the initial number NIST–2019–0003, under the synonym for ‘‘foot.’’ decision to deprecate the U.S. survey ‘‘Enhanced Content’’ section of the The date of December 31, 2022, was foot and seek public comments to Federal Register web page for that selected to accompany the identify unforeseen issues and facilitate notice. Additional U.S. survey foot modernization of the National Spatial a smooth transition to a single definition deprecation resources are available at Reference System (NSRS) by NOAA’s of the foot. In response, many opinions https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot. National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The were expressed in support or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reason for associating the deprecation of opposition. Those comments are Information on standards the U.S. survey foot with the summarized here. development and maintenance: modernization of the NSRS is that the Because the solicitation did not Elizabeth Benham, 301–975–3690, biggest impact of the uniform adoption directly ask for comments in support of [email protected]. of the international foot will be for users or in opposition to the planned change, Technical and historical information of the NSRS, due to very large an opinion regarding support or on usage of the foot: Michael Dennis, coordinate values currently given in opposition was not provided in all of 240–533–9611, Michael.Dennis@ U.S. survey feet in many areas of the the comments. Of the 72 responses noaa.gov. U.S. Impacts related to the change to received, 64 (89 percent) offered such an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: international feet will be minimized if a opinion. Thirty-four of those 64 transition occurs concurrently with comments (53 percent) expressed Notice of Final Determination others changes in the NSRS. More support for universal adoption of the On October 17, 2019, NIST and details on the relationship between the international foot. Twenty-one (33 NOAA published a notice titled NSRS and deprecating the U.S. survey percent) expressed a desire to retain the ‘‘Deprecation of the United States (U.S.) foot were provided in the previous U.S. survey foot, either for surveying Survey Foot’’ in the Federal Register (84 notices, and are discussed further later and mapping exclusively, or to replace FR 55562). In that notice, NIST and in this notice. This approach provides the international foot for all NOAA announced the initial decision to ample time for the surveying and applications. Nine (14 percent) deprecate the U.S. survey foot and to mapping community to plan for and preferred eliminating both definitions of require that its use be discontinued for implement related changes. the foot and instead adopting the meter all applications in the United States, Modernization of the NSRS was as the length measurement unit used in including surveying, mapping, and originally planned to occur in 2022. surveying and mapping. Additional engineering. The intent of this action is However, operational, workforce, and public feedback from sources outside to provide national uniformity of length other issues have arisen causing NGS to this public comment process, but measurement in an orderly fashion with re-evaluate the timing of related to NGS U.S. survey foot outreach

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 62700 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

activities planned as part of this action, not only makes good sense, it will [eliminate] association with about 300,000 small and were received from a much larger the possibility of the unintended error [that] independent business members across number of people and generally currently happens due to the dual foot America. NFIB protects and advances the followed the trends described later in definitions. The timing of a single foot ability of Americans to own, operate, and standard coinciding with the 2022 grow their businesses and, in particular, this section. readjustment is prudent and well planned.’’ ensures that the governments of the United Only four comments were According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor States and the fifty states hear the voice of anonymous. Of the 68 commenters who small business as they formulate public provided their names, 28 also identified Statistics, a large majority of surveyors policies. Many businesses, including small one or more organization affiliation. are employed in the ‘‘Architectural, businesses, depend upon accurate weights These consisted of at least one state or Engineering, and Related Services’’ and measures in their commerce. . . The county government agency in ten states, industry, which includes international, move to a ‘‘foot’’ with a single length six professional or business national, regional, and small firms. A everywhere and for all purposes in the U.S. associations, one university, and 13 substantial number also work for will facilitate commerce, public safety, and private companies. government agencies and in the national defense.’’ construction sector. Many surveyors are 1. Comments in Support of Deprecation 2. Comments Providing Examples of licensed in more than one state, and Errors and Costs The comments received included large projects often include surveyors statements of support from and other geospatial professionals from Public comments highlighted representatives of state government multiple states. The ability to efficiently significant errors and costs that have agencies in eight states (i.e., Arizona, work in multiple states and across resulted from two definitions of the foot Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, borders increases the scope of revenue. in use within the surveying and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and The benefits of having a single mapping community. Several comments Washington). No state government definition for the foot for all states are addressed examples based on their expressed opposition to the deprecation anticipated to outweigh the professional experiences: of the U.S. survey foot. inconveniences associated with this ‘‘I am employed by a commercial The remainder of supportive change. For example: contractor working on a government project comments were from individuals, in which there was confusion about 3 years mostly surveyors, who agreed that the ‘‘I am in strong agreement with this ago when a simulation program noticeably decision. Having worked for a consultant U.S. survey foot should be deviated from real data because one used with offices in both U.S. and International survey feet and the other used international discontinued. About half of these foot states, this created real headaches when individuals identified either their feet. The time lost to track down the staff from different offices were working on deviation was significant.’’ employer or the organization they the same projects.’’ ‘‘A roadway alignment is surveyed in represented. The overall theme that ‘‘For many years I worked in multiple international feet using a low distortion emerged from public comments was that states and it was clear that many surveyors projection and laid onto a global image under did not know with which definition of the discontinuing use of the U.S. survey the assumption the survey is the U.S. foot foot they were working. The confusion was foot enhances the value and benefit of definition. Locally all alignment points fit not always evident until there were blunders well vs. record distance and bearings. national uniformity and minimizes related to construction elements. These can However, when cast onto the global image opportunities for confusion and be costly. I agree with the proposal and say map the roadway alignment is 12 feet north unnecessary costs to the users, states, good riddance to the ratio.’’ and 45 feet east of the roadway on the image. and professionals in the surveying, ‘‘No one need look any further than the The roadway construction plans that use infamous Mars Climate Orbiter failure to mapping, and engineering fields. The global aerial images as a background cannot understand why this action is vital to following comment excerpts exemplify be completed until the surveyed line work is the reasons for supporting the change. eliminating confusion brought about by having multiple choices between systems of in coincidence with the global image.’’ The elimination of the U.S. survey ‘‘I one hundred percent support the foot is past due, and the best time to measure. While the probe failure resulted from inadvertent confusion between two deprecation of the U.S. Survey Foot as a unit implement this change is now, during systems (metric vs U.S.), this issue is even of measure. Having two ‘‘feet’’ has cost my development of the State Plane more insidious given once there is an company and countless others untold Coordinate System of 2022 (SPCS2022) awareness for making a unit conversion the amounts of lost time due to errors and as part of the NSRS modernization. For process is further complicated by the confusion associated with two separate example: ambiguity created when multiple conversion definitions of the foot.’’ factors are present (International foot vs. U.S. ‘‘We badly need to get rid of this confusing Because multiple comments disclosed Survey foot in this case). To allow this generic examples of errors and the dual definition of feet and join with the other condition to persist when it is no longer five countries (or at least those that have not resulting negative impacts during the necessary would be considered intentional fully converted to metric yet) in that 1959 notice process, NGS took action to seek neglect by any objective standard.’’ decision to have a single, common definition additional examples from the of the yard [and foot] and pound—the sooner, Many small businesses in the United stakeholder community to further the better. Let’s not allow survey feet as an States will benefit from this change. explore the risk. The action consisted of option for SPCS2022 output, so as to avoid Although surveyors and other geospatial poll questions asked during webinars dragging this out years into the future.’’ professionals work for organizations ‘‘The U.S. survey foot should be and providing an email address eliminated. Hard to convert to meters and that vary greatly in size, many are specifically for input (NGS.Feedback@ back. A standard international foot will be independent contractors or consultants noaa.gov). A summary of these easier to deal with. With the change in who work for small firms or are self- additional findings is available on the datums in 2022 it is the perfect time to employed. The National Federation of U.S. survey foot website (https:// eliminate it. Here in Michigan we use the Independent Businesses (NFIB), an www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot). international foot and it works fine except advocate of small and independent Multiple organizations and individual that some federal agencies report their state American business owners, expressed surveyors expressed to NGS that they plane coordinates in U.S. survey feet. End the support for the change: confusion I say.’’ are hesitant to disclose specific projects ‘‘Having the country using only one ‘‘NFIB [National Federation of Independent and the resulting errors because of definition of the foot for survey and mapping Business] is an incorporated nonprofit liability concerns.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices 62701

For example, one comment included foot, both for legacy and future The two primary reasons given for an image from engineering plans applications. For example: supporting retention of the U.S. survey showing both definitions of the foot, ‘‘Due to all of the historical data held by foot were that a large amount of legacy with the State Plane coordinates in U.S. Federal, State and local government agencies data and records in that unit already survey feet redacted, so that it was not as well as private firms, I feel it will be a exist, and that a majority of states have possible to determine its actual location. mistake to refer to the International Foot as legislated or otherwise adopted it for NGS took additional action to clarify simply Foot. There is already a problem with surveying. this submission, which was further GIS professionals as well as surveyors not Some opposing comments cited described in subsequent email documenting datums and units for projects erroneous or misleading information, or adequately. By removing the reminder of correspondence: made claims for which no supporting which foot new data is presented in, it opens evidence was provided, such as ‘‘[The image is from a] facility drawing for up the possibility of further confusion.’’ an industrial plant, where the plant ‘‘I believe to avoid confusion that upon conflating the change with conversion coordinates are in international feet yet the deprecating the use of the term U.S. Survey to the metric system; stating that the State Plane coordinates of the same points on Foot that we go on to use the terminology of U.S. survey foot has always been used the same plans were in U.S. survey feet. And International Foot. My reason is people for defining boundaries in the U.S.; that yet the plant coordinates are forced to be reference the U.S. survey foot as a foot. I adopting the international foot would identical to the State Plane coordinates at one think that the use of International Foot will jeopardize rights to real property; that location, where the State Plane easting was signify a change is being made. I work with the change would be a financial burden; over 2,600,000 sft, which causes more than legal descriptions in a state that adopted the and that it creates a problem where 5 feet of positional error.’’ U.S. Survey Foot and will have to change. If none exists. we don’t differentiate there will be 3. Comments Dealing With Legacy confusion. My fear is that simply saying you All comments opposed to the change Infrastructure and Data are adopting the foot will not resonate and were from individuals, except for one may lead some to believe that they can trade association, the International Comments highlighted that this Association of Oil and Gas Producers measurement unit change is like past continue to use the U.S. Survey Foot. Over time the international foot will be referred to (IOGP). The IOGP represents 83 member changes that dealt with legacy as a foot again but for technical purposes I organizations that include energy infrastructure and data. With planning think that the differentiation is important. At corporations and related associations. and retention of unit conversion factors, a minimum officially stating the U.S. Survey Writing on behalf of its U.S. members, as published by NIST, the outcome will Foot will be superseded by the international IOGP advocated to instead adopt the be successful. For example: foot will work. People will casually reference it as a foot anyway.’’ U.S. survey foot nationwide, because of ‘‘Many of our older records and plans will ‘‘To use a term such as ‘‘the foot’’ is its widespread current and historic use not be impacted by using one definition over inconsistent with efforts to minimize in the surveying community. another because their projection basis is not ambiguities in Surveying documents. If there Considered collectively, the opposing global but local and many times completely is more than one version of something, then comments recommended to instead unknown and irrelevant. There will always which version is being referred to should be pursue one of the following three be legacy records that use [the] U.S. foot just made clear.’’ alternatives: 1) keep the current as there are legacy records that use the chain unit, rod, perch, etc. Those who deal with 5. Comments Supporting Use of the approach, where each state chooses its various units of measure will handle the Metric System preferred definition of the foot; 2) adopt conversions just as they do now if needed.’’ the U.S. survey foot for all geospatial ‘‘Ending the use of the U.S. Survey Foot for The initial request for public applications, and the international foot state plane coordinate systems is long comment noted that states currently for everything else; and 3) deprecate the overdue. Definitions and conversion factors have the option to select the international foot and use the U.S. need to be clear and concise without International System of Units (SI), survey foot for everything. These ambiguity.’’ commonly known as the metric system, alternatives, together with the reasons ‘‘The argument some make that deeds from option for surveying and mapping; NGS given for opposing adoption of the U.S. foot states would need to be translated adopted the metric system in 1977 (54 international foot, are addressed later in into international foot distances is weak— FR 25318). Although the notice did not there’s only 0.01 ft difference in one mile this notice. request public input regarding state between the two! How many surveyors who Supplemental Feedback make this claim are accounting for the adoption of the metric option for different accuracy/precision of equipment surveying and mapping, several During planned outreach efforts, when the original deeds where surveyed or comments expressed this preference. described in the October 17, 2019, the various measurement errors present in all For example: notice, additional stakeholder feedback equipment?’’ ‘‘Rather than deprecating the U.S. Survey was received. NGS presented two ‘‘I favor the elimination of the Survey foot. foot, I would rather see the United States webinars on deprecating the U.S. survey I would note that since 1983 USCGS (now deprecate the use of the foot altogether for foot. The first was on April 25, 2019, NGS) has allowed states to designate whether survey measurements and adopt the meter as ‘‘Fate of the U.S. Survey Foot after 2022: they use the Survey or International foot in the unit of measure.’’ surveying and use in their State Plane A Conversation with NGS,’’ and the ‘‘The native measurement unit used by second was on December 12, 2019, Coordinate Systems. The two feet, so close in modern land surveying equipment is the value, cause a lot of confusion.’’ ‘‘Putting the Best ‘Foot’ Forward: meter. Additional software is required to deal Ending the Era of the U.S. Survey Foot.’’ with our two archaic units of measurement. 4. Comments Regarding Use of the Term Both webinars were recorded and are ‘‘International Foot’’ Versus ‘‘Foot’’ On December 31, 2022 the foot, in all of its iterations, should be relegated to legacy available for download (https:// Of the 17 public comments that status.’’ geodesy.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/ expressed an opinion on the name of the webinar_series/2019-webinars.shtml), foot after deprecation, 14 favored 6. Comments Opposing Deprecation together with the companion slides. The retaining ‘‘international’’ as part of the A minority of public comments webinars provided an overview of the name, rather than simply calling it the expressed opposition to the change and history of the survey foot, discussed ‘‘foot.’’ In all cases, the reason was to identified several concerns that will be examples of problems encountered, avoid confusion between the types of addressed in the deprecation process. summarized the public comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 62702 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

received in response to the previous obtained through the notice process. result that illustrates the impact of this Federal Register notice, and discussed Figures 1 through 4 summarize feedback problem. charting a path forward as part of from the public comment process, In terms of solving the foot confusion modernizing the NSRS. webinar participants, and emails sent problem, Figure 2 shows that a much Significant feedback occurred during directly to NGS and NIST (with the larger proportion (58 percent of 730 the two NGS webinar events, which number from each source given in the respondents) prefer adopting the were attended by nearly 1,400 unique figures). Figure 1 reveals that about international foot, compared to 20 participants from every state, the twice as many of the 540 respondents percent in favor of keeping the U.S. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, (63 versus 33 percent) have experienced survey foot, which is slightly less than Guam, and Canada. Webinar polls problems due to the existence of the two the number who prefer using meters (22 reinforced the public comments definitions of the foot. This is a striking percent).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES EN05OC20.002 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices 62703

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES EN05OC20.003 EN05OC20.004 62704 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

When respondents were asked which The primary objective of seeking stated support for adopting the name they prefer for the foot after public comment was to get input on the international foot definition for all deprecation, 39 percent of the 634 process of implementing the change, not applications throughout the United respondents preferred retaining the whether to make the change. To that States (https://www.nist.gov/pml/us- name ‘‘international foot’’ as shown in end, valuable feedback was received surveyfoot). NSPS has 15,000 members Figure 3, rather than just ‘‘foot’’ (32 regarding continued use of the name and is affiliated with state surveying percent), or allowing the use of both ‘‘international foot’’ after deprecation, associations in every state, the District names (16 percent). Only a small rather than simply the ‘‘foot.’’ This of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. UESI is proportion (9 percent) felt that an input made a difference and was an institute of 3,300 members within entirely new name should be used. incorporated into the final ASCE (with a total of 150,000 members). Combining the preference for the name determination. Considering all feedback The UESI President expressed that: ‘‘foot’’ and allowing both names received, a significant majority of ‘‘UESI believes that having a single represents 48 percent of the responses. commenters and webinar participants definition for the foot will reduce confusion There is nonetheless a large number support deprecation of the U.S. survey in surveying engineering projects, especially who prefer keeping the modifier foot and its replacement with the projects that make use of coordinates with ‘‘international.’’ international foot definition. This is a large values (e.g., the State Plane Coordinate noteworthy result because a majority of System). Deprecating the U.S. survey foot Preference for the name ‘‘international will minimize costly mistakes that have foot’’ in the future is explained to a large states currently use the U.S. survey foot occurred over the decades due to the extent by Figure 4, which summarizes for surveying and mapping. Receiving confusion of having two definitions for the the occupations of the people providing strong support for deprecating the U.S. foot.’’ feedback. A large majority are in the survey foot reinforces the importance of The American Association for category of ‘‘land surveyor or engineer’’ undertaking this process. Geodetic Surveying (AAGS) is a (79 percent of 544 respondents), with National and State Action Supporting national surveying organization with the next largest group in the ‘‘GIS or U.S. Survey Foot Deprecation 150 members that provided input mapping user’’ category (11 percent). through the public comment process. Land surveyors, civil engineers, Surveyors are by far the most affected AAGS took a neutral stance and did not mappers, and geographic information by a change in the foot definition, so endorse either definition of the foot but system (GIS) professionals are typically obtaining support and input from instead endorsed use of the meter. familiar with the existence of these two national surveying organizations was an Because many states have specified definitions of the foot. important part of the deprecation the U.S. survey foot for surveying The high representation of engineers, process. The National Society of applications in statute, it is noteworthy GIS professionals, mappers, and Professional Surveyors (NSPS) and the that two such states have already especially surveyors also helps explain Utility Engineering and Surveying adopted the international foot in new the large proportion of respondents who Institute (UESI) of the American Society legislation: Kentucky and Washington. have experienced problems with the of Civil Engineers (ASCE) are For both states, the legislation went into two definitions of the foot, as shown in nationwide organizations with a robust effect this year (2020). The early and Figure 1. This illustrates that NGS presence in the surveying profession. proactive action by these states has outreach webinar participants were Although these organizations did not prepared them to switch to the highly representative of the stakeholder provide input during the public international foot definition when the community. comment period, they subsequently NSRS modernization goes into effect.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES EN05OC20.005 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices 62705

Counterpoints to Feedback Expressing foot leads to a systematic overhead cost and subjective task, given the ambiguity Opposition that never ends because of the ever- of such categorization in many As discussed in the comments section present risk for mistakes. Over time, instances. This problem is compounded of this notice, some of the public deprecation of the U.S. survey foot will for data and activities that change over responses to the October 17, 2019, reduce costs in this field of time, or that are integrated together such notice opposed deprecating the U.S. measurement. that some parts are classified as 5. No evidence of negative effects for survey foot. Mitigating actions and geospatial and some are not. The task of real property. Some feedback included supporting explanations are classification itself would place a claims that deprecating the U.S. survey summarized below that address the burden (cost) on participants and foot would increase costs and mistakes concerns expressed in the opposing increase risk due to errors, in performing boundary surveys and comments. More details are available on disagreements, and inconsistencies. would burden the conveyance and 3. Deprecate the international foot the NIST U.S. survey foot website enjoyment of real property. However, no (https://www.nist.gov/pml/us- and instead use the U.S. survey foot for evidence was provided in support of everything. This alternative is not viable surveyfoot). this claim. In contrast, six states 1. Association of the change with because the international foot definition changed from the U.S. survey foot to the NSRS modernization. To minimize is the long-established standard for the international foot in the late 1980s and foot (since 1959). In addition, the disruption in the use of U.S. survey feet early 1990s. None provided evidence, for existing NSRS coordinate systems, international foot is well established anecdotal or otherwise, of any such and in widespread use within the U.S. the change will apply only to the negative impacts. This is expected, modernized NSRS. This will help with economy by a large majority of the since the 2 parts per million difference population. management of the large body of in length (approximately 0.01 foot per existing data and applications based on mile) is too small to be of practical Transition Best Practices and Change U.S. survey feet, because only the consequence for the vast majority of Management Planning international foot definition will be boundary determinations. Because the U.S. survey foot is available after modernization. 6. This change is not comparable to specified for surveying activities in Therefore, knowing the coordinate adoption of the metric system (SI). Some statute for most states, an important part system will implicitly identify the type responses cited previous purportedly of the implementation process is of foot. Although implementation of unsuccessful and disruptive attempts to updating statutes. NSPS, AAGS, and NSRS modernization will likely occur migrate to SI as a reason not to pursue NGS have collaborated to create after the deprecation date of December this change, but this analogy is weak. template legislation to aid state 31, 2022, the difference in timelines will Universal adoption of the international have no effect on use of the U.S. survey foot definition is not a change in the adoption and transition to the foot for the existing NSRS, as described unit of measure. Other than for international foot. State government in the next item. surveying, the international foot is stakeholders are encouraged to review 2. Continued support of the U.S. already in use for nearly all applications and customize the language, as needed. survey foot for historical and legacy where the U.S. customary system of These legislative resources are available applications. Support for the U.S. measurement is used. This change is online, including statutory text that has survey foot will be maintained in NGS instead a long overdue standardization already been proposed or enacted by products and services where its use is of the foot through deprecation of an states (https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ already defined, most notably for older definition used only for a specific datums/newdatums/ existing and previous versions of State application, as intended in the 1959 GetPrepared.shtml). Plane. Such tools will help users of notice. In researching and developing the legacy datasets, as described in the Some of the comments expressing U.S. survey foot deprecation action previous item. opposition to the change included plan, no government or professional 3. Uniformity for all users of the U.S. proposals for one of three alternatives to organization reported initiating plans or customary system. Although surveyors deprecating the U.S. survey foot, each of establishing working groups specifically in most states use the U.S. survey foot, which is addressed below. to address deprecation of the U.S. they represent a small proportion of 1. Define the NSRS only using the survey foot. However, many groups usage within the U.S. As announced in metric system (SI) and allow each state have organized groups to prepare for the 1959 (24 FR 5348), the international foot to choose its preferred foot definition. NSRS modernization, especially at the definition is required for all other users This alternative is a continuation of state level. These groups typically of the U.S. customary system of what is already being done, which has consist of state departments of measurement. Adopting a single clearly led to confusion and errors and transportation, GIS or cartographer definition of the foot will ensure is at odds with the objective of uniform offices, professional surveying societies, consistency for all applications, as standards. universities, and other geospatial intended in the 1959 notice and 2. Adopt the U.S. survey foot groups. There has also been required for uniform standards of nationwide for all geospatial considerable activity among national measure. applications, and the international foot organizations and federal agencies (as 4. Reduction in errors. A uniform for everything else. This alternative was illustrated by the example in the nationwide definition of the foot will also proposed in a 1988 notice (53 FR following paragraph). From the reduce errors due to accidental usage of 27213) but never adopted. In addition to perspective of these various groups, the wrong foot definition. Numerous conflicting with the intent of uniform adoption of the international foot is but examples of such errors were provided standards, this alternative would be one relatively small part of the many during the outreach conducted for this extremely difficult, and perhaps changes that will occur with NSRS notice, and about twice as many impossible, to apply in practice. It modernization. Therefore, they are respondents said it has caused them would require that data and activities be bundling multiple technical issues problems than said it has not (see Figure classified as to whether they are together as a single change management 1). Operating with two definitions of the ‘‘geospatial,’’ which is a problematic task.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 62706 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

The activities underway throughout A significant part of the input Implementation Summary and Actions the U.S. in planning for NSRS received concerned the name to use for NIST and NOAA will implement modernization are too numerous to the foot after deprecation. The October deprecation of the U.S. survey foot as report here. As an example, NGS 17, 2019, notice stated that the described in the October 17, 2019, solicited input for development of international foot definition would be notice. The change will enter into force SPCS2022. Formal requests and referred to as simply the ‘‘foot.’’ A large on December 31, 2022. This decision proposals regarding SPCS2022 were proportion of feedback preferred will allow adoption of a single, uniform received from about 200 different retaining the name ‘‘international feet’’ definition of the foot for all applications stakeholder groups in 41 states, and (see Figure 3 and the associated throughout the United States. additional requests were received from discussion). However, a somewhat Uniformity in measurement will several federal agencies (e.g., U.S. larger proportion preferred either ‘‘foot’’ increase efficiency and reduce errors Geological Survey, National Park or both names. In addition, the NSPS that occur when two nearly identical Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) Directors voted to use the term ‘‘foot,’’ definitions of the foot are in current use. and an American Indian tribe (the and UESI also implied that the term As shown by the public comments Navajo Nation). Importantly, these ‘‘foot’’ was acceptable. Finally, a large received, such problems are both requests and proposals directly majority of people in the U.S. only use common and costly. Moreover, a reference current NGS Policy, which the term ‘‘foot’’ for the international significant majority of input expressed states that only the international foot foot, in both casual and technical approval of this change, and most of the will be supported for SPCS2022 (and all contexts, with most being unaware that input was received from the groups other components of the modernized the U.S. survey foot definition exists. most affected (i.e., surveyors and NSRS). Therefore, all of the Nonetheless, it is completely engineers). In addition, NIST and organizations providing these submittals understandable that many surveyors NOAA note that the benefits of the are also taking action on deprecation of prefer to retain the name ‘‘international the U.S. survey foot, since it is an foot,’’ since they must deal with both change outweigh the temporary explicit part of NSRS modernization. definitions of the foot even after inconveniences, such as the existence of This demonstrates a high level of deprecation and implementation of the a large amount of data and records in national engagement, which bodes well modernized NSRS. Although the use of U.S. survey feet, and the current for a smooth transition to the the U.S. survey foot will diminish over dominance of its use in the surveying international foot as part of time, it will be present for the profession. These concerns will be implementing the modernized NSRS. foreseeable future because of legacy data mitigated by the actions described in Planning for the change early will and records, and with it the risk for this notice. Other concerns were based minimize unnecessary cost and reduce confusion. For that reason, NIST and in misconceptions or lacked supporting complications and uncertainty. One NOAA recommend continued use of the evidence, as discussed previously. factor reducing the uncertainty is the term ‘‘international foot’’ in situations In keeping with the terms of this fact that this change has already where such ambiguity is possible. notice, the U.S. survey foot will not be occurred in six ‘‘early adopter’’ states States may choose the measurement supported by NGS in the modernized (i.e., Arizona, Michigan, Montana, North unit for mapping (metric or ‘‘foot’’) NSRS, including for SPCS2022, Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina). appropriate for their needs. Since the elevations, or any other components of These states made the change from the publication of the October 17, 2019, the system. Nevertheless, action will be U.S. survey foot to the international foot notice, two states (i.e., Kentucky and taken by NGS to mitigate disruption in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As Washington) have specified the caused by this change. Chief among with the future change described in this international foot definition for those is that the U.S. survey foot will be notice, this previous one was associated SPCS2022 and related surveying maintained in NGS products and with a change in the NSRS, and for the activities. Kentucky continues to use the services in legacy applications, for same reason: To minimize disruption by term ‘‘international foot’’ in its new example the computation of coordinates combining the changes. NGS and NIST statute, together with the numerical in States where it was specified for the have contacted these states to identify definition. In part, this is because the State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, problems encountered, best practices, statute also includes the U.S. survey and for all zones of the State Plane and lessons learned as part of that foot, since it is associated with State Coordinate System of 1927. transition. Plane prior to SPCS2022. In contrast, Although the International System of Based on the state responses received the new Washington statute makes no Units (SI) is the preferred measurement so far, the change was efficiently mention of prior State Plane and does system for trade and commerce in the managed in the same manner as not include the word ‘‘international.’’ United States, U.S. trade practice may recommended now, by combining the Instead it says, ‘‘[w]hen the values are continue to use non-SI measurement change in the foot definition with the expressed in feet, one foot equals 0.3048 units, such as the U.S. customary change of the NSRS. Statute changes meters, must be used as the standard system of measurement. Accordingly, were also enacted by the ‘‘early foot. . . .’’ The language in the NIST is adopting the proposed changes adopter’’ states to specify the Washington statute is similar to the regarding deprecation of the U.S. survey international foot. However, ongoing previously mentioned template foot and replacement with the problems with the wrong definition of legislation, which says, ‘‘[w]hen the international foot definition for all the foot being used were reported, values are expressed in feet, a definition applications of the U.S. customary usually by surveyors from other states of 1 foot = 0.3048 meter exactly must be system of measurement in the U.S. The still using the U.S. survey foot. The fact used.’’ As these examples show, the relationship between SI length that such problems continued to occur wording and terminology used in measurement units and the U.S. survey reinforces the need to uniformly adopt legislation will depend on each state’s foot and associated non-SI units will be this change. As more feedback is specific situation and preferences. The incorporated in the upcoming edition of received, it will be added to the U.S. paramount objective should be to avoid NIST Special Publication (SP) 811, survey foot website (https:// ambiguity and achieve national Guide for the Use of the International www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot). uniformity. System of Units (SI) before December

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices 62707

31, 2022. The preferred measurement definitions for all of these traditional computed using the international foot unit of length is the meter, and linear units. since the late 1980s in those areas where surveyors, map makers, and engineers Table 1 gives conversions to meters the international foot was adopted. For are encouraged to adopt the SI for their for both foot definitions, which are these traditional measures, the work. NIST recognizes that the foot and exact for the international foot and difference between the two types of feet its derivative measures are in approximate for the U.S. survey foot. is usually of negligible consequence in widespread use, and therefore NIST SP Although U.S. survey foot conversions most practical applications. For 811 will provide clarifying technical are included, their use should be example, the greatest precision typically guidance regarding the foot and other avoided after December 31, 2022, other used for the chain in modern land non-SI length measurement units. than for historic and legacy surveying practice is three decimal applications. places (or 0.1 link), and at that level of Past editions of NIST SP 811 and The foot-based units in Table 1 have significance both definitions of the foot other NIST publications provided traditionally been used for land give the same value. Similarly, the relationships for several traditional measurement and surveying, except for difference in area for 1 acre is only linear units that were based only on the the cable’s length and fathom (used for 0.000 004 acre (about 0.17 ft2 or 25 U.S. survey foot. Table 1 provides the water depth). Maintaining these exact square inches) for the two definitions of exact foot definitions for these units. Of foot relationships to the international the foot. Nonetheless, from a the units listed, only the foot itself, the foot definition is essential, because at metrological perspective, documenting mile, and the square mile also had least some of these units are still widely the formal definitions based on the international foot definitions in used in surveying practice (such as the international foot is essential to avoid previous editions of NIST SP 811 and acre and chain), and that usage will ambiguity, hence their inclusion in this other NIST publications. Future editions continue as long as the foot is used. In notice and future editions of NIST SP will include international foot addition, these units have also been 811.

TABLE 1—EXACT RELATIONSHIPS FOR UNITS OF MEASURE BASED ON THE FOOT, INCLUDING EXACT CONVERSIONS TO METERS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL FOOT AND APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO METERS FOR THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT, AS WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE 2020 EDITION OF NIST SP 811, GUIDE FOR THE USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYS- TEM OF UNITS (SI). EXCEPT FOR THE MILE AND SQUARE MILE, THESE UNITS WERE PREVIOUSLY ONLY DEFINED WITH THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT

International foot metric equiv- U.S. survey foot metric equiva- Units based Unit type Exact U.S. customary definitions based on the alent lent on the foot foot, plus other exact definitions (exact) (approximate)

foot (ft) ...... length ...... Defined with respect to meter ...... 0.3048 m ...... 0.304 800 609 601 m. cable’s length length ...... 720 ft = 120 fathoms ...... 219.456 m ...... 219.456 438 913 m. chain (ch) ...... length ...... 66 ft = 4 rd = 100 li ...... 20.1168 m ...... 20.116 840 234 m. fathom ...... length ...... 6 ft ...... 1.8288 m ...... 1.828 803 658 m. furlong (fur) ... length ...... 660 ft = 10 ch = 40 rd ...... 201.168 m ...... 201.168 402 337 m. league ...... length ...... 15,840 ft = 3 mi ...... 4828.032 m ...... 4828.041 656 083 m. link (li) ...... length ...... 0.66 ft = 0.01 ch ...... 0.201 168 m ...... 0.201 168 402 m. mile (mi) (a) .... length ...... 5280 ft = 8 fur = 80 ch = 320 rd ...... 1609.344 m ...... 1609.347 218 694 m. rod (rd), pole, length ...... 16.5 ft = 0.25 ch ...... 5.0292 m ...... 5.029 210 058 m. perch. acre (ac) ...... area ...... 43,560 ft2 = 10 ch2 = 160 rd2 ...... 4046.856 422 4 m2 ...... 4046.872 609 874 m2. square mile area ...... 27,878,400 ft2 = 640 ac ...... 2 589 988.110 336 m2 ...... 2 589 998.470 319 521 m2. (mi2). acre-foot ...... volume ...... 43,560 ft3 ...... 1233.481 837 547 52 m3 ...... 1233.489 238 468 149 m3. (a) Also referred to as the ‘‘statute mile.’’ Although historically defined using the U.S. survey foot, the statute mile can be defined using either definition of the foot, as is the case for all other units listed in this table. However, use of definitions based on the U.S. survey foot should be avoided after December 31, 2022 except for historic and legacy applications.

Recommendations To Facilitate the training materials and relevant • Consult the current edition of NIST Change procedures. SP 811 for updating software and NIST and NOAA make the following • Use nationally developed template publications. NIST SP 811 is the recommendations to facilitate the resources for updating state statutes. authoritative source for exact and orderly transition to a uniform adoption NSPS, AAGS, and NGS have appropriate unit conversion factors. As part of preparing for implementation of of the definition 1 foot = 0.3048 meter collaborated to create template this change, software developers and exactly for all applications in the United legislation to aid state adoption and others who perform conversions should States: transition to the international foot. • consult and use the current edition of Begin the process now. States, other Template legislation and examples of government agencies, businesses, NIST SP 811 to ensure the correct actual statutes are available for definitions are being used. private and public organizations, and all download at https://geodesy.noaa.gov/ others potentially impacted by this • Use the foot name most appropriate datums/newdatums/GetPrepared.shtml. change should take immediate steps to to your needs. Confusion may occur State government stakeholders are begin planning for the transition. Early when comparing modern measurements encouraged to review and customize the action is important, since some changes with historical records that use legacy can be time intensive, such as enacting language in this template and these terminology, or any other situation state legislation or updating software, examples, as needed. where it can be unclear as to which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 62708 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Notices

definition of the foot was used. To ‘‘Units and Systems of Measurement’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: minimize such ambiguity and prevent (https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and- Heidi Lovett; NOAA Fisheries Office of misunderstandings, NIST and NOAA measures/publications/nist-handbooks/ Policy; (301) 427–8034; email: recommend using the term other-nist-handbooks/other-nist- [email protected]. ‘‘international foot’’ or specifically handbooks-2-2). identifying the metric conversion of 1 Implementing these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is foot = 0.3048 m exactly. recommendations, together with other hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. • Always document the units used for mitigating actions being taken by NIST The MAFAC was established by the quantitative work. Complete and correct and NOAA, will facilitate the smooth Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, documentation of measurement units is transition and nationwide adoption of since 1971, advises the Secretary on all an essential part of any quantitative the international foot with minimal living marine resource matters that are work. It is particularly important for disruption. Additional resources the responsibility of the Department of situations where confusion can occur, providing greater detail about the Commerce. The MAFAC charter and such as between the U.S. survey and history of the foot, problems summaries of prior MAFAC meetings international foot definitions. encountered by having two definitions are located online at https:// • Use consistent abbreviations for the of the foot, and the benefits of making www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/ types of foot. Following deprecation, the this change are available on the NIST partners#marine-fisheries-advisory- standard lowercase abbreviation ‘‘ft’’ U.S. survey foot website (https:// committee-. will refer to the international foot www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot). definition by default. Likewise, the Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272(b) & (c). Matters To Be Considered abbreviations in Table 1 for all units derived from the foot will also be based Nicole R. LeBoeuf, This meeting time and agenda are on the international foot definition. Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean subject to change. The meeting is Although absence of a prefix indicates Services and Coastal Zone Management, convened to hear presentations and an international foot definition, National Ocean Service. consider approval of the final report of situations will occur where an Kevin A. Kimball, the Phase 2 work of the Columbia Basin abbreviation that clearly identifies the Chief of Staff, National Institute of Standards Partnership Task Force. MAFAC foot definition is necessary to avoid and Technology. members will also receive presentations confusion, such as in surveying and [FR Doc. 2020–21902 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am] and discuss work of the Recreational mapping. In such cases, the abbreviation BILLING CODE 3510–13–P Fisheries Subcommittee on better for the international foot definition identification of anglers in offshore should be preceded by a lower case ‘‘i’’ waters; the FY2021 budget and impacts as ‘‘ift’’ to ensure clarity. The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of COVID–19 on agency operations; abbreviation for the U.S. survey foot National Oceanic and Atmospheric Aquaculture Program updates and the should always be preceded by a lower Executive Order Promoting American case ‘‘s’’ as ‘‘sft’’ for all applications. For Administration Seafood Competitiveness and Economic abbreviation of units derived from the Growth; and marine heatwaves and U.S. survey foot, the ‘‘s’’ prefix should [RTID 0648–XA538] be used as needed to avoid confusion, science program activities. MAFAC will for example ‘‘smi’’ for mile, ‘‘sch’’ for Meeting of the Marine Fisheries discuss various administrative and chain, and ‘‘sac’’ for acre. However, this Advisory Committee organizational matters, and meetings of may not be necessary if the type of foot subcommittees will convene. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries is obvious from the context or is Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Time and Date otherwise clearly documented. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), • Avoid use of the terms ‘‘Imperial’’ Commerce. The meeting is scheduled for October or ‘‘British’’ to describe the U.S. 20 and 21, 2020 from 12:30—5 p.m., ACTION: Notice of open public meeting. customary system. In common parlance, Eastern Time by webinar and the terms ‘‘Imperial’’ or ‘‘British’’ are SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the conference call. Access information for often used to represent the traditional proposed schedule and agenda of a the public will be posted at https:// units used within the U.S; however, forthcoming meeting of the Marine www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ because there are significant differences Fisheries Advisory Committee partners/marine-fisheries-advisory- between many of these traditional (MAFAC). The members will hear a committee-meeting-materials-and- measurement systems, NIST presentation and consider approval of summaries by October 6, 2020. recommends use of the term ‘‘U.S. the final report of the Phase 2 work of customary system of measurement’’ to (Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, describe the collection of non-SI the Columbia Basin Partnership Task 5 U.S.C. App. 2) Force and other topics including measurement units currently used in the Dated: September 30, 2020. U.S. This parlance is frequently aquaculture and the Executive Order Jennifer L. Lukens, incorrectly employed in software, on Promoting American Seafood websites, and in publications. To further competitiveness and Economic Growth, Federal Program Officer, Marine Fisheries eliminate this common marine heatwaves, FY2021 budget, Advisory Committee, National Marine misunderstanding between U.S. COVID–19 impacts on agency Fisheries Service. customary measurement units and operations, and work of the Recreational [FR Doc. 2020–21948 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am] British and Imperial units, additional Fisheries Subcommittee. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P explanation of the differences are DATES: The meeting will be October 20 provided in NIST Handbook (HB) 44, and 21, 2020 from 12:30–5 p.m., Eastern ‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Time. Technical Requirements for Weighing ADDRESSES: Meeting is by webinar and and Measuring Devices,’’ Appendix B, teleconference.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:42 Oct 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES