Federal Register Vol. 81, No.20,

5 U.S.C. 4314(b)(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and Section 430.307 thereof in particular, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each USAID OIG senior executive's performance by his or her supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of the USAID OIG's SES Performance Review Board as it was last published on December 19, 2014.

Approved: January 15, 2016.

The following have been selected as regular members of the SES Performance Review Board of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Inspector General:

Section 12315 of Act (Pub. L. 113-79) is set forth below in its entirety, followed by information about how to apply for a distribution from the Refund program.

“Sec. 12315 AGRICULTURE WOOL APPAREL MANUFACTURERS TRUST FUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the “Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund” (in this section referred to as the “Trust Fund”), consisting of such amounts as may be transferred to the Trust Fund pursuant to subsection (f), and to be used for the purpose of reducing the injury to domestic manufacturers resulting from tariffs on wool fabric that are higher than tariffs on certain apparel articles made of wool fabric.

(b) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

(1) IN GENERAL.—From amounts in the Trust Fund, the Secretary may make payments annually beginning in calendar year 2014 for calendar years 2010 through 2019 as follows:

(A) To each eligible manufacturer under paragraph (3) of section 4002(c) of the Wool Suit and Textile Trade Extension Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429; 118 Stat. 2600), as amended by section 1633(c) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280; 120 Stat. 1166) and section 325(b) of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (division C of Public Law 110-343; 122 Stat. 3875), and any successor-in-interest to such a manufacturer as provided for under paragraph (4) of such section 4002(c), that submits an affidavit in accordance with paragraph (2) for the year of the payment—

(i) for calendar years 2010 through 2015, payments that, when added to any other payments made to the manufacturer or successor-in-interest under paragraph (3) of such section 4002(c) in such calendar years, equal the total amount of payments authorized to be provided to the manufacturer or successor-in-interest under that paragraph, or the provisions of this section, in such calendar years; and

(ii) for calendar years 2016 through 2019, payments in amounts authorized under that paragraph.

(B) To each eligible manufacturer under paragraph (6) of such section 4002(c)(i) for calendar years 2010 through 2014, payments that, when added to any other payments made to eligible manufacturers under that paragraph in such calendar years, equal the total amount of payments authorized to be provided to the manufacturer under that paragraph, or the provisions of this section, in such calendar years; and

(ii) for calendar years 2015 through 2019, payments in amounts authorized under that paragraph.

(2) SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS.—An affidavit required by paragraph (1)(A) shall be submitted

(A) in each of calendar years 2010 through 2015, to the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection not later than April 15; and

(B) in each of calendar years 2016 through 2019, to the Secretary, or as directed by the Secretary, and not later than March 1.

(c) PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS.—The Secretary shall make payments to eligible manufacturers and successors-in-interest described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b)

(1) for calendar years 2010 through 2014, not later than 30 days after the transfer of amounts from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the Trust Fund under subsection (f); and

(2) for calendar years 2015 through 2019, not later than April 15 of the year of the payment.

(d) MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING.—The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, negotiate memoranda of understanding with the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Secretary of Commerce to establish procedures pursuant to which the Commissioner and the Secretary of Commerce will assist in carrying out the provisions of this section.

(e) INCREASE IN PAYMENTS IN THE EVENT OF EXPIRATION OF DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

(1) IN GENERAL.—In any calendar year in which the suspension of duty on wool fabrics provided for under headings 9902.51.11, 9902.51.13, 9902.51.14, 9902.51.15, and 9902.51.16 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are not in effect, the amount of any payment described in subsection (b)(1) to a manufacturer or successor-in-interest shall be increased by an amount the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, determines is equal to the amount the manufacturer or successor-in-interest would have saved during the calendar year of the payment if the suspension of duty on wool fabrics were in effect.

(2) NO APPEAL OF DETERMINATIONS.—A determination of the Secretary under this subsection shall be final and not subject to appeal or protest.

(f) FUNDING.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall transfer to the Trust Fund for each of calendar years 2014 through 2019 an amount equal to the lesser of

(A) the amount the Secretary determines to be necessary to make payments required by this section in that calendar year; or

(B) $30,000,000.

(2) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts transferred to the Trust fund under paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.”

PROCEDURES FOR CLAIMING A DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE STATUTE: Eligible claimants seeking a distribution under the Refund program are directed to submit an affidavit to FAS, following the statutory procedures specified in section 12315(b)(2) of the Act and on the FAS Web site. All claimants must also provide FAS with an Internal Revenue Service form W-9 to indicate and certify their taxpayer identification number and a direct deposit sign-up form 1199A to facilitate any electronic transfer of funds. Note that claimants must maintain any documentation as they have affirmed to exist in their respective affidavits.

DEADLINES FOR CLAIM/AFFIDAVIT SUBMISSON: All affidavits, W-9, and 1199A forms by eligible claimants for calendar year 2016 distributions must be sent to FAS no later than March 1, 2016.

ADDRESS: The USDA agency charged with administering the Trust Fund is the Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Trade Programs, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division. This office is physically located at: 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Room 5526-S, Mail Stop 1021, Washington, DC 20250. Affidavits for distribution from the Trust Fund, including supporting W-9 and 1199A forms, and any other documentation that may be subsequently requested by FAS, must be submitted electronically to the following email address: [email protected].

Title: Performance Reporting System, Management Evaluation.

OMB Number: 0584-0010.

Expiration Date: 5/31/2016.

Type of Request: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The purpose of the Performance Reporting System (PRS) is to ensure that each State agency and project area is operating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in accordance with the requirements of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) (7 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.), as amended, and corresponding program regulations. Under Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2020), State agencies must maintain necessary records to ascertain that SNAP is operating in compliance with the Act and regulations and must make these records available to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for inspection and audit.

Per Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 275, each State agency is required to submit one Management Evaluation (ME) review schedule every one, two, or three years, depending on the project area make-up of the State, unless the State receives approval for an alternative Management Evaluation review schedule.

Under 7 CFR part 275, each State must establish a system for analysis and evaluation of all data available to the State. Data analysis and evaluation is an ongoing process that facilitates the development of effective and prompt corrective action.

Under 7 CFR part 275, State agencies must prepare a corrective action plan (CAP) addressing identified deficiencies. The State agencies must develop a system for monitoring and evaluating corrective action and submit CAP updates, as necessary.

Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government; Respondent Type: SNAP State and local agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State agencies.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: State agencies will submit one review schedule and one ME review plan per year, and will conduct and document ME reviews for an average total of 27 project areas, totaling 29 responses per State agency.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,537 (53 State agencies * 29 estimated responses per State Agency).

Estimated Time per Response: FNS estimates that it takes 4 hours to prepare a review schedule, and that each of the 53 State agencies will submit one review schedule per year resulting in a total burden of 212 hours (53 State agencies * 1 review schedule * 4 hours). FNS estimates that it takes on average approximately 80 hours to develop a comprehensive State review plan, resulting in a total of 4,240 hours (80 hours * 53 State plans). FNS estimates that it takes an average of 340 hours to conduct a review. FNS estimates that ME reviews are conducted for one-half of the total number of project areas (1,430). Therefore, FNS estimates that it takes approximately 486,200 hours annually for State agencies to conduct their reviews (340 hours × 1,430 ME reviews). FNS also estimates that the time necessary for recordkeeping, that is, the time required for State agencies to document and maintain the findings of an ME review for internal purposes is 0.1169 hours, or 7 minutes, per State record. If State agencies each maintain approximately 29 records, then the total amount of time for record keeping required is 180 hours (1,537 records * 0.1169 hours).

See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

This notice was republished in error on January 13, 2016 at 81 FR 1599. This notice was originally published on February 25, 2015 at 80 FR 10047. The comment period remains closed and no further comments are being accepted at this time.

The purpose of the meeting is to review project proposals submitted for Secure Rural Schools Title II funding.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by February 24, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lisa Radosevich-Craig, RAC Coordinator, 8901 Grand Avenue Place, Duluth, Minnesota 55808; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 218-626-4398.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

This new fee will be reviewed by the Western Montana Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

The Flathead National Forest currently has fourteen other cabin rentals; however, this will be the first rental opportunity on Hungry Horse Reservoir, a popular recreation destination. These rentals are often fully booked throughout their rental season. A business analysis of the Anna Creek Cabin has shown that people desire having this sort of recreation experience on the Flathead National Forest, as well as surrounding Forests. A market analysis indicates that the $75/per night fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience.

Once approved this rental opportunity will be available through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for reservations.

I. Abstract

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the Voting and Registration Supplement to be conducted in conjunction with the November 2016 CPS and November 2018 CPS. The Census Bureau sponsors the supplement questions, which were previously collected in November biennially since 1964.

This survey has provided statistical information for tracking historical trends of voter and nonvoter characteristics in each Presidential or Congressional election since 1964. The data collected from the November supplement relates demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, occupation, and income) to voting and nonvoting behavior. The November CPS supplement is the only source of data that provides a comprehensive set of voter and nonvoter characteristics distinct from independent surveys, media polls, or other outside agencies. Federal, state, and local election officials use these data to formulate policies relating to the voting and registration process. College institutions, political party committees, research groups, and other private organizations also use the voting and registration data.

The voting and registration information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular November CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0466.

Form Number: There are no forms. We conduct all interviewing on computers.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 48,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,200.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There are no costs to the respondents other than their time to answer the CPS questions.

Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 141 and 182; and Title 29, U.S.C., Sections 1-9.

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

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

The Department initiated this investigation on July 22, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are HFCs. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. We have addressed some comments raised by interested parties but intend to address the rest of the comments at a later point in the investigation. For discussion of those comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

On November 30, 2015, the petitioner timely filed an amendment to the petition, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.3 We preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co., Ltd./Huantai Dongyue International Trade Co., Ltd. (Dongyue), and non-individually examined companies, but do exist with respect to T.T. International Co., Ltd. (T.T. International) and the PRC-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 4 the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.5

The preliminary weighted-average antidumping duty (AD) margin percentages are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 A table of contents, list of authorities used, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically at Enforcement and Compliance's electronic records system, ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues you intend to present at the hearing. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of HFCs from the PRC, as described in Appendix I of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. We preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports of HFCs from the PRC produced or exported by the T.T. International Co., Ltd. and the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, for T.T. International Co., Ltd. and the PRC-wide entity, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 9 equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate the Department determines in this preliminary determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

Respondents Dongyue and T.T. International requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.10 In addition, the petitioners 11 also requested that, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, the Department postpone its final determination to 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.12

In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.13

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of HFCs, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

The Pacific Council has published its annual notice of availability of reports, public meetings, and hearings for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries (80 FR 81806, December 31, 2015). The Pacific Council will adopt alternatives for 2016 ocean salmon fisheries at its meeting, March 8-14, 2016, at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Sacramento, CA. Details of this meeting are available on the Pacific Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org) and will be published in the Federal Register in February 2016. On March 23, 2016, “Preseason Report II—Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2016 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” is scheduled to be posted on the Pacific Council Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org. The report will include a description of the salmon management alternatives and a summary of their biological and economic impacts. Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management alternatives adopted by the Pacific Council. Written comments received at the public hearings and a summary of oral comments at the hearings will be provided to the Pacific Council at its April meeting.

All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at the following locations:

• March 28, 2016: Chateau Westport, Beach Room, 710 West Hancock, Westport, WA 98595, telephone 360-268-9101.

• March 28, 2016: Red Lion Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 North Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420, telephone 541-267-4141.

• March 29, 2016: Motel 6, Convention Room, 400 South Main St, Fort Bragg, CA 95437, telephone 707-964-4761.

Comments on the alternatives the Pacific Council adopts at its March 2016 meeting, and described in Preseason Report II, may be submitted in writing or electronically as described under ADDRESSES, or verbally or in writing at any of the public hearings held on March 28-29, 2016, or at the Pacific Council's meeting, April 9-14, 2016, at the Hilton in Vancouver, WA. Details of these meetings will be available on the Pacific Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org) and will be published in the Federal Register. Written and electronically submitted comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time, April 3, 2016, in order to be included in the briefing book for the April Council meeting where they will be considered in the adoption of the Pacific Council's final recommendation for the 2016 salmon fishery management measures. All comments received accordingly will be reviewed and considered by the Pacific Council and NMFS.

An NOI to prepare a DEIS for Amendment 36 was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18823). The NOI indicated that Amendment 36 would be supported by an environmental impact statement, which was the preliminary determination at the time the original purpose and need of the amendment was drafted. In addition to publication of the NOI, the Council held scoping meetings for Amendment 36 from April 20-23, 2015. When the Council first requested development of this amendment, they were considering SMZs of comparably larger sizes. A reassessment of the actions in Amendment 36 relative to the National Environmental Policy Act indicates an EA is appropriate. Therefore, a DEIS will not be prepared for Amendment 36 at this time.

Through Amendment 36, the Council is considering modifications to the SMZ process and framework procedures to include the consideration of SMZs that would protect locations where snapper-grouper species are likely to spawn and natural habitats that support spawning fish. Protecting locations where fish spawn and protecting natural habitats that support spawning fish may act as an effective strategy when managing a sustainable fish population. In the EA, the Council is also considering the implementation of SMZs to protect spawning snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic region, in addition to specifying the anchoring, transit, and sunset provisions. Sunset provisions designate the date that the SMZs would be removed from the regulations unless retained through action by the Council and NMFS.

There are more than 90 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP). These groundfish stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. In addition, groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, most notably, the trawl fisheries for pink shrimp and California halibut.

Amendment 28 to the FMP is intended to accomplish three goals: (1) Revise the essential fish habitat (EFH) components of the FMP; (2) make adjustments to the trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs); and (3) use the discretionary authorities in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to protect benthic habitats, including deep sea corals, from the adverse effects of fishing. These actions are described in detail below.

The MSA mandates that each regional fishery management council designate EFH for the species that they manage. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” The regulations implementing the EFH provisions of the MSA (50 CFR 600.815) require or, in some cases, recommend that fishery management plans include the following components:

1. A description and identification of EFH, including habitat information for each managed species and life stage;

2. A description of the MSA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH and management measures to minimize those effects to the extent practicable;

3. A description of the non-MSA fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, for example, those managed by state agencies;

4. A description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely affect;

5. and analysis, if feasible, of how the cumulative effects of fishing and non-fishing activities affect the function of EFH on an ecosystem or watershed scale;

6. A description of conservation and enhancement measures that encourage the conservation of EFH, including recommended options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the adverse effects of fishing and non-fishing activities;

7. Identification of the major prey species of each species;

8. Identification of habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs); and

9. Identification of research and information needs that the Council and NMFS view as necessary to improve upon the description and identification of EFH, the identification of threats to EFH from fishing and other activities, and the development of conservation and enhancement measures for EFH;

10. A procedure for reviewing and revising, if warranted, the EFH components of the FMP.

The PFMC designated EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish in 2005, and established the EFH components described above in Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP. In particular, the Council identified a number of EFH Conservation Areas (EFHCAs) where certain types of bottom-contact gear are prohibited to minimize the adverse effects of the groundfish fishery on EFH. Maps of the EFHCAs are available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh-close.pdf.

Subsequently, and in accordance with the regulations, NMFS and the Council completed a review of the information available in 2013, and the Council issued a request for proposals on changes to these 10 components. The Council received eight proposals, two of which were later withdrawn by the sponsors. Although these proposals covered a number of the EFH components, the Council determined that revisions were warranted for these five components: The essential fish habitat descriptions for each species and life stage; the description of the adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH and management measures to minimize those effects (i.e., the EFHCAs); the description of non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, conservation and enhancement measures that encourage the conservation of EFH; the research and information needs; and the procedure to review and revise the groundfish EFH components. In addition, minor clarifications and corrections to the FMP are warranted.

Trawl RCAs are areas that are closed to bottom-trawl gear to protect overfished species, primarily several species of rockfishes, and were first implemented in 2002. The trawl RCAs extend along the entire West Coast and is bounded by lines approximating particular depth contours. In recent years, the Council also considered modifications to control the bycatch of several non-overfished species (e.g., spiny dogfish, longnose skate, and rougheye rockfish). In 2011, the trawl fishery was rationalized by Amendment 20 to the groundfish FMP and participants are now individually accountable for their bycatch of individual fishing quota species. Due to the success of this program at reducing bycatch, the Council is now considering making adjustments to the RCA boundaries or eliminating them entirely.

Although the trawl RCAs were implemented to control bycatch of overfished species, the habitats within them have been largely protected from bottom-trawl gear since their inception in 2002, even though trawling for pink shrimp has occurred in some areas. Because of the habitat protections afforded by the RCAs, the habitats that have not been trawled for pink shrimp have recovered, at least partially, from the effects of past bottom trawling. Therefore the Council will evaluate adjustments to the RCA at the same time they are considering revisions to the EFHCAs.

When the Council adopted Amendment 19 to the groundfish FMP, it attempted to close waters deeper than 3500 meters to bottom trawling to minimize the effects of the fishery on groundfish EFH. However, because EFH did not extend beyond 3500 meters, NMFS disapproved that section of the amendment. The MSA contains several discretionary authorities that the Council may use to close these waters, regardless of their designation as EFH [MSA sections 303(b)(2)(A), 303(b)(2)(B), and 303(b)(12)]. The Council is considering using those authorities to prohibit all bottom-contact gear in waters deeper than 3500 meters unless an exempted fishing permit is issued. At the present time, fishing with such gear at these depths is neither technically nor economically feasible; however, the Council and NMFS view this as a precautionary measure that may help to protect these pristine and highly sensitive habitats.

NEPA requires that agencies evaluate, in addition to the preferred alternative, a range of reasonable alternatives that addresses the purpose of and need for the agency action. The Council adopted a preliminary range of alternatives for analysis and public review at its meeting in September 2015 and is scheduled to review that range at its April 9-14, 2016, meeting.

Alternatives to address EFH Components: Each of the EFH components has its own set of alternatives. The Council identified 15 action alternatives for analysis to modify the existing EFHCAs that prohibit bottom trawling. They include seven proposals received from various groups of stakeholders and Federal agencies. The proposals can be viewed at: www.pcouncil.org/2013/08/26497/gf-efh-received-proposals/. The seven proposals currently under consideration were submitted by:

1. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary—a proposal that addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary.

2. Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (now the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)—a proposal that addresses EFHCAs within the Sanctuary.

3. Fishermen's Marketing Association—a proposal to make a small change to the EFHCAs adjacent to the Eel River Canyon.

4. Oceana, National Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy—a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.

5. Marine Conservation Institute—a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.

6. Greenpeace—a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.

7. Northern and Central Collaborative Working Groups—a coast-wide proposal for modifying the EFHCAs.

In addition to these seven proposals, the Council preliminarily identified other action alternatives for analysis. They are:

8. Reopening those areas identified in the seven proposals described above. This alternative would not designate new areas for closure to bottom trawling. This is a coast-wide alternative.

9. Designating new EFHCAs within the current trawl RCAs, based on priority habitats. This is a coast-wide alternative.

10. Each of the six coast-wide alternatives (4 through 9) include changes to the EFHCAs within the usual and accustomed fishing areas (U&As) of the four Coastal Treaty Tribes in Washington (Ho, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault). These tribes are co-managers of the fishery resources within their U&As, and NMFS has a treaty-trust responsibility to address their concerns regarding our management decisions. Therefore, for each of these alternatives listed above (numbers 4-9), another alternative will be analyzed that excludes changes in the U&As.

The remaining EFH components each have a single action alternative. They are:

• Use the best scientific information available to revise the descriptions of the habitat requirements for each species and life stage in Appendix B to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B2.pdf and http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_B3.pdf).

• Use the best scientific information available to revise the description of the adverse effects of fishing on EFH in Appendix C, part 2, to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_C2.pdf).

• Use the best scientific information available to revise the description of the non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, and potential conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those adverse effects in Appendix D to the FMP (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GF_FMP_App_D.pdf).

• Update the research and information needs for understanding the EFH requirements of the species managed under this FMP.

• Update the process to review and revise the groundfish EFH components of the FMP.

• Make minor clarifications and corrections to the EFH language in the FMP.

Alternatives to adjust the Trawl RCAs: The Council preliminarily identified three action alternatives for making adjustments to the trawl RCAs. They are:

1. Complete removal of the existing RCAs. This alternative would remove the RCAs along the entire West Coast, restoring access to all of the areas that were previously closed to minimize the bycatch of overfished species.

2. Retaining a subset of the existing RCAs to protect overfished species. This alternative would restore access to some, but not all, of the areas that were closed to minimize bycatch of overfished species. The specific areas that would remain closed have not yet been identified.

3. Retaining a larger subset of the existing RCAs to protect overfished species and act as a catch-control mechanism for non-overfished species of groundfishes. The specific areas that would remain closed have not yet been identified.

Alternative to prohibit bottom-contact gear in water deeper than 3500 meters: The Council preliminarily identified a “no action” alternative that would not use the discretionary authorities and one action alternative that would prohibit bottom-contact gear in waters deeper than 3500 m, the seaward limit of EFH, out to the full extent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. Waters that meet this description occur off the coast of California only, south of the Gorda Escarpment, and are shown on the map of groundfish EFH at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/groundfish/map-gfish-efh.pdf. An exempted fishing permit would be required before any bottom-contact fishery could start up in these waters.

A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. If, during the preparation of this EIS, NMFS determines that a finding of no significant impact can be supported, it may prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issue a retraction of this notice. Alternatively, NMFS may still continue with the preparation of an EIS. Information and analysis prepared for this action also may be used when scoping future groundfish actions to help decide whether to prepare an EA or EIS.

NMFS provides this notice to: (1) Advise the public and other agencies of its plans to analyze effects related to the action, and (2) obtain suggestions and information that may be useful to the scope of issues and the full range of alternatives to include in the EIS.

NMFS invites comment from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to Amendment 28 is identified. NMFS is specifically inviting comments on the proposed alternatives described above. In addition, NMFS invites comments on the types of habitats that should be prioritized for protection from the adverse effects of fishing gear. Comments should be as specific as possible.

Written comments concerning the proposed action and the environmental review should be directed to NMFS as described above (see ADDRESSES). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

Public scoping will be conducted through this notice. Further participation by the public will occur throughout the Council's decision-making process. All decisions during the Council process benefit from written and oral public comments delivered prior to or during the Council meeting. These public comments are considered integral to scoping for developing this EIS. Council meetings that offer opportunities for public involvement include the April 9-14, 2016, meeting in Vancouver, Washington (Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. 6th Street, Vancouver, WA 98660). Future opportunities for public involvement have yet to be determined but will be posted in the Council Briefing Book (on the Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/briefing-books/) prior to the meeting. For further information on these meetings, visit the Council's Web site, http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/future-meetings/.

The Council meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Title: Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers (OMB Control No. 3038-0078). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the Commission adopted Commission regulation 1.71 (Conflicts of interest policies and procedures by futures commission merchants and introducing brokers) 1 pursuant to section 4d(c) 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulation 1.71 requires generally that, among other things, futures commission merchants (“FCM”) 3 and introducing brokers (“IB”) 4 develop conflicts of interest procedures and disclosures, adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with their conflicts of interest and disclosure obligations, and maintain specified records related to those requirements.5 The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulation 1.71 are essential (i) to ensuring that FCMs and IBs develop and maintain the conflicts of interest systems, procedures and disclosures required by the CEA, and Commission regulations, and (ii) to the effective evaluation of these registrants' actual compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. 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 Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-day Federal Register notice, 80 FR 73732, dated November 25, 2015.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of registered FCMs and IBs. Accordingly, the respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Number of Registrants: 1,362.6

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 44.5.

Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 60,609.

Frequency of Recordkeeping/Third-party Disclosure: As applicable.

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 Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 12, 2015 (80 FR 69948).

Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps (OMB Control No. 3038-0089). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) directed the Commission to adopt rules providing for the reporting of data pertaining to swaps entered into before the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (“pre-enactment swaps”) and swaps entered into on or after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act but prior to the compliance date specified in the CFTC's final swap data reporting rules (“transition swaps”). On May 17, 2012, the CFTC adopted regulation 46, which imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to pre-enactment and transition swaps. This ICR concerns the collections of information required by 17 CFR part 46.

Commission staff estimate that approximately 30,125 entities, including swap dealers, major swap participants, and swap counterparties that are neither swap dealers nor major swap participants, are affected by this ICR. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this ICR.

Burden Statement: Commission staff estimate that the total annual time burden for this ICR is 18,903 hours. Commission staff estimate that the total annual cost for this ICR is $1,436,258. The time burden estimate represents the annual burden that swap dealers, major swap participants, and swap counterparties that are neither swap dealers nor major swap participants incur to operate and maintain swap recordkeeping and reporting systems to facilitate the recordkeeping and reporting of pre-enactment and transition swaps. Commission staff calculated the time burden by estimating the burden incurred by respondents to operate and maintain swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems and then estimating the portion of that burden associated with pre-enactment and transition swaps. Commission staff calculated the cost burden by multiplying the estimated time burden by an estimated appropriate hourly wage rate of $75.98. Commission staff derived the estimated appropriate hourly wage rate by averaging the salaries and bonuses of relevant professions reported in the SIFMA Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap dealers, Major Swap Participants, and other counterparties to a swap transaction (i.e., end-user, non-swap dealer/non-major swap participant counterparties).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,125.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 18,903 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,436,258.

Frequency of Collection: Ongoing.

Title: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading Records Requirements For Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (OMB Control No. 3038-0087). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the Commission adopted Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 (Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading Records Requirements For Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants) 1 pursuant to sections 4s(f) 2 and 4s(g) 3 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”).4 Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 require, among other things, swap dealers (“SD”) 5 and major swap participants (“MSP”) 6 to maintain transaction and position records of their swaps (including daily trading records) and to maintain specified business records (including records related to the governance and financial status of the swap dealer or major swap participant, complaints received by such SD or MSP and such SD or MSP's marketing and sales materials). They also require SDs and MSPs to report certain swap transaction data to swap data repositories, to satisfy certain real time public reporting requirements, and to maintain records of information reported to swap data depositories and for real time reporting purposes.7 The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 are necessary to implement sections 4s(f) and 4s(g) of the CEA, including ensuring that each SD and MSP maintains the required records of their business activities and an audit trail sufficient to conduct comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of registered SDs and MSPs. Accordingly, the respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Number of Registrants: 105.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 2,096.

Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 220,080.

Frequency of Recordkeeping/Third-party Disclosure: Daily, or as applicable.

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

Title of Collection: eZ-Audit: Electronic Submission of Financial Statements and Compliance Audits.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0072.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,100.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,491.

Abstract: eZ-Audit is a web-based process designed to facilitate the submission of compliance and financial statement audits, expedite the review of those audits by the Department, and provide more timely and useful information to public, non-profit and proprietary institutions regarding the Department's review. eZ-Audit establishes a uniform process under which all institutions submit directly to the Department any audit required under the Title IV, HEA program regulations. eZ-Audit continues to have minimal number of financial template line items and general information questions. No additional burden hours have been added.

Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires employers to make and keep records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records, and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order.1 Pursuant to this statutory authority, the EEOC in 1966 issued a regulation requiring certain employers to file executed copies of the EEO-1 survey in conformity with the directions and instructions on the form, which called for reporting employee data by job category, ethnicity, race, and sex.2 Pursuant to Executive Order 11246,3 the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in 1978 issued its regulation describing the EEO-1 as a report “promulgated jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” and requiring certain contractors to submit “complete and accurate reports” annually.4 Through the EEO-1 Joint Reporting Committee housed at the EEOC, the EEO-1 is administered as a single data collection to meet the statistical needs of both agencies.5 Currently, the EEO-1 directs certain covered employers with more than 50 employees (contractors) or 100 employees (private industry) 6 to report annually the number of individuals they employ by job category and by race, ethnicity, and sex.7 The data include seven race and ethnicity categories 8 and ten job categories,9 by sex. A sample copy of the currently approved EEO-1 can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo1-2.pdf.

In 1964, Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., (Title VII), which makes unlawful a wide range of discriminatory employment practices, including pay discrimination, because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title VII and other federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including the Equal Pay Act of 1963.10 The Equal Pay Act prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women if they work in the same establishment and perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.11 OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, as amended, which prohibits discrimination, including compensation discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.12

In 2010, the EEOC joined other federal agencies, including the DOL, as members of the President's National Equal Pay Task Force to identify ways to improve enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. The Task Force recommended, among other things, that the EEOC engage the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study assessing how to most effectively collect pay data to support its wage discrimination law enforcement efforts. The EEOC accordingly commissioned a study, and the NAS convened a Panel on Measuring and Collecting Pay Information from U.S. Employers by Gender, Race, and National Origin. This Panel's August 15, 2012, report (NAS Report) 13 recognized the potential value for enforcement of collecting pay data from employers by sex, race, and national origin through a survey such as the EEO-1, and emphasized the importance of a definitive plan for how the data would be used in coordination with other equal employment opportunity (EEO) enforcement agencies. The NAS Report also recommended that the EEOC conduct a pilot to inform the parameters for any pay data collection.14

Following the NAS Report recommendation, the EEOC commissioned an independent Pilot Study to identify the most efficient means to collect pay data. The Pilot Study, completed in September 2015, assisted the EEOC in formulating this proposal and will guide the development of analytic techniques to make full use of the data to be collected.15 The Pilot Study considered a variety of statistical approaches that could be used to detect pay differences between groups and then tested these approaches by applying them to synthetic pay data 16 in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses.17 Ultimately, the Pilot Study made technical recommendations about several central components of a data collection, including: The unit of pay to be collected; the best summary measures of central tendency and dispersion for rates of pay; appropriate statistical test(s) for analyzing pay data; and the most efficient and least costly methods for transmitting pay data from employers. The Pilot Study also estimated employer burden-hour costs and the processing costs associated with the recommended method of collection.

Separately, the EEOC sought input about updating all the EEO surveys, including adding pay data, when its staff held a two-day meeting in March 2012 with employer representatives, statisticians, human resources information systems (HRIS) experts, and information technology specialists (work group). The work group reviewed the current data collection procedures, provided feedback on future modernization of the EEO surveys, and engaged in brainstorming that led to ideas submitted individually by group participants on a number of topics, including collecting pay data as well as multiple-race category data on the EEO-1. Employer stakeholders expressed concern about the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of any individual filer's pay data even if pay data were only published in aggregated form.18 The work group report 19 reflects feedback from participants that the burden of reporting pay data would be minimal for EEO-1 filers.

On April 8, 2014, the Presidential Memorandum, “Advancing Pay Equality Through Compensation Data Collection” was issued. It directed the Secretary of Labor to develop a compensation data collection proposal.20 OFCCP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 8, 2014, proposing to amend one of its implementing regulations for Executive Order 11246 to add a requirement that certain federal contractors submit compensation data reports to OFCCP.21 Under the NPRM, OFCCP also proposed a sample of an Equal Pay Report for collecting this data.22

Public comments submitted to OFCCP about the proposed Equal Pay Report and rule argued for, among other things, the need to improve interagency coordination and decrease employer burden for reporting compensation data by using the EEO-1, rather than a new OFCCP data collection, as well as the need to protect privacy and data confidentiality. The instant proposal responds to these concerns.23 Similarly, the NAS Report recommended that the federal EEO enforcement agencies develop a coordinated plan for using compensation data. In the course of developing this EEO-1 proposal, the EEOC and OFCCP together consulted with the Department of Justice, focusing on how EEO-1 pay data would be used to assess complaints of discrimination, focus investigations, and identify employers with existing pay disparities that might warrant further examination. The EEOC and OFCCP plan to develop statistical tools that would be available to staff on their computers, to utilize the EEO-1 pay data for these purposes. They also anticipate developing software tools and guidance for stakeholders to support analysis of aggregated EEO-1 data. Finally, the EEOC and OFCCP anticipate that the process of reporting pay data may encourage employers to self-monitor and comply voluntarily if they uncover pay inequities.

The following discussion explains the justification for each component of the proposed EEO-1 pay data collection. As stated above, this proposal does not compel employers to collect new data but rather requires the reporting of pay data that employers maintain in the normal course of business. This notice proposes a collection that will maximize the utility of the pay data while balancing respondent concerns about confidentiality and the burden of the collection.

For the 2016 EEO-1 reporting cycle, to ease the transition, all employers will submit information that is identical to the information collected by the currently approved EEO-1 (Component 1). Starting in 2017, employers that are subject to the EEO-1 reporting requirement and that have 100 or more employees will submit the EEO-1 with pay and related information (Components 1 and 2). By contrast, contractors that are subject to the EEO-1 reporting requirement and that have between 50 and 99 employees will continue to submit the same information that is collected by the current EEO-1 report (Component 1). They will not be required to submit pay and hours-worked data. A sample copy of the currently approved EEO-1 report provides an illustration of the data to be collected by Component 1. It can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo1-2.pdf. An illustration of the data to be collected by both Components 1 and 2 can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2016_new_survey.cfm.

Currently, employers must collect EEO-1 data from any pay period occurring in the months of July through September of the current survey year. The EEO-1 must be filed by September 30th of the same year. These deadlines would continue after the addition of pay data, to minimize employers' burden by folding the new collection into long-established deadlines. As explained below regarding the utility and burden of using W-2 data to describe pay, requiring filers to report W-2 data as of a pay period occurring in the months of July through September should not be burdensome given the capabilities of HRIS software.

Beginning in 2017, all filers will be required to submit the proposed EEO-1 report electronically. Automated electronic data collection promotes the utility of the EEO-1 survey by reducing the number of inadvertent human errors in the data. Electronic data collection also is less burdensome for employers than assigning staff to complete the survey. As of 2014, all but three of the 67,146 EEO-1 filers already used electronic data submission.24 Any EEO-1 filer seeking an exemption from this electronic requirement may use the existing EEO-1 process for seeking special reporting procedures.25 Component 2 of the revised EEO-1 includes a request for data on the amount of employer staff time used to collect and report pay data on the EEO-1. This will better enable the EEOC to quantify the burden of this aspect of the survey.

In selecting total W-2 earnings as the measure of pay, the focus was on maximizing utility of the EEO-1 pay data while minimizing the burden on employers to collect and report it. With respect to maximizing utility, the goal was to identify a measure of compensation that encompasses as much employer-paid income earned by individuals as possible. With respect to minimizing burden, the focus was on finding a measure that is well-defined and compatible with the data elements in employers' existing human resources and pay systems. Consideration also was given to the sample Equal Pay Report proposed in OFCCP's 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which used W-2 earnings.26

Five different measures of earnings now used by federal data collection systems were considered. The first three were from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): The Occupation Employment Statistics (OES); 27 the National Compensation Survey (NCS); 28 and the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey program.29 The remaining options were from the Social Security Administration (SSA) 30 and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).31

Of these five options, the focus was on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the OES and the W-2 definitions because they are best known to employers. The NAS Study recommended the use of OES' wage definition because it is based on widespread surveys,32 but the EEOC ultimately decided not to use the OES definition because it excludes widely-used elements of compensation such as overtime pay, severance pay, shift differentials, nonproduction bonuses, year-end bonuses, holiday bonuses, and tuition reimbursement.33 These elements of pay, however, are increasingly important. According to a 2014 survey of 1,064 U.S. companies, “91 percent of organizations offer a variable pay program and expect to spend 12.7 percent of payroll on variable pay for salaried exempt employees in 2015.” 34 Another recent survey of companies' bonus practices found that 74 percent of respondents used a sign-on bonus program and 61 percent used a retention bonus program in 2014.35

By contrast, the W-2 definition provides a more comprehensive report of earnings at the employee level than the OES definition. W-2 gross income includes wages, salaries, fees, commissions, tips, taxable fringe benefits, and elective deferrals. Amounts withheld for taxes, including but not limited to income tax, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, are considered “received” and are included as gross income of the given year they are withheld.36 The W-2 encompasses all earned income, including supplemental pay components such as overtime pay, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses (e.g., year-end bonuses, hiring and referral bonuses, and profit-sharing cash bonuses).37 Nonproduction bonuses account for over 11 percent of cash compensation for management, business, and financial operations occupations, while shift differentials are a significant component of compensation for healthcare workers.38 A panel of HRIS experts convened for the Pilot Study agreed that the trend is toward paying higher-level executives in bonuses, which are counted as W-2 income but are not included in the OES definition.39

Using the W-2 definition is less likely to be burdensome for most respondents than using the OES wage definition. Federal law requires all employers to generate W-2s for each of their employees. Although W-2 data may not be routinely compiled until the end of the calendar year, and EEO-1 reports are due on September 30th, several approaches are possible. First, because payroll records are cumulative, generating reports at any given point in time should not be complicated for employers with automated payroll systems. The W-2 data can be imported into a HRIS, and a data field can be established to accumulate W-2 data for the EEO-1. Alternatively, employers could obtain this pay information by utilizing quarterly payroll reports for the previous four quarters. Employers that do their payroll in-house will be able to report this data utilizing most major payroll software systems or by using off-the-shelf payroll software that is preprogrammed to compile data for generating W-2s. For employers that outsource their payroll, there would be a one-time burden of writing custom programs to import the data from their payroll companies into their HRIS systems.

In determining how employers would be required to organize and report their employees' W-2 data, the focus was on collectability, burden, confidentiality, and data utility.40 The NAS Report and the Pilot Study reviewed various alternative approaches for reporting compensation, which ranged from highly detailed to general. Of these alternatives, the most comprehensive collection proposals required collecting data at the individual employee level and would have included human capital qualifications data as well as pay data. Although these options would reduce ambiguity and help assess the existence of potential discrimination, they also raise significant confidentiality and burden concerns.41

Options for collecting aggregate pay data include using pay rates (calculated by employer), range of pay with a maximum and minimum provided by employer, total pay, and average or median pay. There are disadvantages to each of these approaches. Total pay could be impractical and would be dependent on the number of employees. Average pay by occupation would provide limited information about variation. Collecting the range of pay or average pay could produce biased estimates as pay is often distributed in a manner where a few individuals are paid much more than others. This might create misleading data when ranges or means are used as a measure. Simply gathering rates of pay, without standard deviation measures, would not assist in parity/disparity analysis, and asking employers to calculate standard deviations would not only be burdensome but also would risk a higher rate of inaccuracy.

Using pay bands appears to be more likely to generate reliable data while being less burdensome for employers than other reporting alternatives. Therefore, Component 2 of the revised EEO-1 will collect aggregate W-2 data in 12 pay bands for the 10 EEO-1 job categories. Employers will simply count and report the number of employees in each pay band. For example, a filer will report on the EEO-1 that it employs 3 African American women as professionals in the highest pay band. As to data utility, pay bands will allow the EEOC to compute within-job-category variation, across-job-category variation, and overall variation, which would support the EEOC's ability to discern potential discrimination while preserving confidentiality.42 At the same time, pay bands would not require the computation of mean earnings or a measure of variance as alternative approaches might, thus avoiding a source of employer burden. Finally, as distinguished from mean earnings, pay bands can effectively use statistical tests that do not rely on an assumption that pay is normally distributed.

By choosing to use pay bands, the EEOC also is adopting a methodology that will limit employer burden. HRIS software developers already are familiar with using pay bands on the EEO-4 survey, which collects pay data from state and local government employers.43 By choosing to use pay bands for the EEO-1, the EEOC and OFCCP will allow HRIS software developers to build on their existing experience with the EEO-4. Consistent with the recommendations of the Pilot Study, however, the EEO-1 pay bands (Table 2) will track the 12 “wage intervals” used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the OES survey.44

Consistent with the recommendations of the Pilot Study, Component 2 of the revised EEO-1 will collect the total number of hours worked by the employees included in each EEO-1 pay band cell. This data will allow analysis of pay differences while considering aggregate variations in hours. The total hours worked also will permit an analysis that accounts for periods when the employees were not employed, thus reflecting part-time work.45

The EEOC seeks employer input with respect to how to report hours worked for salaried employees. One approach would be for employers to use an estimate of 40 hours per week for full-time salaried workers. The EEOC is not proposing to require an employer to begin collecting additional data on actual hours worked for salaried workers, to the extent that the employer does not currently maintain such information. Employers are encouraged to comment on this issue.46

Generally, however, the initial conclusion is that requiring employers to provide the total number of hours worked would impose a minimal burden. Employers will report only data that they already maintain. The panel of HRIS experts convened for the Pilot Study reported that “total hours worked” data is maintained by almost all payroll systems. The information is available for the previous quarter, the previous four quarters, and the calendar year. For employers that outsource payroll, this variable could be added to the one-time reporting query that is written to download income data.

Statistical tests will be used as an initial check of the W-2 data to be collected on the EEO-1, specifically, statistical significance tests that do not rely on an assumption of a normal distribution. The Pilot Study recommended several statistical techniques to test within-job categories and then suggested further examining companies and establishments with low probabilities that the differences between examined groups, such as men and women, occurred by chance.47 The Pilot Study also noted that the issue of calibrating error rates (power vs. significance level) needed to be addressed to detect discrimination without suffering too many false positives. This process would include recognition of how sample sizes may influence results and also of judicial precedents regarding definitions of statistical probabilities.48

The EEOC and OFCCP plan to develop a software tool that will allow their investigators to conduct an initial analysis by looking at W-2 pay distribution within a single firm or establishment, and by comparing the firm's or establishment's data to aggregate industry or metropolitan-area data.49 This application would highlight statistics of interest.

The EEOC and OFCCP jointly collect the data on the EEO-1 report through their Joint Reporting Committee, which has represented the two agencies for the purpose of administering the EEO-1 since the reporting requirement began. All data is initially submitted to the Joint Reporting Committee housed at the EEOC and then provided to OFCCP. EEOC is required to hold its EEO-1 data confidential under Section 709(e) of Title VII, which forbids “any [EEOC] officer or employee” from making “public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission . . . prior to the institution of any [Title VII] proceeding . . . involving such information.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(e). Any EEOC officer or employee who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor. Id.

The EEOC publishes aggregate EEO-1 data in a manner that does not reveal any particular employer's data, consistent with Section 709(e). For example, the EEOC has published aggregate EEO-1 data at the national, regional, and industry levels.50 The EEOC also publishes reports analyzing aggregate EEO-1 data based on industry (e.g., finance, media, and law firms) or particular groups of people (e.g., women of color).51

After collecting and reconciling EEO-1 data, the Joint Reporting Committee at the EEOC provides a database to OFCCP. OFCCP holds confidential the data for contractor filers to the maximum extent permitted by law, in accordance with Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act.52 With respect to EEO-1 data for companies that are not under OFCCP's jurisdiction, the confidentiality provisions of Section 709(e) apply.53 Accordingly, OFCCP refers all requests for such data to the EEOC for a response.

The EEOC intends to submit to OMB a request for a three-year PRA approval of a revised EEO-1. The revised EEO-1 data collection has two components. The first component (Component 1) will collect information identical to that collected by the currently approved EEO-1. The second component (Component 2) will collect data on employees' W-2 pay and hours worked. Component 1 can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/upload/eeo1-2.pdf. An illustration of the data to be collected by both Components 1 and 2 can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2016_new_survey.cfm.

For the 2016 reporting cycle, EEO-1 filers would only submit the Component 1 data. Beginning with the 2017 reporting cycle, the EEOC proposes to require EEO-1 filers with 100 or more employees to submit Component 2 data in addition to Component 1 data. However, contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees will only submit Component 1 data.

Collection Title: Employer Information Report (EEO-1).

OMB Control Number: 3046-0007.

Frequency of Report: Annual.

Description of Affected Public: Private industry filers with 100 or more employees and federal government contractor filers with 50 or more employees.

Number of Respondents: 67,146.

Reporting Hours: 228,296.4.

Respondent Burden Hour Cost: $5,531,621.77.

Federal Cost: $1,330,821.

Number of Forms: 1.

Form Number: EEOC Form 100.

Collection Title: Employer Information Report (EEO-1).

OMB Control Number: 3046-0007.

Frequency of Report: Annual.

Number of Forms: 1.

Form Number: EEOC Form 100.

Federal Cost: $318,000 for one-time costs and $1,621,300 54 for recurring staffing costs.

Description of Affected Public: In 2017 and 2018, contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees will submit only the demographic and job category data collected by Component 1.

Number of Respondents: 6,260.

Reporting Hours: 21,284.

Respondent Burden Hour Cost: $515,711.32.

Description of Affected Public: In 2017 and 2018, EEO-1 filers with 100 or more employees will submit pay and hours-worked data under Component 2 in addition to the demographic and job category data under Component 1.

Number of Respondents: 60,886.

Reporting Hours: 401,847.6.

Respondent Burden Hour Cost: $9,736,767.35.

Burden Statement: In 2016, all EEO-1 filers will submit only Component 1, which includes the data collected by the currently approved EEO-1. The estimated number of respondents required to submit the annual EEO-1 survey is 67,146.55 This data collection is estimated to impose 228,296.4 burden hours in 2016 or 3.4 hours per filer.56 See Table 3. The estimated burden is based on electronic, rather than paper filing, which significantly reduces the survey burden.

Burden Statement—Component 1 Only: Starting in 2017, the estimated number of annual respondents who are contractor filers with 50 to 99 employees is 6,260.57

The burden on these contractor filers is estimated as follows:

• Annual Burden Calculation: The estimated total annual burden hours required to complete Component 1 of the EEO-1 data collection in 2017 and 2018 is 21,284, with an associated total annual burden hour cost of $515,711.32.58 See Table 4.

Burden Statement—Components 1 and 2: Starting in 2017, the estimated number of annual respondents that will submit Components 1 and 2 is 60,886 private industry and contractor filers. Filers required to complete both Components 1 and 2 are estimated to incur 401,847.6 burden hours annually or 6.6 hours per filer. The estimated burden is based on electronic, rather than paper, filing, which significantly reduces the survey burden.

The burden imposed on all private industry employer filers and contractor filers with 100 or more employees as a result of the proposed collection of W-2 pay data is estimated as follows:

• Annual Burden Calculation: The estimated total annual burden hours needed for filers to report demographic and W-2 pay data via Components 1 and 2 of the revised EEO-1 Report is 401,847.6, with an associated total annual burden hour cost of $9,736,767.35. This burden estimate includes reading instructions and collecting, merging, validating, and reporting the data electronically.59 See Table 4.

Advance payments may be authorized under Federal contracts and subcontracts. Advance payments are the least preferred method of contract financing and require special determinations by the agency head or designee. Specific financial information about the contractor is required before determinations by the agency head or designee can be made, and before such payments can be authorized (see FAR 32.4 and 52.232-12). The information is used to determine if advance payments should be provided to the contractor.

Respondents: 500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 500.

Hours per Response: 6.

Total Burden Hours: 3,000.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0073, Advance Payments, in all correspondence.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below. 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and, (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS, OMB No. 0920-0469, exp. 5/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2012, the most recent year for which complete information is available, more than 580,000 people died of cancer and more than 1.5 million were diagnosed with cancer. It is estimated that 13.8 million Americans are currently alive with a history of cancer (2). In the U.S., state-based cancer registries are the only method for systematically collecting and reporting population based information about cancer incidence and outcomes such as survival. These data are used to measure the changing incidence and burden of each cancer; identify populations at increased or increasing risk; target preventive measures; and measure the success or failure of cancer control efforts in the U.S.

In 1992, Congress passed the Cancer Registries Amendment Act which established the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). The NPCR provides support for state-based cancer registries that collect, manage and analyze data about cancer cases. The state-based cancer registries report information to CDC through the National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS), (OMB No. 0920-0469 5/31/2016). CDC plans to request OMB approval to continue collecting this information for three years. Data definitions will be updated to reflect changes in national standards for cancer diagnosis and coding, but the number of respondents and the burden per respondent will not change.

The NPCR CSS allows CDC to collect, aggregate, evaluate and disseminate cancer incidence data at the national level. The NPCR CSS is the primary source of information for United States Cancer Statistics (USCS), which CDC has published annually since 2002. The latest USCS report published in 2015 provided cancer statistics for 99% of the United States population from all cancer registries whose data met national data standards. Prior to the publication of USCS, cancer incidence data at the national level were available for only 14% of the population of the United States.

The NPCR CSS also allows CDC to monitor cancer trends over time, describe geographic variation in cancer incidence throughout the country, and provide incidence data on racial/ethnic populations and rare cancers. These activities and analyses further support CDC's planning and evaluation efforts for state and national cancer control and prevention. In addition, datasets can be made available for secondary analysis.

Respondents are NPCR-supported central cancer registries (CCR) in 45 U.S. states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia. Thirty-eight CCRs submit data elements specified for the Standard NPCR CSS Report. Ten specialized CCRs submit data elements specified for the Enhanced NPCR CSS Report, which includes additional information about treatment and follow-up for cases of breast, colorectal, and chronic myeloid leukemia cases diagnosed in 2011. Each CCR is asked to transmit two data files to CDC per year. The first file, submitted in January, is a preliminary report consisting of one year of data for the most recent year of available data. CDC evaluates the preliminary data for completeness and quality and provides a report back to the CCR. The second file, submitted by November, contains cumulative cancer incidence data from the first diagnosis year for which the cancer registry collected data with the assistance of NPCR funds (e.g., 1995) through 12 months past the close of the most recent diagnosis year (e.g., 2014). The cumulative file is used for analysis and reporting.

The burden for each file transmission is estimated at two hours per response. Because cancer incidence data are already collected and aggregated at the state level the additional burden of reporting the information to CDC is small.

All information is transmitted to CDC electronically. Participation is required as a condition of the cooperative agreement with CDC. There are no costs to respondents except their time.

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

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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Evaluation of Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In an effort to refocus attention on domestic HIV and AIDS, CDC launched the Act Against AIDS (AAA) initiative in 2009 with the White House and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. AAA is a multifaceted national communication initiative that supports reduction of HIV incidence in the U.S. through multiple, concurrent communication and education campaigns for a variety of audiences including, the general public, populations most affected by HIV and health care providers. All campaigns support the comprehensive HIV prevention efforts of CDC and the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS).

Within this context, the CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) is implementing various partnership activities to increase HIV awareness among the general public, reduce new HIV infections among disproportionately impacted populations, and improve health outcomes for people living with HIV and AIDS in the United States and its territories.

For example, DHAP is funding the “Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships” program. Partners funded under the partnership program will (1) support the dissemination of Act Against AIDS (AAA) campaign materials, messaging, and other CDC resources that support HIV prevention and (2) implement national engagement efforts focusing on HIV prevention and awareness. Partners represent civil, media, and LGBT-focused organizations.

In addition, DHAP will continue to support the Business Responds to AIDS (BRTA) program. Founded in 1992, the purpose of the BRTA program is to engage and support the private sector in promoting HIV education, awareness, and policies in the workplace. This partnership between CDC, business, labor, and the public health sector aims to encourage businesses to implement HIV/AIDS policies and education programs in the workplace with the overarching goal of increasing public understanding of, involvement in, and support for HIV prevention. Other partnership efforts serve the same purpose: To increase HIV awareness among the general public, reduce new HIV infections among disproportionately impacted populations, and improve health outcomes for people living with HIV and AIDS in the United States and its territories.

The project will evaluate the extent to which activities implemented by partners meet the initiative's goals for disseminating, communicating, and engaging the public in HIV prevention and education activities. We will collect information from partners on their activities for disseminating HIV messages through materials distribution at national and local events, media and advertising, HIV testing facilitation, and formation and coordination of strategic partnerships; barriers and facilitators to implementation of these activities, and factors that may help contextualize their progress towards meeting the initiative's goals; and their involvement in promoting HIV education, awareness, and policies in their organization. We will collect this information through these five sources: (a) Metrics Database: Partners will be required to report quarterly data to CDC and CDC's evaluation contractor through a metrics database. (b) Biannual key informant interviews: The point of contacts from some partner organizations will be interviewed twice yearly via telephone. (c) Interim Progress Reports: Partners will complete a standardized progress report on a biannual basis via a user-friendly electronic form. The progress reports will gather information on key successes, facilitators and barriers, and major achievements. (d) Partner Survey: Partners will complete a brief online survey to assess their involvement in promoting HIV education, awareness, and policies in their organization. (e) Partnerships Activities Form: Partners may be asked to complete a brief electronic form to provide information on each partner activity that they complete. The form will collect information on information such as the type of event, the audience, and key highlights; the number of HIV tests administered (if any) and the number of preliminary positives; the number and type of materials distributed. This information will allow CDC to know what partners are doing to advance HIV prevention and education, and how CDC can alter their partnership efforts to facilitate HIV prevention and education in the future.

The information obtained from the proposed study will be used by federal policy makers to assess the effectiveness of the partnership activities and the appropriateness of continued or expanded funding of partnership projects.

There is no cost to participants other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 5,200.

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

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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Application for Training (OMB Control No. 0920-0017, Expiration 05/31/2016)—Revision—Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD), Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC offers public health training to professionals worldwide. Employees of hospitals, universities, medical centers, state and local health departments, and federal agencies apply for training to learn up-to-date public health and healthcare practices. CDC is accredited by multiple accreditation organizations to award continuing education (CE) for public health and healthcare professions.

CDC requires health professionals seeking continuing education (learners) to use the Training and Continuing Education Online (TCEO) system to establish an account by completing the TCEO New Participant Registration form. CDC/CSELS relies on this form to collect information needed to coordinate learner registration for training activities including classroom study, conferences, and e-learning.

The TCEO Proposal is a form course developers will use the TCEO system to apply for their training activities to receive continuing education accreditation through CDC. Introduction of this mechanism will allow course developers to electronically complete and submit continuing education proposals.

CDC requests OMB approval to (1) continue to collect information through the TCEO New Participant Registration form to grant public health professionals the continuing education they need to maintain professional licenses and certifications, create a transcript or summary of training at the participant's request, generate management reports, and maintain training statistics; and (2) establish a new electronic information collection that allows CDC or CDC partner course developers to electronically submit training and continuing education proposals for accreditation.

CDC's TCEO system provides an efficient and effective way for CDC to comply with accreditation organization requirements. Accreditation organizations require a method of tracking participants who complete an education activity and several require collection of profession-specific data. Some accrediting organizations require a permanent record that includes the participant's name, address, and phone number to facilitate retrieval of historical information about when a participant completed a course or several courses during a time period. These data provide the basis for a transcript or for determining whether a person is enrolled in more than one course. CDC uses the email address to verify the participant's electronic request for transcripts, verify course certificates, and send confirmation that a participant is registered for a course. Collection of demographic and profession-specific data through the TCEO New Participant Registration allows CDC to comply with accreditation organization requirements.

The TCEO Proposal will expedite submission, review, and accreditation processes and provide CDC with the information necessary to meet accreditation organization requirements, accredit, and effectively manage training activities. Examples of data to be collected for CDC to process continuing education proposals and meet accreditation organization requirements includes name, email address, phone number, and organization name.

These forms do not duplicate request for information from participants or course developers. Data are collected only once per new registration or once per course.

These information collection instruments have provided, and will continue to provide CDC with the information necessary to manage and conduct training activities pertinent to its mission to strengthen the skills of the current workforce through quality, accredited, competency-based training.

The annual burden table has been updated to reflect (1) discontinuance of the National Laboratory Training Network Registration form, (2) an increase in learners seeking continuing education, particularly through e-learning activities (16,667 burden hours), (3) the introduction of the new TCEO Proposal (600 burden hours), for a total of 17,267 burden hours. There are no costs to respondents.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-XXXX-60D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Surgeon General's Pledge to Stem the Opioid Epidemic

Abstract: The Office of the Surgeon General, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve an information request for the Surgeon General's Pledge to Stem the Opioid Epidemic. This information request involves collecting information from users for this pledge which recruits doctors, dentists, nurses, and physician assistants to utilize their unique position in the community and in their practice to take notice of the opioid crisis and commit to taking action that could save lives.

Likely Respondents: Physicians, dentists, physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners.

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

We have received an application from HPH Properties, L.P., for a renewal of incidental take permit TE189382-1 for the endangered Ohlone tiger beetle under the Act. The applicant has requested a renewal that will extend the permit expiration by 6 years. The applicant has agreed to follow all of the existing HCP conditions. If the permit is renewed, no additional take will be authorized. The permit would authorize take of the federally endangered Ohlone tiger beetle, incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the Santa Cruz Gardens Unit 12 residential development. In addition to the Ohlone tiger beetle, the HCP includes two plants: The federally threatened Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) and Gairdner's yampah (Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri), classified as a Rank 4 rare plant by the California Native Plant Society.

The Ohlone tiger beetle was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered on October 3, 2001. Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental Take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are, respectively, in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. All species included in the incidental take permit would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).

On July 21, 2014, incidental take permit TE189382-0 was transferred from the original permittee, Porter-Livingston Development, Inc. and O'Hara-Balfour LP, to a new permittee, HPH Properties, L.P. Subsequently, a new permit number, TE189382-1, was issued. HPH Properties, L.P. has applied for renewal of a permit for the incidental take of the endangered Ohlone tiger beetle. The potential taking would occur incidental to development of nine new single-family residences at an undeveloped 58.6-acre project site (APNs 025-391-01, 025-401-01, 025-401-02, and 025-491-01) near Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California. This parcel is located approximately 0.33 mile north of Soquel Avenue and west of Rodeo Gulch Road. The property is roughly bounded by the terminus of Benson Avenue, Tiffany Court, and residential areas to the south; Thurber Lane to the west; Winkle Avenue and undeveloped lands to the north; and Rodeo Gulch Road to the east. An incidental take permit was first issued for the project on August 6, 2009. No project activities occurred during the first 6-year term of the incidental take permit, and conditions at the site remain unchanged from the time of original permit issuance.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that renewal of the permit is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), nor will it individually or cumulatively have more than a negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, the permit renewal qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 8.5).

If you wish to comment on the permit applications, plans, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management on BLM-administered lands in northern California and far northwest Nevada. At this meeting the RAC will discuss development of the Northern California Integrated Resource Management Plan, hear an overview of the BLM's management of wild horses and burros, hear an update on implementation of conservation plans for greater sage-grouse and receive update reports from BLM Northern California District Field Offices. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and meals. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

The three 15-member Nevada RACs advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Nevada State Director, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. The meeting will be held at the Alexis Park Resort, 375 E. Harmon Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada. Agenda topics include an update on sage grouse, grazing and wild horses and burros; closeout reports of the three RACs; breakout meetings of the three RACs; and scheduling meetings of the individual RACs for the upcoming year. The public may provide written comments to the three RAC groups or to an individual RAC.

Comments may also be submitted by email to [email protected] with the subject 2016 Tri-RAC Comment or by mail at the address provided below. Written comments should be received no later than Feb. 8. BLM Nevada Tri-RAC Comments, c/o Chris Rose, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502.

Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meeting or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations may contact Chris Rose at the phone number or email address above.

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The GCDAMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the AMWG, a technical work group (TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The TWG is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.

Agenda: The primary purpose of the meeting will be to receive updates on: (1) The Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, (2) current basin hydrology, operations, and the 2017 hydrograph, (3) The Hopi Tribe's monitoring regimen, summary of key research results, and recommendations, and (4) science results from Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff. The AMWG will discuss the Science Advisors' Workplan, the Adaptive Management Program Assessment, and the Western energy grid and the evolving mix of power sources. The AMWG will also address other administrative and resource issues pertaining to the GCDAMP.

To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16feb24. Time will be allowed at the meeting for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Beverley Heffernan, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84138; telephone (801) 524-3712; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected], at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

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.

Background.—On December 2, 1986, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China (51 FR 43414). Following first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective April 14, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China (65 FR 20136). Following the second five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective November 22, 2005, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China (70 FR 70581). Following the third five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective March 14, 2011, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China (76 FR 13602). The Commission is now conducting a fourth review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR parts 201, subparts A and B and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions.—The following definitions apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review is China.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination, its full first five-year review determination, and its expedited second and third five-year review determinations concerning porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, including teakettles. One Commissioner defined the Domestic Like Product differently in the original determination.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, its full first five-year review determination, and its expedited second and third five-year review determinations concerning porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all domestic producers of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, including teakettles. One Commissioner defined the Domestic Industry differently in the original determination.

(5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the proceeding and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions.—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is March 2, 2016. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is April 14, 2016. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.

INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE OF INSTITUTION: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2009.

(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm).

(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets.

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2015, except as noted (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2009, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Background. On April 15, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of magnesium (also known as magnesium metal) from China (70 FR 19928). Following the five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective March 11, 2011, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of magnesium from China (76 FR 13356). The Commission is now conducting a second review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR parts 201, subparts A and B and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions. The following definitions apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review is China.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination and its full first five-year review determination, the Commission found one Domestic Like Product to include pure and alloy magnesium, primary and secondary magnesium, and ingot (cast) and granular magnesium. Certain Commissioners defined the Domestic Like Product differently in the original determination.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission found one Domestic Industry consisting of all producers of the Domestic Like Product, including grinders that produce granular magnesium and die casters that recycle magnesium scrap. Certain Commissioners defined the Domestic Industry differently. In its full first five-year review determination, the Commission found one Domestic Industry composed of the domestic producers of pure and alloy magnesium, including primary and secondary magnesium, and magnesium in ingot and granular form.

(5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the proceeding and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification. Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions. Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is March 2, 2016. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is April 14, 2016. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.

Information To Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2009.

(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and email address of a responsible official at each firm).

(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets.

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2015, except as noted (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2009, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: OJP Standard Assurances.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: None.

Component: Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

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

Primary: Applicants for grants funded by the Office of Justice Programs.

Other: None.

Abstract: The purpose of the Standard Assurances form is to obtain the assurance/certification of each applicant for OJP funding that it will comply with the various crosscutting regulatory and statutory requirements that apply to OJP grantees, and to set out in one easy-to-reference document those requirements that most frequently impact OJP grantees.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Total of 8,250 respondents estimated, at 20 minutes each.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:

The estimated total public burden associated with this information is 3,500.

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

The title should read “Request for Letters of Intent to Apply for 2016 Technology Initiative Grant Funding.”