Federal Register Vol. 81, No.27,

In accordance with the provisions of FACA, the Secretary of Agriculture is seeking nominations to fill positions representing a New Mexico State Natural Resource agency, Federal land management agencies, tribes or pueblos, commodity interests, and local communities on the Panel. The purpose of the Panel is to provide recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on which grant proposals submitted pursuant to the Act best meet the CFRP objectives. The CFRP provides cost-share grants to community and stakeholder groups for forest restoration projects that are designed through a collaborative process. The projects must be in New Mexico, and may be entirely on, or on any combination of, Federal, tribal, State, county, or municipal forest lands. The CFRP supports the development of cost effective restoration activities; empowers diverse organizations to implement activities that value local and traditional knowledge; builds ownership and civic pride; and contributes to the restoration of healthy, diverse, and productive forests and watersheds.

Seven representatives including a New Mexico State Natural Resource agency, at least two Federal land management agencies, at least one tribe or pueblo, and an equal number of commodity interests, and local communities will be appointed by the Secretary to serve 2 to 3 year terms. Vacancies will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made.

To be considered for membership on the Panel nominees must be United States citizens and be at least 18 years of age. The public is invited to submit nominations for membership on the Panel, either as a self-nomination or a nomination of any qualified and interested person. The appointment of members to the Panel is made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the above Panel vacancies. To be considered for membership, nominees must provide the following:

1. Resume describing qualifications for membership to the Panel;

2. Cover letter with a rationale for serving on the Panel and what you can contribute; and

3. Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information. The Form AD-755 may be obtained from the DFO or from the Panel's Web site. The Form AD-755 and resume should address the following evaluation criteria:

(a) Knowledge of forest management issues in New Mexico;

(b) Experience working with government planning process;

(c) Knowledge and understanding of the various cultures and communities in New Mexico;

(d) Ability to actively participate in diverse team settings; and

(e) Demonstrated skill in working toward mutually beneficial solutions to complex issues.

Letter of recommendations are welcome. All nominations will be vetted by USDA. A list of qualified applicants from which the Secretary of Agriculture shall appoint members to the Panel will be prepared. Members of the Panel will serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Panel, subject to approval by the DFO.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA policies shall be followed in all appointments to the Panel. To ensure that the recommendations of the Panel have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership will, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Provide updates regarding status of Secure Rural Schools Title II program and funding; and

2. Review and recommend projects eligible for 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 March 4, 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 to make oral comments must be sent to Lynn Wright, RAC Coordinator, Six Rivers NF Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, California 95501; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 707-445-8677.

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, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

In accordance with the provisions of FACA, the Secretary of Agriculture is seeking nominations to fill four positions that will occur when current appointments expire in December 2015. The purpose of the Council is to continue: (a) Developing a National Urban and Community Forestry Action Plan; (b) evaluating the implementation of that plan; and (c) developing criteria for, and submitting recommendations with respect to the National Urban and Community Forestry Challenge Cost-Share Grant Program.

The Council was created to draw representative members from all levels of government, citizen action groups, industry and trade associations, educational institutions, and national non-profit organizations to advise the Secretary.

Members appointed to the Council will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented, functions to be performed, and will represent a broad array of expertise, leadership and relevancy to a membership position. Geographic balance and a balanced distribution among the positions are also important. Representatives from the following positions will be appointed by the Secretary for a term of 3 years:

(1) One of two members representing a national non-profit forestry and/or conservation citizen organization;

(2) A member representing city or town government;

(3) A member representing academic institutions with an expertise in urban and community forestry activities (first of two); and

(4) A member representing populations less than 50,000 who have experience and are active in urban and community forestry. They may not be officers or employees of any government body.

Vacancies will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made.

The appointment of members to the Council will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture from a list of qualified applicants. The public is invited to submit nominations for membership on the Council, either as a self-nomination or a nomination of any qualified and interested person. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the above vacancies on the Council. To be considered for membership, nominees must provide the following:

1. Resume describing qualifications for membership to the Council;

2. Cover letter with a rationale for serving on the Council and what you can contribute; and

3. Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information. The Form AD-755 may be obtained from the Forest Service point of contact or from the Council's Web site.

Letters of recommendation are welcome. All nominations will be vetted by USDA. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit nominations via overnight mail or delivery to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. Members of the Council will serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Council, subject to approval by the Designated Federal Officer. Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA policies shall be followed in all appointments to the Council. To ensure that the recommendations of the Council have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership will, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Landscape Scale Forest Stewardship Plans;

2. Future of forest nurseries; and

3. Finalize April agenda.

The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting 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 time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250; or by email to [email protected]. A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 21 days after the meeting.

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, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is for:

1. Project presentations; and

2. To review monitoring reports.

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 19, 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 to make oral comments must be sent to Joni Lubke, RAC Coordinator, 1801 N. 1st Street, Hamilton, Montana 59840; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-363-7159.

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 Petitions

On January 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road tires) from India, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and Sri Lanka, filed in proper form on behalf of Titan Tire Corporation (Titan) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) (collectively, Petitioners).1 The CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions for India and the PRC.2 Petitioners are a domestic producer of off road tires and a recognized union, which represents the domestic industry engaged in the manufacture of off road tires in the United States.3

On January 12, 2016, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.4 Petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 14, 2016,5 and provided further clarification regarding scope on January 20, 2016.6 On January 21, 2016, ATC Tires Private Ltd. and Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. (collectively, Alliance) provided comments on domestic industry support and requested that the Department poll the domestic industry with respect to the Petitions.7 On January 22, 2016, Petitioners provided a response to Alliance's comments on industry support and request for polling.8 Alliance provided additional comments on January 28, 2016.9 On January 27, 2016, the Department determined to toll all deadlines four business days as a result of the Federal Government closure during snowstorm “Jonas”, applicable to this initiation.

As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the initiation of these CVD investigations is now February 3, 2016.10

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of India (GOI), the Government of China (GOC), and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) are providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of off road tires from India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegation.

The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.11

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), because the Petitions were filed on January 8, 2016, the period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, for India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka.

The product covered by these investigations is off road tires from India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice. As explained in more detail in Appendix I, the scope of the PRC investigation is narrower than the scope of the investigations from India and Sri Lanka because the PRC investigation excludes any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the PRC.12

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.13

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,14 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties, and if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 4, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must also be filed on the record of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).15 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOI, GOC, and GOSL of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOI, GOC, and GOSL the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions.

Consultations were held in Washington, DC with representatives of GOSL on January 14, 2016, and with representatives from GOI on January 28, 2016.16 The GOC did not accept our invitation to hold consultations before the initiation.17 All invitation letters and memoranda regarding these consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,18 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.19

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that off road tires constitute a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.20

In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided Titan's production of the domestic like product in 2015 and estimated the 2015 production for each remaining U.S. producer of off road tires, by plant. Petitioners based their estimates of 2015 off road tire production by plant on daily plant-specific production capacity data published in Modern Tire Dealer. Petitioners multiplied the daily production capacity data by 360 (to estimate annual capacity) and then multiplied the annual production capacity for each plant by Titan's capacity utilization rate, which Petitioners believe is representative of the U.S. off road tires industry (to estimate domestic production by each plant). To calculate industry support, Petitioners added Titan's 2015 production of the domestic like product to the estimated 2015 production of the domestic like product for those plants represented by the USW, and divided the result by the estimated production of the domestic like product in 2015 for the entire U.S. off road tires industry.21 We relied on the data Petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.22

On January 21, 2016, we received comments on industry support from ATC Tires Private Ltd. and Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. (collectively, Alliance), an Indian producer of the subject merchandise and its U.S. importer.23 Petitioners responded to these comments on January 22, 2016.24 Alliance submitted additional industry support comments on January 28, 2016.25 For further discussion of these comments, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, and Sri Lanka CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

On January 21, 2016, we received comments on industry support from Alliance, an Indian producer of the subject merchandise and its U.S. importer.26 Petitioners responded to these comments on January 22, 2016.27 Alliance submitted additional industry support comments on January 28, 2016.28 For further discussion of these comments, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, and Sri Lanka CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, letters from Alliance and Petitioners, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.29 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers and workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).30 Second, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.31 Finally, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.32 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.33

Because India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise must exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent, except that imports of subject merchandise from developing countries in CVD investigations must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent, pursuant to section 771(24)(B) of the Act. Petitioners demonstrate that imports from India and Sri Lanka, which have been designated as least-developed countries under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the four percent negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.34

With regard to the PRC, Petitioners argue that the covered tires are entered under at least fifteen basket categories that do not permit the imports to be reliably quantified based on publicly available data. Accordingly, the data do not show whether imports from the PRC meet the statutory requirements for negligibility. However, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that (1) there is a reasonable indication that data obtained in the ITC's investigation will establish that imports exceed the negligibility threshold,35 and (2) there is the potential that imports from the PRC will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold. Petitioners' arguments regarding the limitations of publicly available import data and the collection of scope-specific import data in the ITC's investigation are consistent with the SAA. Furthermore, Petitioners' arguments regarding the potential for imports to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.

Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; decline in shipments, production, and capacity utilization; underselling and price suppression or depression; reduced employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and decline in financial performance.36 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.37

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party filed a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations.

Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of off road tires in India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOI, GOC, and GOSL, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of off road tires from India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka receive countervailable subsidies from the GOI, GOC, and GOSL, respectively.

On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.38 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.39 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.40

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 27 of the 29 alleged programs in India.41 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist.

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 38 alleged programs in the PRC.42 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist.

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 16 of the 22 alleged programs in Sri Lanka.43 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see Sri Lanka CVD Initiation Checklist.

A public version of the initiation checklists for each investigation is available on ACCESS.

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Petitioners named six companies as producers/exporters of off road tires from India and 17 from Sri Lanka.44 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, for the India and Sri Lanka CVD cases, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of off road tires during the periods of investigation under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the scope of Appendix I, below. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

Interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and/or respondent selection for India and Sri Lanka must do so within seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners named 28 companies as producers/exporters of off road tires.45 Because of the existing CVD order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the PRC, the Department is giving further consideration to the appropriate methodology for selecting respondents in this investigation.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOI, GOC, and GOSL via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of off road tires from India, the PRC, and Sri Lanka are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.46 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 47 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 48 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.49 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.50 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 51 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

The Petitions

On January 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India, filed in proper form on behalf of Titan Tire Corporation (Titan) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) (collectively, Petitioners).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by three countervailing duty (CVD) petitions for the PRC, India and Sri Lanka.2 Petitioners are a domestic producer of off road tires and a recognized union, which represents the domestic industry engaged in the manufacture of off road tires in the United States.3

On January 12, 2016, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the AD Petitions.4 Petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 14, 2016,5 provided further information regarding India on January 19, 2016,6 and provided further clarification regarding scope on January 20, 2016.7 On January 21, 2016, ATC Tires Private Ltd. and Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. (collectively, Alliance) provided comments on domestic industry support and requested that the Department poll the domestic industry with respect to the Petitions.8 On January 22, 2016, Petitioners provided a response to Alliance's comments on industry support and request for polling.9 Alliance provided additional comments on January 28, 2016.10 On January 27, 2016, the Department determined to toll all deadlines four business days as a result of the Federal Government closure during snowstorm “Jonas”, applicable to this initiation.

As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the initiation of these AD investigations is now February 3, 2016.11

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of off road tires from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.

The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petitions were filed on January 8, 2016, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, for India and July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, for the PRC.

The product covered by these investigations is off road tires from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice. As explained in more detail in Appendix I, the scope of the PRC investigation is narrower than the scope of the investigation from India because the PRC investigation excludes any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the PRC.13

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.14

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,15 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 4, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).16 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of off road tires to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe off road tires, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, February 29, 2016.17 All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of both the India and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,18 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.19

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that off road tires constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.20

In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided Titan's production of the domestic like product in 2015 and estimated the 2015 production for each remaining U.S. producer of off road tires, by plant. Petitioners based their estimates of 2015 off road tire production by plant on daily plant-specific production capacity data published in Modern Tire Dealer. Petitioners multiplied the daily production capacity data by 360 (to estimate annual capacity) and then multiplied the annual production capacity for each plant by Titan's capacity utilization rate, which Petitioners believe is representative of the U.S. off road tires industry (to estimate domestic production by each plant). To calculate industry support, Petitioners added Titan's 2015 production of the domestic like product to the estimated 2015 production of the domestic like product for those plants represented by the USW, and divided the result by the estimated production of the domestic like product in 2015 for the entire U.S. off road tires industry.21 We relied on data Petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.22

On January 21, 2016, we received comments on industry support from Alliance, an Indian producer of the subject merchandise and its U.S. importer.23 Petitioners responded to these comments on January 22, 2016.24 Alliance submitted additional industry support comments on January 28, 2016.25 For further discussion of these comments, see the India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, letters from Alliance and Petitioners, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.26 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers and workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).27 Second, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.28 Finally, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.29 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.30

Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, with regard to India, Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.31

With regard to the PRC, Petitioners argue that the covered tires are entered under at least fifteen basket categories that do not permit the imports to be reliably quantified based on publicly available data. Accordingly, the data do not show whether imports from the PRC meet the statutory requirements for negligibility. However, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that (1) there is a reasonable indication that data obtained in the ITC's investigation will establish that imports exceed the negligibility threshold,32 and (2) there is the potential that imports from the PRC will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold. Petitioners' arguments regarding the limitations of publicly available import data and the collection of scope-specific import data in the ITC's investigation are consistent with the SAA. Furthermore, Petitioners' arguments regarding the potential for imports from the PRC to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.

Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; decline in shipments, production, and capacity utilization; underselling and price suppression or depression; reduced employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and decline in financial performance.33 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.34

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair-value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of off road tires from India and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For India, Petitioners based U.S. prices on price quotes to customers in the United States for off road tires produced in, and exported from, India by both Alliance Tire Group and Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT).35 Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses.36 Petitioners also deducted from U.S. price brokerage and handling expenses.37

Petitioners based U.S. price on an export price (EP) derived from import data for wheel and tire assemblies (i.e., tires mounted on wheels) of farm wagons and carts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule sub-heading 8716.9010.20 as obtained from the ITC's Trade DataWeb.38 Because these data were for wheel and tire assemblies, in order to derive a comparison U.S. price for tires only, Petitioners selected four Titan (i.e., one of the petitioning entities) models of tires sold in assembilies that are most similar to those PRC tires that were imported as part of assemblies under HTS 8716.9010.20. Using Titan's actual sales of these assemblies during the POI, Petitioners calculated ratios for both the portion of weight attributable to the tires and the portion of the per-kilogram price attributable to tires in these four assemblies.39 After deducting unrebated export tax and foreign brokerage and handling from the HTS 8716.9010.20 import data to determine the EP for assembilies,40 Petitioners applied the calculated ratios to the adjusted U.S. price for assemblies in order to derive a comparison U.S. price for tires only.41

In addition, Petitioners obtained 13 free-on-board (FOB) PRC prices from publicly-available internet sources of certain subject wheel and tire assemblies.42 Similarly, Petitioners matched each product in the internet price quotes with Titan assembly sales that included a tire that was closest in size to the model in the internet price quote and calculated ratios for price and weight attributable to tires based on Titan's assembly sales.43 After deducting unrebated export tax, foreign brokerage and handling, and inland freight from the factory to the port of export,44 Petitioners applied the calculated ratios to the adjusted price quotes of assemblies in order to derive comparison U.S. prices for tires only.45

Petitioners valued foreign brokerage and handling and foreign inland truck freight based on data reported in the Doing Business 2016: Thailand. 46 The Department corrected for a conversion error in the calculation of per kilogram per kilometer truck freight as submitted by Petitioners.47

For India, Petitioners asserted that they were unable to obtain pricing data for off road tires sold in the home or third country markets.48 Consequently, pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, Petitioners relied on constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV.49

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; packing expenses, and profit. Petitioners calculated COM based on a U.S. producer's experience adjusted for known differences between the industry in the United States and the industry in India during the proposed POI.50 Using publicly available data to account for price differences, Petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture off road tires in India.51 The U.S. producer's labor cost was adjusted to reflect the experience of BKT, an Indian producer of off road tires, based on BKT's March 31, 2015 audited financial statements. To determine fixed overhead (including energy and packing material costs), SG&A, financial expenses, and profit, Petitioners again relied on BKT's March 31, 2015, financial statements.52

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners stated that the Department has found the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every administrative proceeding in which the PRC has been involved.53 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration.54

Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Petitioners based the FOPs for materials and labor on Titan's consumption rates for producing off road tires.55 Petitioners note that Titan's production process is comparable to that of producers of mounted off road tires in the PRC.56 Petitioners valued the estimated factors of production using surrogate values from Thailand.57

For direct materials, Petitioners valued certain rubber components based on the daily prices of natural rubber published by the Rubber Research Institute of Thailand from July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015 and other inputs based on publicly-available data for Thai imports obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period covering June 2015 through November 2015, the most POI-contemporaneous data available at the time the Petition was filed.58 Petitioners excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country. The Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioners are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

Petitioners valued labor using quarterly Thai labor data published by Thailand's National Statistics Office (NSO).59 Specifically, Petitioners relied on data pertaining to wages and benefits earned by Thai workers engaged in the manufacturing sector of the Thai economy. Petitioners converted the wage rates to hourly and converted to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.

Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead (including energy), SG&A expenses, and profit) using the audited financial statements of S. R. Tyres Co., Ltd., Hihero Co., Ltd., and Hwa Fong Rubber, as used in the 2013-2014 administrative review of the existing antidumping order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from the PRC.60

Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of off road tires from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for off road tires from India range from 10.77 to 76.45 percent.61 Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for off road tires from the PRC range from 11.20 to 77.69 percent.62

Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on off road tires from India and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of off road tires from India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.63 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.64 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.65

Petitioners named six companies from India as producers/exporters of subject off road tires.66 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, for the India AD case, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation” section above. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

Interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and/or respondent selection for India must do so within seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

With respect to the PRC, Petitioners named 124 companies as producers/exporters of off road tires.67 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation 68 and base respondent selection on the responses received, ensuring that potential overlap with products covered by the existing AD and CVD orders is eliminated. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

Exporters/producers of off road tires from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Department will establish an exact deadline by which Q&V responses must be submitted in the questionnaire itself, as subsequently released to potential respondents and posted to the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.69 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.70 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of India and the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of off road tires from India and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.72 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 73 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 74 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.75 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http:// www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.76 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.77 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

On October 1, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD Order 1 on coated paper from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On October 15, 2015, the Department received a notice of intent to participate in the review on behalf of Verso Corporation (Verso), S.D. Warren Company d/b/a Sappi North America (Sappi), Appleton Coated LLC (Appleton), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) (collectively, the petitioners) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1). Verso, Sappi, and Appleton claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic producers of the domestic like product. The USW claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(D) of the Act as a certified union or recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of a domestic like product.

The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from the Government of the PRC or any respondent interested party to the proceeding. Because the Department received no response from the respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD Order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2).

As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results of this expedited sunset review is now March 4, 2016.3

The merchandise subject to the order is certain coated paper from the People's Republic of China. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 4810.39, 4810.92, 4810.29.1035, 4810.29.7035, 4810.92.1235, 4810.92.1435, and 4810.92.6535.

For a full description of the scope, see “Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China,” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this final notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), and hereby adopted by this notice.

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the CVD Order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD Order on coated paper from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On September 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain lined paper products from India.1 On September 30, 2015, Navneet Education Ltd. (Navneet) and Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited (Kokuyo) filed timely requests for reviews.2 No other interested party submitted a review request for Navneet and Kokuyo. The Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty administrative review, which included Navneet and Kokuyo, for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.3

On November 16, 2015, Navneet submitted a timely withdrawal of its review request.4 On December 8, 2015, Kokuyo submitted a timely withdrawal of its review request.5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department published the Initiation on November 9, 2015. Navneet's and Kokuyo's withdrawal requests were submitted within the 90-day period following the publication of the Initiation and, thus, are timely. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) we are rescinding this review of the countervailing duty order on certain lined paper products from India with respect to Navneet and Kokuyo, which requested an administrative review. The Petitioners 6 in the review did not request a review of any Indian company.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On October 1, 2015, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the AD Orders 1 on certain iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).2 On October 21, 2015, D&L Foundry, Inc., EJ USA, Inc. (formerly known as “East Jordan Iron Works, Inc.”), Neenah Foundry Company, and U.S. Foundry and Manufacturing Corp. (Petitioners) notified the Department of their intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as producers of a domestic like product in the United States.

On November 2, 2015, the Department received complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation, with respect to the Orders, from Petitioners within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and the PRC.

As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended four business days.4

The merchandise covered by the order consists of certain iron construction castings from Brazil, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item under 7325.10.0010; and to valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as light castings under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description remains dispositive.

The merchandise covered by the order consists of certain iron construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, clean-out covers, and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under HTS item number 7325.10.0010. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description remains dispositive.

The products covered by the order are certain iron construction castings from the PRC, limited to manhole covers, rings and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and drains used for drainage or access purposes for public utilities, water and sanitary systems; and valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water or gas meters. These articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the HTS item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.

A complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.5 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The Issues and 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 http://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 Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and the PRC would likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 58.74 percent for Brazil, up to 25.52 percent for the PRC, and above de minimis for Canada.

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

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council requested that each CR Program cooperative, after developing and implementing the measures to stimulate acquisition of crab quota share by crew and other active participants and to stimulate equitable crew compensation, voluntarily provide an annual report summarizing the effectiveness of each measure and the estimated number of participants in each measure, supported by documentation.

Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email, mail, and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0678.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 300.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $40.

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.

Agenda

The Shrimp Advisory Panel will elect a chair and vice chair. It will also discuss the biological review of the Texas Closure; review penaeid shrimp stock assessment updates; review the status of Shrimp Amendment 17A; review and discuss Shrimp Amendment 17B including the MSY OY working group progress/recommendations; review proposed coral habitat areas of particular concern; and may discuss other business.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulf guest.” Click on the “Library Folder,” then scroll down to “Shrimp AP Meeting March 2016.”

The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Shrimp Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Shrimp Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

Background: Congress recognized the potential wide-ranging benefits of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations within the United States in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), which requires a plan to safely integrate civil UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) by 2015. On February 15, 2015, President Obama issued the Presidential Memorandum “Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” 1 The Presidential Memorandum establishes a “multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop and communicate best practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the NAS.” 2 The process includes stakeholders from industry, civil society, and academia, and will be initiated by the Department of Commerce, through NTIA, and in consultation with other interested agencies. On August 3, 2015, NTIA convened the first meeting of the multistakeholder process, followed by additional meetings through November 2015.

Matters To Be Considered: The February 24, 2016 meeting is a continuation of a series of NTIA-convened multistakeholder discussions concerning privacy, transparency, and accountability issues regarding commercial and private use of UAS. Additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop best practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the NAS. The February 24, 2016 meeting will build on stakeholders' previous work. More information about stakeholders' work is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems.

Time and Date: NTIA will convene a meeting of the multistakeholder process regarding unmanned aircraft systems on February 24, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting date and time are subject to change. The meeting is subject to cancelation if stakeholders complete their work developing best practices. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems, for the most current information.

Place: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems, for the most current information.

Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to John Verdi at (202) 482-8238 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. The meeting will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to John Verdi at (202) 482-8238 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meeting through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meeting are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems, for the most current information.

I. Background

Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_charter-of-the-consumer-advisory-board.pdf) (Dodd-Frank Act) provides: “The Director shall establish a Consumer Advisory Board to advise and consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws, and to provide information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products or services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information.” 12 U.S.C. 5494.

(a) The purpose of the Board is outlined in Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_charter-of-the-consumer-advisory-board.pdf), which states that the Board shall “advise and consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws” and “provide information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products or services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information.” (b) To carry out the Board's purpose, the scope of its activities shall include providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the Bureau. The Board will generally serve as a vehicle for market intelligence and expertise for the Bureau. Its objectives will include identifying and assessing the impact on consumers and other market participants of new, emerging, and changing products, practices, or services. (c) The Board will also be available to advise and consult with the Director and the Bureau on other matters related to the Bureau's functions under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Consumer Advisory Board will discuss the Bureau's strategic outlook 2016-2017 and Financial Well-Being.

Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact [email protected], 202-435-9EEO, 1-855-233-0362, or 202-435-9742 (TTY) at least ten business days prior to the meeting or event to request assistance. The request must identify the date, time, location, and title of the meeting or event, the nature of the assistance requested, and contact information for the requester. CFPB will strive to provide, but cannot guarantee that accommodation will be provided for late requests.

Individuals who wish to attend the Consumer Advisory Board meeting must RSVP to [email protected] by noon, February 25, 2016. Members of the public must RSVP by the due date and must include “CAB” in the subject line of the RSVP.

The Board's agenda will be made available to the public on February 10, 2016, via consumerfinance.gov. Individuals should express in their RSVP if they require a paper copy of the agenda.

A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site consumerfinance.gov.

I. Purpose

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to the demand, supply, use, and costs of rare earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. DOE is specifically interested in information on the materials and technologies in the following table, as well as other materials of interest identified by the respondents to this request that are used in energy technologies:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well marked copies: one copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

I. General Information A. Does this notice apply to me?

This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 60, 61, and 63, state, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA Regional offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.

You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html.

Broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions made by the EPA in 2015 under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP, 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 are identified in this notice (see Table 1). Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods subject to their specific applicability in lieu of otherwise specified reference test methods. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods does not change the applicable emission standards.

As explained in a previous Federal Register notice published at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007) and located at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html, the EPA Administrator has the authority to approve the use of alternative test methods to comply with requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. This authority is found in sections 60.8(b)(3), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), and 63.7(e)(2)(ii). A similar authority is granted in 40 CFR part 65 under section 65.158(a)(2). In the past, we have performed thorough technical reviews of numerous source-specific requests for alternatives and modifications to test methods and procedures. Based on these reviews, we have often found that these changes or alternatives would be equally valid and appropriate to apply to other sources within a particular class, category, or subcategory. Consequently, we have concluded that, where a method modification or an alternative method is clearly broadly applicable to a class, category, or subcategory of sources, it is both more equitable and efficient to approve its use for all appropriate sources and situations at the same time.

It is important to clarify that alternative methods are not mandatory but permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate circumstances. Source owners or operators should review the specific broadly applicable alternative method approval decision at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html before electing to employ it. As per section 63.7(f)(5), by electing to use an alternative method for 40 CFR part 63 standards, the source owner or operator must continue to use the alternative method until approved otherwise.

The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are outlined at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007). We will continue to announce approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html and publish a notice annually that summarizes approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods.

This notice comprises a summary of five such approval documents posted to our Technology Transfer Network dated between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. The alternative method decision letter/memo number, the reference method affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and the modification or alternative method allowed are summarized in Table 1 of this notice. Please refer to the complete copies of these approval documents available at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html, as Table 1 serves only as a brief summary of the broadly applicable alternative test methods.

If you are aware of reasons why a particular alternative test method approval that we issued should not be broadly applicable or that its use should in some way be limited, we request that you make us aware of the reasons in writing, and we will revisit the broad approval. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection, will be announced at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html and in the subsequent Federal Register notice. If we decide to retract a broadly applicable test method, we would continue to grant case-by-case approvals, as appropriate, and would (as states, local and tribal agencies and the EPA Regional offices should) consider the need for an appropriate transition period for users either to request case-by-case approval or to transition to an approved method.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

The Agency included in the January 13, 2016, notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by the following docket identification (ID) number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0324 for Fluxapyroxad is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

This document reopens the public comment period for the Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses notice, which was published in the Federal Register of January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1625) (FRL-9941-24). EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 15 days because EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provision of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

FR Doc. 2016-00537 published in the Federal Register of January 13, 2016, (81 FR 1625) (FRL-9941-24) is corrected as follows:

On page 1625, second column, under the heading Registration Applications, the first paragraph, correct to read “EPA has received an application to register pesticide products containing an active ingredient included in currently registered pesticides products.”

The National Advisory Committee and the Governmental Advisory Committee advise the EPA Administrator in her capacity as the U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. The Committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The Committees are responsible for providing advice to the United States Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC. The National Advisory Committee consists of 15 representatives from environmental non-profit groups, business and industry, and educational institutions. The Governmental Advisory Committee consists of 14 representatives from state, local, and tribal governments. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a two-year term. The committees usually meet 3 times per year and the average workload for committee members is approximately 10 to 15 hours per month. Members serve on the committees in a voluntary capacity. Although we are unable to provide compensation or an honorarium for your services, you may receive travel and per diem allowances, according to applicable federal travel regulations. EPA is seeking nominations from various sectors, i.e., for the NAC we are seeking nominees from academia, business and industry, and non-governmental organizations; for the GAC we are seeking nominees from state, local and tribal government sectors. Nominees will be considered according to the mandates of FACA, which requires committees to maintain diversity across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, and groups. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:

• Professional knowledge of the subjects examined by the committees, including trade and environment issues, the NAFTA, the NAAEC, and the CEC.

• Represent a sector or group involved in trilateral environmental policy issues.

• Senior-level experience in the sectors represented on both committees.

• A demonstrated ability to work in a consensus building process with a wide range of representatives from diverse constituencies.

Nominations must include a resume and a short biography describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate. Anyone interested in being considered for nomination is encouraged to submit their application materials by March 4, 2016. To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity. Please be aware that EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed for two-year terms.

This action is directed to the general public. However, this action may be of particular interest to parties who submit or have previously submitted a small refinery exemption petition to the EPA under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program as described in 40 CFR part 80, subpart M. If you have further questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular party, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The EPA has established a public docket for this Federal Register notice under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0546.

All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as confidential business information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain materials, such as copyrighted material, will only be available in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center.

Materials listed under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0546 will be available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

The RFS program as established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 exempted small refineries from the renewable fuel standards through December 31, 2010. After this initial period, the statute allows that small refineries may, on a case-by-case basis, petition the EPA for an extension of their exemption. The EPA may approve such petitions if it finds that disproportionate economic hardship exists. The EPA continues to implement these provisions. In evaluating such petitions, the EPA must consult with the Department of Energy (DOE), and must consider the findings of the DOE study required under CAA 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and other economic factors. Historically, companies seeking a small refinery exemption have claimed their petitions to be CBI. Information submitted under such a claim is handled in accordance with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B and in accordance with EPA procedures, including comprehensive system security plans (SSPs) that are consistent with those regulations. When the EPA has determined that disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contractors is necessary, the corresponding contract must address the appropriate use and handling of the information by the contractor and the contractor must require its personnel who require access to information claimed as CBI to sign written non-disclosure agreements before they are granted access to data.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), we have determined that the contractor listed below requires access to CBI submitted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act and in connection with the RFS program (40 CFR part 80, subpart M). We are issuing this Federal Register notice to inform all affected submitters of information that we plan to grant access to material that may be claimed as CBI to the contractors identified below on a need-to-know basis.

Under DOE Contract Number 5F-32501, Stillwater Associates, 3 Rainstar, Irvine, California 92614, has provided and will continue to provide technical support that involves access to information claimed as CBI related to 40 CFR part 80, subpart M. Access to data, including information claimed as CBI, will commence immediately upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue indefinitely as the Agency expects to receive additional petitions for small refinery exemptions for future annual program compliance periods. If the contract is extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the contract without further notice.

Parties who wish further information about this Federal Register notice or about OTAQ's disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contactors may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Environmental protection; Confidential business information.

The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), in part to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. EPA is currently reviewing the secondary (welfare-based) ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and has requested CASAC advice.

Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Panel for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur will hold a public teleconference to discuss its draft peer review report and the Chartered CASAC will discuss the disposition of the panel's report at the end of the teleconference. The Chartered CASAC and CASAC Secondary NAAQS Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for the Secondary (welfare-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur should be directed to Ms. Ginger Tennant ([email protected]), EPA Office Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the teleconference, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the “Upcoming and Recent Meetings” link located at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Dr. Sue Shallal, DFO, or Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by February 25, 2016 to be placed on the list of public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by February 25, 2016 so that the information may be made available to the Panel members for their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Sue Shallal at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Shallal or Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 11 respondents; 11 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours (15 minutes).

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 3 hours.

Total Annual Costs: No cost.

Obligation to Respond: Required in order to monitor regulatory compliance. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4, 303, 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The information collection imposes a notification requirement on certain small cable systems that become ineligible for exemption from the requirement to carry high definition broadcast signals in HD (adopted in FCC 15-65). In particular, the information collection requires that, beginning December 12, 2016, at the time a small cable system utilizing the HD carriage exemption offers any programming in HD, the system must give notice that it is offering HD programming to all broadcast stations in its market that are carried on its system. Cable operators must also keep records of such notification. This information collection requirement allows affected broadcast stations to monitor compliance with the requirement that cable operators transmit high definition broadcast signals in HD.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0010.

Title: Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, FCC Form 323.

Form Number: FCC Form 323.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 9,250 respondents; 9,250 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5 hours to 4.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; biennially reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 38,125 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $26,940,000.

Nature of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 310 and 533 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Form 323 collects two types of information from respondents: Personal information in the form of names, addresses, job titles and demographic information; and FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs).

The system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-1, “Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations,” which was approved on December 21, 2009 (74 FR 59978) covers the collection, purposes(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on FCC Form 323. FCC Form 323 is drafting a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.

FRNs are assigned to applicants who complete FCC Form 160 (OMB Control No. 3060-0917). Form 160 requires applicants for FRNs to provide their Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) and/or Social Security Number (SSN). The FCC's electronic CORES Registration System then provides each registrant with a FCC Registration Number (FRN), which identifies the registrant in his/her subsequent dealings with the FCC. This is done to protect the individual's privacy. The Commission maintains a SORN, FCC/OMD-9, “Commission Registration System (CORES)” to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on FCC Form 160. FCC Form 160 includes a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The Commission is drafting a Privacy Impact Assessment for the PII that is covered by FCC/MB-1 SORN. Upon completion of the PIA, it will be posted on the FCC Web page, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum, M-03-22 (September 22, 2003).

Needs and Uses: Licensees of commercial AM, FM, and full power television broadcast stations, as well as licensees of Class A and Low Power Television stations must file FCC Form 323 every two years. Ownership Reports shall provide information accurate as of October 1 of the year in which the Report is filed. Thereafter, the Form shall be filed biennially beginning November 1, 2011, and every two years thereafter.

Also, Licensees and Permittees of commercial AM, FM, or full power television stations must file Form 323 following the consummation of a transfer of control or an assignment of a commercial AM, FM, or full power television station license or construction permit; a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM or full power television broadcast station must file Form 323 within 30 days after the grant of the construction permit; and a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM, or full power television broadcast station must file Form 323 to update the initial report or to certify the continuing accuracy and completeness of the previously filed report on the date that the Permittee applies for a license to cover the construction permit.

In the case of organizational structures that include holding companies or other forms of indirect ownership, a separate FCC Form 323 must be filed for each entity in the organizational structure that has an attributable interest in the Licensee if the filing is a nonbiennial filing or a reportable interest in the Licensee if the filing is a biennial filing.

We are requesting the three year extension of this information collection.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1042.

Title: Request for Technical Support—Help Request Form.

Form No.: N/A—Electronic only.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or household; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 36,300 respondents and 36,300 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes (0.14 hours).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 5,082 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $609,840.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Possible Impacts.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. On a case by case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites. Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this collection as an extension (no change in frequency of recordkeeping or reporting requirements) to the OMB after this 60 day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

The FCC's maintains Internet software used by the public to apply for licenses, participate in auctions for spectrum, and maintain license information. In this mission, FCC has a `help desk' that answers questions related to these systems as well as resetting and/or issuing user passwords for access to these systems. The form currently is available on the Web site https://esupport.fcc.gov/request.htm under OMB Control Number 3060-1042. This form will continue to substantially decrease public and staff burden since all the information needed to facilitate a support request will be submitted in a standard format but be available to a wider audience. This eliminates or at least minimizes the need to follow-up with the customers to obtain all the information necessary to respond to their request. This form also helps presort requests into previously defined categories to all staff to respond more quickly.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1088.

Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, CG Docket No. 05-338, FCC 06-42.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; and Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,340,000 respondents; 6,054,155 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes (.05 hours) to 30 minutes (.50 hours).

Frequency of Response: Annual, monthly, and on occasion reporting requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; and Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The authorizing statutes for this information collection are: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Public Law 102-243. 105 Stat. 2394 (1991); Junk Fax Prevention Act, Public Law 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005).

Total Annual Burden: 3,672,250 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $928,042.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” which became effective on September 24, 2014.

Privacy Impact Assessment: The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Informal Complaints and Inquiries was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

Needs and Uses: On April 5, 2006, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, CG Docket Nos. 02-278 and 05-338, FCC 06-42, which modified the Commission's facsimile advertising rules to implement the Junk Fax Prevention Act. The Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration contained information collection requirements pertaining to: (1) Opt-out Notice and Do-Not-Fax Requests Recordkeeping in which the rules require senders of unsolicited facsimile advertisements to include a notice on the first page of the facsimile that informs the recipient of the ability and means to request that they not receive future unsolicited facsimile advertisements from the sender; (2) Established Business Relationship Recordkeeping whereas the Junk Fax Prevention Act provides that the sender, e.g., a person, business, or a nonprofit/institution, is prohibited from faxing an unsolicited advertisement to a facsimile machine unless the sender has an “established business relationship” (EBR) with the recipient; (3) Facsimile Number Recordkeeping in which the Junk Fax Prevention Act provides that an EBR alone does not entitle a sender to fax an advertisement to an individual or business. The fax number must also be provided voluntarily by the recipient; and (4) Express Invitation or Permission Recordkeeping where in the absence of an EBR, the sender must obtain the prior express invitation or permission from the consumer before sending the facsimile advertisement.

On October 14, 2008, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration, FCC 08-239, addressing certain issues raised in petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification filed in response to the Commission's Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration (Junk Fax Order), FCC 06-42. In document FCC 08-239, the Commission clarified that: (1) Facsimile numbers compiled by third parties on behalf of the facsimile sender will be presumed to have been made voluntarily available for public distribution so long as they are obtained from the intended recipient's own directory, advertisement, or Internet site; (2) reasonable steps to verify that a recipient has agreed to make available a facsimile number for public distribution may include methods other than direct contact with the recipient; and (3) a description of the facsimile sender's opt-out mechanism on the first Web page to which recipients are directed in the opt-out notice satisfies the requirement that such a description appear on the first page of the Web site.

The Commission believes these clarifications will assist senders of facsimile advertisements in complying with the Commission's rules in a manner that minimizes regulatory compliance costs while maintaining the protections afforded consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-46, coordinated party expenditure limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(2)-(3)) and the disclosure threshold for contributions bundled by lobbyists (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3)(A)) are adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the consumer price index. See 52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3), 30116(c)(1); 11 CFR 109.32, 110.17(a), (f). The Commission is publishing this notice to announce the adjusted limits and disclosure threshold for 2016.

Under 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 52 U.S.C. 30116(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974). 52 U.S.C. 30116(c).

Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives in states with more than one congressional district. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)(B). This limitation also applies to the District of Columbia and territories that elect individuals to the office of Delegate or Resident Commissioner.1 Id. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in such states and territories multiplies the base figure of $10,000 by the difference in the price index (4.80703), rounding to the nearest $100. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(c)(1)(B), (d)(3)(B); 11 CFR 109.32(b), 110.17. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2016 general elections for House candidates in these states, districts, and territories is $48,100.

The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Report title: Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms.

Agency form number: FR 2034.

OMB control number: 7100-0325.

Frequency: Up to six times a year.

Respondent types: U.S. banking institution and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Estimated annual burden hours: 660 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: 5 hours.

Number of respondents: 22.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is authorized by Sections 2A and 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225a, 248(a)(2), Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act, (12 U.S.C. 1844(c), and Section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act 3105(c)(2)) and is voluntary. The individual financial institution information provided by each respondent would be accorded confidential treatment under authority of exemption four of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4)).

Abstract: This voluntary survey collects qualitative and limited quantitative information from senior credit officers at responding financial institutions on (1) stringency of credit terms, (2) credit availability and demand across the entire range of securities financing and over-the-counter derivatives transactions, and (3) the evolution of market conditions and conventions applicable to such activities up to six times a year. Given the Federal Reserve's interest in financial stability, the information this survey collects is critical to the monitoring of credit markets and capital market activity. Aggregate survey results are made available to the public on the Federal Reserve Board Web site.1 In addition, selected aggregate survey results may be discussed in Governor's speeches, and may be published in Federal Reserve Bulletin articles and in the annual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress

Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend for three years, without revision, the Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (FR 2034).

Pursuant the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration efforts, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board is retiring one system of records notice: FRTIB-8, Board Member Files (last published at 77 FR 11534 (February 27, 2012)).

FRTIB will continue to collect and maintain records about FRTIB's Board Members, however, each of these records will be maintained as part of an existing FRTIB or Government-wide SORN. Ethics opinions, conflicts of interest waivers, and other programmatic files concerning Board Members will be maintained as part of Public and Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports and other ethics program records and will rely upon the existing government-wide systems of records entitled OGE/GOVT-1, Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports and Other Name-Retrieved Ethics Program Records (68 FR 24722, May 8, 2003). The FRTIB will maintain Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 450) for FRTIB's Board Members pursuant to OGE/GOVT-2, Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (68 FR 24722, May 8, 2003). Eliminating this notice will have no adverse impact on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management of FRTIB's Privacy Act record systems.

FRTIB is proposing to revise the purpose of and routine uses to FRTIB-7, Contractor and Consultant Records (last published at 77 FR 11534 (February 27, 2012)). FRTIB is proposing to amend the purpose as follows: “The purpose of this system of records is to collect and maintain records on FRTIB contractors and consultants.” FRTIB is also proposing technical amendments to the purpose of the system to reflect the fact that the system of records deals with sensitive FRTIB information.

FRTIB is proposing to add a routine use to this system of records to enable the Agency to disclose information to the United States Department of the Treasury to effect payments to consultants or to verify their eligibility to receive payment. FRTIB is also proposing to apply General Routine Uses G1 through G2; and G4 through G16 to FRTIB-7, Contractor and Consultant Records (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

FRTIB is proposing to correct and update the system name; system location; categories of individuals covered by the system; categories of records in the system; authority for maintenance of the system; purpose; routine uses; storage; retrievability; safeguards; retention and disposal; system manager and address; notification procedure; record access procedures; contesting records procedures; record source categories; and exemptions claimed for the system. FRTIB will no longer exempt FRTIB-7, Contractor and Consultant Records, under subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act.

FRTIB is proposing to revise the purpose of and routine uses to FRTIB-12, Debt Collection Records (last published at 77 FR 11534 (February 27, 2012)). FRTIB is proposing to clarify the purpose to cover the following types of individuals who could be indebted to the FRTIB: “participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the Thrift Savings Plan; current and former employees of the FRTIB; individuals who are consultants and vendors to FRTIB; and individuals who received payments to which they are not entitled.”

FRTIB is also proposing to reorder the routine uses for FRTIB-12, Debt Collection Records (this change is being made to all existing systems of records to the extent necessary to make all of FRTIB's notices uniform and to reflect the addition of FRTIB's general routine uses). FRTIB is proposing to add one system-specific routine use, to enable the Agency to disclose administrative wage garnishment information to the United States Department of the Treasury. Additionally, FRTIB is proposing to apply and sixteen general routine uses to apply to FRTIB-12, including G1 through G16 (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

FRTIB is proposing to correct and update the system name; system location; categories of individuals covered by the system; categories of records in the system; authority for maintenance of the system; purpose; routine uses; disclosure to consumer reporting agencies; storage; retrievability; safeguards; retention and disposal; system manager and address; notification procedure; record access procedures; contesting records procedures; and record source categories.

FRTIB is proposing to make technical and clarifying revisions to FRTIB-13, Fraud and Forgery Records (last published at 80 FR 43428 (July 22, 2015)). The FRTIB is planning to clarify that the purpose of the system includes an act of fraud relating to the Thrift Savings Fund.

FRTIB is also proposing to revise the system-specific routine use 2, to enable the Agency to disclose information used to verify allegations that a third party has misappropriated the FRTIB's (or TSP's) name, brand, or logos, to the Federal Trade Commission; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Additionally, FRTIB is proposing to make technical revisions to system-specific routine use 4, to clarify that this routine use also includes fraud or forgery committed against the Thrift Savings Fund. Finally, FRTIB is proposing to correct and update the categories of records in the system; purpose; and routine uses.

FRTIB is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled, “FRTIB-16, Congressional Correspondence Files.” The proposed system of records is necessary to assist the FRTIB's Office of External Affairs in maintaining, and responding to correspondence received from congressional offices.

Records maintained as part of FRTIB-16 include information about individuals who have corresponded with FRTIB: Name; dates of birth; Social Security numbers; TSP account; numbers; home and business address; email address; personal and business telephone numbers; who the correspondence is about; incoming correspondence; FRTIB's response; the FRTIB responder's name and business information; additional unsolicited personal information provided by the individual; and other related materials. FRTIB is proposing to add two system-specific routine uses and fourteen general routine uses to apply to FRTIB-16, including G1 through G2; G4 through G5; and G7 through G16 (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

FRTIB is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled, “FRTIB-17, Telework and Alternative Worksite Records.” The proposed system of records is necessary to enable the FRTIB to collect and maintain records on prospective, current, and former FRTIB employees who have participated in, presently participate in, or have sought to participate in FRTIB's Telework Program.

Files maintained as part of FRTIB-17 include: The name, position title, grade level, job series, and office name; official FRTIB duty station address and telephone number; alternative worksite address and telephone number(s); date telework agreement received and approved/denied; telework request and approval form; telework agreement; self-certification home safety checklist, and supervisor-employee checklist; type of telework requested (e.g., situational or core); regular work schedule; telework schedule; approvals/disapprovals; description and list of government-owned equipment and software provided to the teleworker; mass transit benefits received through FRTIB's mass transit subsidy program; parking subsidies received through FRTIB's subsidized parking program; and any other miscellaneous documents supporting telework.

FRTIB is proposing to add five system-specific routine uses and fourteen general routine uses to apply to FRTIB-17, including G1 through G2; G4 through G5; and G7 through G16 (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

FRTIB is proposing to establish a new system of record entitled, “FRTIB-18, Reasonable Accommodation Records.” The proposed system of records is necessary to allow FRTIB to collect and maintain records on prospective, current, and former employees with disabilities who request or receive a reasonable accommodation by FRTIB. The proposed system of records will also enable FRTIB to track and report the processing of requests for FRTIB-wide reasonable accommodations to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Finally, this system of records will enable FRTIB to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of medical information submitted by or on behalf of applicants or employees requesting a reasonable accommodation.

Files maintained as part of FRTIB-18 include: The name and employment of employees needing an accommodation; requestor's name and contact information (if different than the employee who needs an accommodation); date request was initiated; information concerning the nature of the disability and the need for accommodation, including appropriate medical documentation; details of the accommodation request, such as: Type of accommodation requested, how the requested accommodation would assist in job performance, the sources of technical assistance consulted in trying to identify alternative reasonable accommodation, any additional information provided by the requestor related to the processing of the request, and whether the request was approved or denied, and whether the accommodation was approved for a trial period; and notification(s) to the employee and his/her supervisor(s) regarding the accommodation.

FRTIB is proposing to add five system-specific routine uses and fifteen general routine uses to apply to FRTIB-18, including G1 through G5; and G7 through G16 (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

FRTIB is proposing to establish a new system of record entitled, “FRTIB-19, Freedom of Information Act Records.” The proposed system of records will enable the FRTIB to support the processing of record access requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), whether FRTIB receives such requests directly from the requestor or via referral from another agency. Additionally, this system will be used to support litigation arising from such requests and appeals, and to assist FRTIB in carrying out any other responsibilities under the FOIA.

Files maintained as part of FRTIB-19 include: Records received, created, or compiled in processing FOIA requests or appeals, including original requests and appeals; intra- or inter-agency memoranda; referrals; correspondence notes; fee schedules; assessments; cost calculations; and other documentation related to the referral and/or processing of the FOIA request or appeal; correspondence with the individuals or entities that submitted the requests; and copies of requested records. Additionally, the type of information in the records may include requestors' and their attorneys' or representatives' contact information; the contact information of FRTIB employees; the name of the individual subject of the request or appeal; fee determinations; unique case identifier; and other identifiers provided by a requestor about him or herself or about the individual whose records are requested.

FRTIB is proposing to add three system-specific routine uses and fifteen general routine uses to apply to FRTIB-19, including G1 through G2; and G4 through G16 (see Prefatory Statement of Routine Uses).

The following routine uses are incorporated by reference into various systems of records, as set forth below.

G1. Routine Use—Audit: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing an audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to FRTIB officers and employees.

G2. Routine Use—Breach Mitigation and Notification: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) FRTIB suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) FRTIB has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by FRTIB or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the FRTIB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

G3. Routine Use—Clearance Processing: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, background investigation, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a FRTIB decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit and when disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.

G4. Routine Use—Congressional Inquiries: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

G5. Routine Use—Contractors, et al.: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, the agents thereof, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for FRTIB, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to FRTIB officers and employees.

G6. Routine Use—Debt Collection: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, or to a consumer reporting agency for collection action on any delinquent debt, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12).

G7. Routine Use—Former Employees: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a former employee of the FRTIB, in accordance with applicable regulations, for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the FRTIB requires information or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.

G8. Routine Use—Investigations, Third Parties: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the third party officer making the disclosure.

G9. Routine Use—Investigations, Other Agencies: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign government agencies or multilateral governmental organizations for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty where FRTIB determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws.

G10. Routine Use—Law Enforcement Intelligence: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign government agency or organization, or international organization, lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence information, whether civil or criminal, or charged with investigating, prosecuting, enforcing or implementing civil or criminal laws, related rules, regulations or orders, to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities, including the collection of law enforcement intelligence.

G11. Routine Use—Law Enforcement Referrals: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.

G12. Routine Use—Litigation, DOJ or Outside Counsel: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice, FRTIB's outside counsel, other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when: (1) FRTIB, or (2) any employee of FRTIB in his or her official capacity, or (3) any employee of FRTIB in his or her individual capacity where DOJ or FRTIB has agreed to represent the employee, or (4) the United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and FRTIB determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which FRTIB collected the records.

G13. Routine Use—Litigation, Opposing Counsel: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena.

G14. Routine Use—NARA/Records Management: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other federal government agencies pursuant to the Federal Records Act.

G15. Routine Use—Redress: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign government agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity: (1) To assist in making a determination regarding redress for an individual in connection with the operations of a FRTIB program; (2) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking redress in connection with the operations of a FRTIB program; or (3) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested such redress on behalf of another individual.

G16. Routine Use—Security Threat: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies when FRTIB reasonably believes there to be a threat or potential threat to national or international security for which the information may be useful in countering the threat or potential threat, when FRTIB reasonably believes such use is to assist in anti-terrorism efforts, and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure.

G17. Routine Use—Testing: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations where FRTIB is aware of a need to utilize relevant data for purposes of testing new technology and systems designed to enhance security or identify other violations of law.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposal of these two systems of records. A report on the proposed systems has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their awareness.

The health care system is complex and demanding. Health care organizations can help patients to succeed in the health care environment by ensuring that patients and caregivers are able to understand health information, navigate the health care system, engage in the health care process, and take an active and effective role in the management of their health.

This Request for Measures is part of a project that aims to:

• Identify existing measures that organizations use or could use to monitor progress related to the four domains described above; and,

• Refine and cull identified measures to establish a set of measures that reflects patient priorities, has expert support, and will be recommended for more formal measure development and testing.

The project focuses on identifying measures that are not generated from patient survey data.

The project is guided by a conceptual framework that builds on the concept of organizational health literacy. As described in the Institute of Medicine's Roundtable on Health Literacy, organizational health literacy is the “implementation and monitoring of organizational policies, practices, and structures that support patients in understanding health information, navigating the health care system, and managing their health” (Brach et al. 2012). The conceptual framework identifies four domains as key components of organizational health literacy.

1. Communication (e.g., the quality of verbal and written communication with patients, families, caregivers)

2. Ease of Navigation (e.g., the degree to which an organization's physical environment and systems of care are designed in a manner that simplifies navigation and use of services)

3. Patient Engagement and Self-Management (e.g., the degree to which an organization encourages patient engagement and provides support to enhance the ability of patients to manage their health)

4. Organizational Structure, Policy, and Leadership (e.g., leadership support for organizational health literacy; implementation of policies, procedures, and structures that serve to improve communication with patients, simplify patient navigation, and enhance patient engagement and self-management)

Quality improvement measures selected for further measure development and testing will assess key features of one or more of these domains.

This project is being conducted by AHRQ pursuant to its statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(2).

Submit a measure(s) that is currently in use, in development, or for which a need has been identified, in one or more of the four domains (i.e., Communication; Ease of Navigation; Patient Engagement and Self-Management; and Organizational Structure, Policy, and Leadership). For this Request for Measures, AHRQ is specifically interested in measures that do not require or use patient reported data obtained using a patient survey.

Your contribution will be very beneficial to AHRQ. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential and marketing materials cannot be used by AHRQ. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

AHRQ and its contractor, will evaluate all submitted measures and supporting documentation. As a set of measures is identified and evaluated for further refinement and testing, submissions may be included in whole or in part or may be modified for inclusion in the measurement set. AHRQ will assume responsibility for the final measurement sets as well as any future modifications.

To facilitate handling of submissions, please include the name and email address of the measure developer or contact.

The responses most helpful to the Agency will include all or most of the following:

1. A brief cover letter,

2. a description of the measure and how it is calculated (e.g., who/what is included in the numerator, who/what is included in the denominator, who/what is excluded in calculating the measure),

3. the source of the measure (e.g., publications, organizations where measure has been used to guide quality improvement activities),

4. the domain best aligned with the measure (i.e., Communication; Ease of Navigation; Patient Engagement and Self-Management; and Organizational Structure, Policy, and Leadership),

5. the source of data used to calculate the measure (e.g., electronic health records, internal monitoring and reporting systems),

6. a description of data collection strategies (e.g., who is responsible for data collection, how is the information needed to calculate the measure collected),

7. a list of health care settings in which the measure has been or would be used and characteristics of the patient populations in these health care settings,

8. a description of how the measure has been used to support performance improvement (e.g., to whom is the measure reported, what actions have been taken based on the measure),

9. a summary of unintended negative consequences resulting from use of the measure (e.g., evidence that implementation of the measure has negatively impacted patients, staff, clinical process, or other features of the implementing organization), and

10. evidence that the measure is:

a. Valid and reliable,

b. associated with important outcomes,

c. meaningful to patients, families, clinicians, and/or administrators,

d. feasible to compute with accuracy and without undue cost, burden, or delay, and

e. generalizable across health care settings.

11. title, author(s), publication year, journal name, volume, issue, and page numbers of cited articles.

12. a statement of willingness to grant to AHRQ the right to use and disseminate submitted measures and their documentation to the public as part of a set of organizational health literacy measures.

Submission of copies of existing documentation or reports describing the measure and its properties, existing data sources, etc. is highly desirable but not required.

Proposed Project Making It Easier for Patients To Understand Health Information and Navigate Health Care Systems: Developing Quality Improvement Measures