Federal Register Vol. 81, No.32,

On June 17, 2015, Domestic Producers requested that the Department make a final circumvention ruling within 45 days pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(c)(2) and (d) with respect to CTL plate from the PRC with small amounts of any alloying elements added so as to classify the steel as alloy steel under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), regardless of exporter or importer.2 As a result of further clarification and comments regarding Domestic Producers' allegation, we extended the deadline to make a final ruling or initiate a circumvention inquiry until February 10, 2016.3

Domestic Producers alleged that producers, exporters and importers are circumventing the Order by adding alloying elements (i.e., making minor alterations) to CTL plate that is otherwise ASTM A36 and A572 commodity-grade steel plate.4 Domestic Producers provided business proprietary evidence which they believe supports their allegation.5

Domestic Producers noted that there is a history of evading the Order, and that the Department has made two separate circumvention determinations with regard to CTL plate from the PRC. In the first determination, the Department found that merchandise produced by Tianjin Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and merchandise imported by Toyota Tsusho America Inc., regardless of producer or exporter, containing 0.0008 percent or more boron, by weight, and otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise is subject to the Order unless the merchandise meets all of the following requirements: (1) An aluminum level of 0.02 percent or greater, by weight; (2) a ratio of 3.4 to 1 or greater, by weight, of titanium to nitrogen; and (3) a hardenability test (i.e., Jominy test) result indicating a boron factor of 1.8 or greater.6 In the second determination, the Department found “that it is appropriate to consider all plate with at least 0.0008 percent boron content and otherwise meeting the description of the scope to be covered by the order, unless the merchandise also possesses the three distinguishing characteristics referenced above.” 7 The Department also found it appropriate to apply its second determination “on a countrywide basis, given that multiple parties have been found to be circumventing the order using the same general approach (i.e., inclusion of small inconsequential amounts of an alloying element in order to change the tariff classification from non-alloy to alloy steel).” 8

Domestic Producers contended that PRC producers are now adding other alloying elements, in addition to boron, to otherwise subject CTL plate in order to circumvent the Order. 9 According to Domestic Producers, PRC manufacturers have an incentive to produce the CTL plate at issue to circumvent antidumping duties, and only began adding certain alloying elements in response to the Order and the Department's prior circumvention findings.10 Domestic Producers stated that another possible motivation for PRC CTL plate producers to add other alloying elements to their plate, such as chromium, is the PRC government's cancellation of the Value Added Tax (“VAT”) export rebate for steel with boron added. CTL plate with other alloys continues to receive the VAT rebate.11 Domestic Producers submitted news articles to support this contention.12

On July 6, 2015, the Department identified various areas of the Domestic Producers' Request that required clarification and therefore issued questions to them.13 On July 22, 2015, Domestic Producers submitted their responses to those questions.14 In their responses, Domestic Producers clarified the names and addresses of the exporters and importers of the product that they believe is being produced to circumvent the Order. 15 Regarding the PRC government's cancellation of VAT rebates for steel with boron added, Domestic Producers submitted an official announcement from the PRC government's Ministry of Finance, cancelling the rebate program.16 Domestic Producers also clarified that 80 percent of the market for commodity-grade carbon steel plate meets ASTM specifications A36 and A572, and that there is no overlap between these specifications and alloy steel specifications that require heat treatment, have a higher tensile strength, and require minimum levels of nickel, chromium, and molybdenum.17

Domestic Producers also stated that the exclusion criteria in Toyota Tsusho Circumvention Final Determination is specific to boron's intended purpose of increasing hardenability in steel that has been heat treated, and is not relevant to other alloying elements such as chromium and titanium.18 They contended that the addition of alloying elements to steel plate is only useful when steel plate is heat treated, which has a substantial cost, and PRC producers are not heat treating the steel plate at issue.19 Domestic Producers claimed that commodity-grade carbon steel plate of ASTM specifications A36 and A572 is not heat-treated.20 Thus, Domestic Producers contended that there is no reason to produce CTL plate which meets the exclusion criteria in Toyota Tsusho Circumvention Final Determination, but that is not heat treated, other than to circumvent the Order. According to Domestic Producers, it is possible to determine from mill test certificates whether CTL steel plate has been heat treated.21 Domestic Producers provided relevant business proprietary evidence in their supplemental submission.22

On August 5, 2015, Wuyang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“Wuyang”) commented on Domestic Producers' First Supplemental Submission.23 Wuyang contended that although Domestic Producers requested the Department to initiate a circumvention inquiry regarding all alloys, Domestic Producers failed to identify any alloy, other than boron, chromium and titanium, which they claim PRC producers add to steel plate, and failed to claim whether adding any of the other alloys can actually have a beneficial effect on steel.24 Further, Wuyang stated that Domestic Producers should not be permitted to add heat treatment to the three-part test to exclude CTL plate with at least 0.0008 percent boron content from the Order, (the exception established in Toyota Tsusho Circumvention Final Determination), without specifying whether the heat treatment must occur before or after importation, how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) can administer such a proposed rule, and what alloy ASTM specifications are at issue.25

On August 28, 2015, the Department issued another request for information to Domestic Producers,26 to which they responded on September 11, 2015.27 In their response, Domestic Producers clarified that their request covers steel plate with any alloy listed in note (f) of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS at levels that would allow the plate to be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS, that is marketed, priced or sold in the United States as commodity-grade carbon steel plate or made to specifications considered to be carbon steel specifications in the market (e.g., ASTM specifications A36 and A572).28 For further support of their claim that PRC producers are adding alloying elements other than boron, chromium and titanium to CTL plate to circumvent the Order, Domestic Producers submitted news articles regarding PRC steel overproduction, as well as information regarding a circumvention inquiry in Australia.29 Domestic Producers claimed that adding any alloys to commodity-grade steel plate has no commercial or metallurgical purpose other than to change the tariff classification of the plate in the HTSUS.30 Domestic Producers also explicitly stated that the three-part exclusion established in Toyota Tsusho Circumvention Final Determination is no longer a legitimate or reliable exclusion for the Order, and that the Department should analyze boron in the same manner as any other alloy.31 Domestic Producers also stated that ASTM specification A36 steel would not be classifiable as alloy steel in the HTSUS due to its manganese or silicon content because this ASTM specification has a maximum range for manganese and silicon below the thresholds in note (f) of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS.32 According to Domestic Producers, the application of the circumvention inquiry to ASTM specifications A36 and A572 would be easily enforced by CBP since these specifications are identified in mill test certificates and also marked on the steel itself.33 However, Domestic Producers also requested that all “commodity-grade” steel plate be covered by the circumvention inquiry in case any ASTM specifications are eliminated, changed or developed in the future.34

On November 18, 2015, the Department again issued a request for information to the Domestic Producers requesting clarification of certain previously submitted evidence and additional evidence relating to their allegation.35 On November 24, 2015, Domestic Producers submitted their response to the request for information.36 In their response, Domestic Producers provided evidence that is business proprietary.37

On January 20, 2016, Domestic Producers submitted additional business proprietary factual support for their request for a circumvention inquiry.38

The product covered by the order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC. Included in this description is hot-rolled iron and non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Included as subject merchandise in the order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Specifically excluded from subject merchandise within the scope of the order is grade X-70 steel plate.

For the reasons explained below in the “Conclusion” section of this notice, we have not initiated this circumvention inquiry on all of the products described in Domestic Producers' Request. Rather, this circumvention inquiry covers all CTL plate from the PRC made to ASTM A36 or A572 specifications with levels of chromium or titanium above the levels identified in note (f), “Other alloy steel”, of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS. This inquiry also covers all CTL plate from the PRC made to ASTM A36 or A572 specifications which contains levels of boron above the levels identified in note (f) of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS and which has not been heat treated to meet tensile and hardness requirements beyond commodity-grade ASTM specifications. This inquiry will cover U.S. imports of all CTL plate from the PRC.

Section 781(c)(1) of the Act provides that the class or kind of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order shall include articles “altered in form or appearance in minor respects . . . whether or not included in the same tariff classification.” The Department notes that, while the statute is silent as to what factors to consider in determining whether alterations are properly considered “minor,” the legislative history of this provision indicates there are certain factors which should be considered before reaching a circumvention determination. In conducting a circumvention inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act, the Department has generally relied upon “such criteria as the overall physical characteristics of the merchandise, the expectations of the ultimate users, the use of the merchandise, the channels of marketing and the cost of any modification relative to the total value of the imported products.” 39

According to Domestic Producers, the CTL plate at issue is made in nearly the same manner, made to the same specifications, and has the same physical characteristics as carbon steel plate. Domestic Producers claimed that the effect of the added alloying elements is negligible.40 Specifically, Domestic Producers claimed that commodity-grade carbon steel plate of ASTM specifications A36 and A572 is not heat-treated, and thus cannot achieve the hardenability of alloy steel by adding alloys.41 Thus, Domestic Producers maintained that CTL plate with small amounts of alloying elements that is considered commodity-grade steel plate has the same physical characteristics as subject CTL plate.42

Domestic Producers contended that the ultimate users purchasing the CTL plate at issue with elevated levels of alloys expect a commodity-grade, rather than a specialty alloy, product because of the way the product is represented to purchasers, and because of its price.43 Also, according to Domestic Producers, information in recent administrative reviews of the Order indicating that no importers entered steel plate from the PRC into the United States as subject merchandise, supports the belief that the ultimate users of CTL plate are consuming plates with elevated levels of boron, chromium and titanium, in place of steel plate without elevated levels of boron, chromium and titanium.44

Domestic Producers argued that the product at issue is used for the same purposes as subject merchandise.45 Domestic Producers claimed that adding alloys to commodity-grade steel plate has no commercial or metallurgical purpose other than to change the tariff classification in the HTSUS.46 Domestic Producers stated that the CTL plate at issue with elevated alloy levels is still classified as ASTM A36 and A572 plate, and thus is not suitable for additional uses beyond those of commodity-grade plate with these specifications.47 Domestic Producers also contended that the addition of elevated levels of alloying elements are only useful when steel plate is heat treated, which has a substantial cost, and PRC producers are not heat treating the steel plates at issue.48 Specifically, Domestic Producers claim that commodity-grade carbon steel plate of ASTM specifications A36 and A572 is generally not heat-treated.49

Domestic Producers stated that PRC producers market the CTL plate at issue in the same manner as the CTL plate without the alloying elements.50 According to Domestic Producers, the CTL plate at issue and subject plate appeal to the same end users and are used for the same end uses.51

Domestic Producers claimed that the cost of adding only small amounts of alloying elements is small when compared to the total cost of production and total value of CTL plate.52 In particular, Domestic Producers noted that the Department determined in CTL Plate from Canada that the cost of adding alloying elements is minor relative to the total value of the merchandise.53 Also, as noted above, Domestic Producers contended that alloying elements are only useful when steel plate is heat treated, which has a substantial cost; however, PRC producers are not heat treating the steel plate at issue.54

Based on the information provided by Domestic Producers, the Department finds there is sufficient basis to initiate an antidumping duty circumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act, to determine whether CTL plate from the PRC made to ASTM A36 or A572 specifications with levels of chromium or titanium above the levels identified in note (f), “Other alloy steel”, of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS involves a minor alteration to subject merchandise that is so insignificant as to render the resulting merchandise (classified as “alloy” steel under the HTSUS) subject to the Order. We also find sufficient basis to initiate an antidumping duty circumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act, to determine whether CTL plate from the PRC made to ASTM A36 or A572 specifications which contains levels of boron above the levels identified in note (f) of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS and which has not been heat treated to meet tensile and hardness requirements beyond commodity-grade ASTM specifications involves a minor alteration to subject merchandise that is so insignificant as to render the resulting merchandise (classified as “alloy” steel under the HTSUS) subject to the Order.

Although Domestic Producers requested a circumvention inquiry with respect to all of the alloying elements identified in note (f), “Other alloy steel”, of Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, we limited initiation to the alloys noted above (chromium, titanium, and boron where there was no heat treatment) based on the evidence of alleged circumvention provided. Moreover, we have not described the merchandise subject to this inquiry as steel plate marketed, priced or sold in the United States as commodity-grade carbon steel plate or made to specifications considered to be carbon steel specifications in the market because of concerns over the administrability of that language (e.g., difficulties determining whether certain prices are commodity-grade carbon steel plate prices, the lack of clarity with respect to which specifications should be considered to be carbon steel specifications). Based on the evidence of alleged circumvention provided, and Domestic Producers' statement that 80 percent of the market for commodity-grade carbon steel plate meets ASTM specifications A36 and A572, we have described the merchandise subject to this inquiry as CTL plate from the PRC made to ASTM A36 or A572 specifications. Lastly, as noted above, the Department intends to apply its circumvention ruling to all U.S. imports of CTL plate from the PRC, consistent with the recent history of this proceeding.55

Although Domestic Producers requested that the Department make a final ruling within 45 days, additional time is needed for further inquiry into Domestic Producers' allegations. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of the initiation of this antidumping duty circumvention inquiry.

The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation of entries of any of the merchandise at issue at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry.

The Department will establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues.

This notice is published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i).

Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (WCA) (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.). Under the WCA, IWC regulations shall generally become effective with respect to all persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, within 90 days of notification from the IWC Secretariat of an amendment to the IWC Schedule (16 U.S.C. 916k). Regulations that implement the WCA, found at 50 CFR 230.6, require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the IWC.

At the 64th Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set catch limits for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead catch limits were based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East.

The IWC set a 6-year block catch limit of 336 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2013 through 2018, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any prior year may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2015 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota set by the IWC for 2016 is 82 (67 + 15).

An arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2016 will not exceed the limits set by the IWC. Under this arrangement, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes.

Through its cooperative agreement with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will in turn allocate these strikes among the 11 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes.

The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf.

NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here:

• Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling.

• Captains and crew must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization.

• The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment to engage in an efficient operation.

• Crew may not receive money for participating in the hunt.

• No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native American handicrafts.

• Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner.

The Chairman will start the meeting with introductions and adoption of agenda, approval of minutes from the March 10-12, 2015 Standing, Special Reef Fish, Special Shrimp, and Special Spiny Lobster Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting, and selection of an SSC representative to attend the April, 2016 Council Meeting. The SSC will review updated Penaeid Shrimp Stock Assessments and review an update on the Aggregate Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and Optimum Yield (OY) Working Group. Lastly, the SSC will discuss other business, if any.

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 “gulfguest.” Click on the “Library Folder,” then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2016-03.”

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

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee 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 Scientific and Statistical Committee 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.

The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter Advisory Panel Agenda, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, March 9, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

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 File Server link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest.” Click on the “Library Folder,” then scroll down to “Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter AP.”

The meeting will be webcast over the Internet. A link to the ebcast 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 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 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.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297, provided for the establishment of an AP to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to the development of any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or FMP amendment for Atlantic HMS. NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of AP members when preparing and implementing FMPs or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and sharks.

The AP has previously consulted with NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April 1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003); the Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006); and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008, February and September 2009, May and September 2010, April and September 2011, March and September 2012, January and September 2013, April and September 2014, March and September 2015), among other things.

The intent of this meeting is to consider alternatives for the conservation and management of all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries. We anticipate discussing the upcoming Amendments 5b on dusky sharks and 10 on Essential Fish Habitat, including lemon shark aggregations off southeast Florida; reviewing implementation of Final Amendment 9 on smoothhound sharks and Final Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna management; and progress updates on the final rule to implement the electronic bluefin tuna documentation system and the various other rulemakings. We also anticipate discussing a survey of Atlantic HMS tournaments that is in development, a request from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to consider management changes regarding blacknose sharks, and domestic implementation of recommendations from the 2015 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. We also intend to invite other NMFS offices to provide updates on their activities relevant to HMS fisheries such as the IUU Task Force implementation and international trade, and DeepWater Horizon Pelagic Longline Project.

Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/advisory_panels/hms_ap/meetings/ap_meetings.html.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Guy DuBeck at (301) 427-8503 at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

Title of Collection: Application Process for Designation of Rural Area under Federal Consumer Financial Law.

OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

Type of Review: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number).

Affected Public: Private sector (banks and credit unions).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

Abstract: On December 4, 2015, Congress passed the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act of 2015 (HELP Rural Communities Act or the Act) Public Law 114-94, Title LXXXIX (2015). Section 89002 requires the Bureau to establish, within 90 days of its passage, a procedure by which persons and businesses may apply to have a geographic area designated as “rural” for the purposes of applying federal consumer protection law and certain exceptions related to areas so designated.

Due to the 90-day deadline, contained in the Act, if following standard PRA clearance procedures, the Bureau would be unable to meet this statutory deadline. In order to meet the statutory deadline, the Bureau plans to issue the enabling procedural rule by March 3, 2016. Therefore, the Bureau is requesting emergency processing and approval of the following information collection request.

The Bureau requests OMB approval of this request by February 29, 2016. Contemporaneously with this request for emergency processing, the Bureau is also initiating standard clearance procedures by publishing a notice in the Federal Register allowing the public 60 days to comment on this collection of information. Accordingly, this request will also be resubmitted to OMB under standard clearance procedures.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Loan Originator Compensation Amendment (Regulation Z).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0031.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Private sector.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,254.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 94,635.

Abstract: The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision making by requiring accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of credit to consumers. The Dodd-Frank Act then amended TILA to include, among other things, provisions about the qualifications and compensation of mortgage loan officers, in order to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal on their loans.

Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on December 9, 2015 (80 FR 76459). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.

Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemption to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.

Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at www.dnfsb.gov. Technical staff may present information to the Board. The Board Members are expected to conduct deliberations regarding potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy.

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

Title of Collection: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2016-2019.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0582.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 77,600.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 999,060.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to continue the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires 12/31/2016 (OMB No. 1850-0582). We are requesting a new clearance for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 data collections to enable us to provide consistency in our collection of postsecondary data over the next 3 years. IPEDS is a Web-based data collection system designed to collect basic data from all postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions. IPEDS enables NCES to report on key dimensions of postsecondary education such as enrollments, degrees and other awards earned, tuition and fees, average net price, student financial aid, graduation rates, student outcomes, revenues and expenditures, faculty salaries, and staff employed. The IPEDS Web-based data collection system was implemented in 2000-01, and it collects basic data from approximately 7,500 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. All Title IV institutions are required to respond to IPEDS (Section 490 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 [Pub. L. 102-325]). IPEDS allows other (non-title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis. About 200 elect to respond. IPEDS data are available to the public through the College Navigator and IPEDS Data Center Web sites. This clearance package includes a number of proposed changes to the data collection.

Statutory Authority and Function: The National Assessment Governing Board is established under title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, Public Law 107-279. Information on the Board and its work can be found at www.nagb.gov.

The Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include the following: selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, improving the form and use of NAEP, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.

The Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work, based on agenda items planned for this quarterly Board meeting, and follow-up items as reported in the Board's committee meeting minutes available at http://nagb.gov/what-we-do/board-committee-reports-and-agendas.html.

March 3: Inside NAEP: Taking the NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment: Closed Session: 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

March 3: Executive Committee: Closed Session: 4:30 p.m.-5:20 p.m.; Open Session: 5:20 p.m.-6:00 p.m.

Full Board: Open Session: 8:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m.; Closed Session: 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.; Open Session 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

Reporting and Dissemination Committee (R&D): Open Session 10:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m.; Closed Session 12:05 p.m.-12:35 p.m.; Open Session 12:35 p.m. -12:45 p.m.

Assessment Development Committee (ADC): Open Session: 10:15 a.m.-10:50 a.m.; Closed Session: 10:50 a.m.-12:45 p.m.

Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology (COSDAM): Open Session: 10:15 a.m.-11:20 a.m.; Closed Session: 11:20 a.m.-12:25 p.m.; Open Session: 12:25 p.m.-12:45 p.m.

Nominations Committee: Closed Session: 7:30 a.m.-8:15 a.m.

Full Board: Closed Session: 8:30 a.m.-8:50 a.m.; Open Session: 8:50 a.m.-10:45 a.m.; Closed Session: 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

On March 3, 2016, the Board will meet in closed session from 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. to take the 2014 NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) assessment for grade 8. Board members will access secure NAEP TEL items used in the 2014 TEL assessment. This part of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because the test items are secure and have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure TEL items would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

Thereafter, the Executive Committee will convene in closed session from 4:30 p.m. to 5:20 p.m., and in open session to conduct regularly scheduled work from 5:20 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. During the closed session, the Executive Committee will receive and discuss cost estimates and implications for implementing NAEP's Assessment Schedule through 2024. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because public disclosure of this information would likely have an adverse financial effect on the NAEP program by providing confidential cost details and proprietary contract costs of current contractors to the public. Discussion of this information would be likely to significantly impede implementation of a proposed agency action if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

On March 4, 2016, the Full Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The Board will review and approve the March 3-5, 2016 Board meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the November 2015 Quarterly Board meeting. This session will be followed by new Board member introductions and administration of the Oath of Office for new members. The Chairman will then deliver remarks on the Salzburg Global Seminar. Thereafter the Executive Director of the Governing Board, William Bushaw, will provide his report, followed by an update on the work of IES provided by Ruth Neild, Deputy Director for Policy and Research, IES. The NCES update will be provided by the Acting Commissioner of NCES, Peggy Carr. The Board will recess for committee meetings at 10:00 a.m. which are scheduled to take place from 10:15 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.

The Reporting and Dissemination (R&D) Committee will meet in open session from 10:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and in closed session from 12:05 p.m. to 12:35 p.m. and thereafter in open session from 12:35 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. During the closed session, the Committee will preview and discuss a prototype of the Web site that will host results of the 12th grade NAEP reading and mathematics assessments. The data from these assessments have not been released and will not be released until a month after the Board meeting. This session must be closed because the Web site will display secure data that have not been released to the public and members will discuss the secure data. Disclosure of the secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

The Assessment Development Committee (ADC) will meet open session from 10:15 a.m. to 10:50 a.m., and in two closed sessions from 10:50 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. During the first closed session, scheduled from 10:50 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the ADC will review secure NAEP test questions in grades 4 and 8 for the 2019 Mathematics pilot assessment. These test questions have not been released to the public. Disclosure of the secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

During the second closed session scheduled from 12:00 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. ADC will receive an embargoed briefing on NAEP's transition to digital-based assessment (DBA). The briefing will include secure data from the 2015 DBA pilot in Reading and Mathematics, which have not been publicly released. The briefing will also include secure NAEP test questions in Reading and Mathematics at grades 4 and 8. This meeting is being conducted in closed session because the data have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

On Friday March 4, 2016, the Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology (COSDAM) will meet in open session from 10:15 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. in closed session from 11:20 a.m. to 12:25 p.m. and in open session from 12:25 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. During the first part of the closed session (11:20 a.m. to 12:05 p.m.), COSDAM will discuss information regarding analyses of the 2015 bridge studies for paper-and-pencil and digital-based assessments, and discuss secure NAEP Reading and Mathematics data. This part of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because the analysis involves the use of secure data for the NAEP Reading and Mathematics assessments on digital-based platforms. Public disclosure of secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

During the second part of the closed session from 12:05 p.m. to 12:25 p.m., COSDAM will discuss requirements for an upcoming procurement to set achievement levels on the 2017 grade 4 Writing assessment. Public disclosure of procurement sensitive data would provide an unfair advantage to potential offerors, and significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

Following the committee meetings, on March 4, the full Board will meet in closed session from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. to receive a briefing and discuss the 2014 NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) Report Card for Grade 8. Results of the TEL assessment have not been released to the public. Premature disclosure of the results would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

On March 4, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Board will meet in open session to receive a briefing on STEM perspectives from the Frameworks Institute. This session will then be followed by a briefing and discussion with Hill staff on legislative matters as they pertain to education policy issues and NAEP. The March 4, 2016 session of the Board meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

On March 5, 2016, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. to discuss the final slate of candidates for Board vacancies for terms beginning on October 1, 2016. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of section 552b(c) of title 5 of the United States Code.

On March 5, 2016, the full Board will meet in closed session from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. to discuss the final slate of candidates for Board vacancies for terms beginning October 1, 2016. The Board's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of section 552b(c) of title 5 of the United States Code.

Following this closed session, the full Board will meet in open session from 8:50 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to take action on the slate of candidates for the 2016 Board vacancies. From 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. the Board will receive committee reports and take action on the New Trial Urban Districts for 2017 and on the TEL Release Plan for Grade 8. Thereafter, from 9:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. the Board will receive an update and discuss the Governing Board's Strategic Planning Initiative.

The Board will meet in closed session on March 5, 2016 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. to receive a briefing and discuss the 2015 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Report Cards for Grade 12. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because results of this assessment have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of test results would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b of title 5 U.S.C.

The March 5, 2016 meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 12:00 p.m.

Access to Records of the Meeting: Pursuant to FACA requirements, the public may also inspect the meeting materials at www.nagb.gov on Thursday, March 4, 2016 by 7:00 a.m. ET. The official verbatim transcripts of the public meeting sessions will be available for public inspection no later than 30 calendar days following the meeting.

Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

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

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

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

Title of Collection: Client Assistance Program (CAP).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0520.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9.

Abstract: This form is used by states to request funds to establish and carry out Client Assistance Programs (CAP). CAP is mandated by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), to assist consumers and applicants in their relationships with projects, programs and services provided under the Rehabilitation Act including the Vocational Rehabilitation program.

On July 27, 2015, Western published a Federal Register Notice (80 FR 44339) providing a Notice of Final Transmission and Ancillary Services Formula Rates for Western's Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program-Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED). Western explained that Western-UGP intended to transfer functional control of Western-UGP's P-SMBP—ED eligible transmission facilities located in the Upper Missouri Zone (UMZ or Zone 19) to SPP on October 1, 2015. Western announced the final transmission and ancillary services formula rates and the P-SMBP—ED transmission and ancillary services formula rates would go into effect when functional control was transferred to SPP.

The purpose of this notice is to announce that Western-UGP successfully transferred functional control of eligible transmission facilities on October 1, 2015, and Rate Schedules WAUGP-ATRR, WAUGP-AS1, WAUW-AS3, WAUW-AS4, WAUW-AS5, WAUW-AS6 and WAUW-AS7 were made effective on that date.

Information regarding the public process for Western-UGP's formula rate adjustment process and annual recalculation is available on Western's Web site and Western-UGP's Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) home page, which are located respectively at the following locations:

The NEJAC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the NEJAC in 1993 to provide independent consensus advice to the EPA Administrator about a broad range of environmental issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations.

The Council consists of 28 members (including a Chairperson) appointed by EPA's Administrator. Members serve as non-federal stakeholders representing: six (6) from academia, two (2) from business and industry; six (6) from community based organizations; seven (7) from non-governmental/environmental organizations; four (4) from state and local governments; and three (3) from tribal governments and indigenous organizations, of which one member serves as a liaison to the National Tribal Caucus. Members are appointed for three (3)-year terms with the possibility of reappointment to a second term.

The NEJAC usually meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the Spring and the Fall. Additionally, members may be asked to participate in teleconference meetings or serve on work groups to develop recommendations, advice letters, and reports to address specific policy issues. The average workload for members is approximately 5 to 8 hours per month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business.

Nominations: Any interested person and/or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. In addition, EPA is seeking nominees with knowledge in community sustainability, public health and health disparities, climate change adaptation, land use and equitable development, environmental sociology and social science, and environmental financing.

Other criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:

• The background and experience that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational background, professional affiliations, and other considerations;

• demonstrated experience with environmental justice and community sustainability issues at the national, state, or local level;

• excellent interpersonal and consensus-building skills;

• ability to volunteer time to attend meetings 2-3 times a year, participate in teleconference meetings, attend listening sessions with the Administrator or other senior-level officials, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare reports and advice letters; and

• willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees.

How To Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals are encouraged to self-nominate. Nominations can be submitted in electronic format (preferred) following the template available at http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac/index.html#membership. To be considered, all nominations should include:

• Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number.

• Brief Statement describing the nominees interest in serving on the NEJAC

• Résumé and a short biography (no more than 2 paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities, and any current or previous service on advisory committees

• Letter[s] of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. Letter[s] should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the NEJAC.

Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees. To help the EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1177.

Title: 47 CFR 74.800, Channel Sharing Agreement.

Form Numbers: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 100 respondents; 100 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1 hr.

Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $54,000.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336 and 337 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 Act Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On December 18, 2015, the Commission released a Third Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, FCC 15-175. Low power television and television translator stations (collectively “LPTV stations”) will be required to include certain terms in their channel sharing agreements (CSAs) and to file their CSAs with the Commission. This new requirement is provided in 47 CFR 74.800.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1138.

Title: Sections 1.49 and 1.54, Forbearance Petition Filing Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 11 respondents; 11 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 640 hours.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 10, 151, 154(i), 154(j),155(c), 160, 201 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 7,040 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit or disclose confidential information. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: Under section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, telecommunications carriers may petition the Commission to forbear from applying to a telecommunications carrier any statutory provision or Commission regulation. When a carrier petitions the Commission for forbearance, section 10 requires the Commission to make three determinations with regard to the need for the challenged provision or regulation. If the Commission fails to act within one year (extended by three additional months, if necessary) the petition is “deemed granted” by operation of law. These determinations require complex, fact-intensive analysis, e.g., “whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions.” Under the new filing procedures, the Commission requires that petitions for forbearance must be “complete as filed” and explain in detail what must be included in the forbearance petition. The Commission also incorporates by reference its rule, 47 CFR 1.49, which states the Commission's standard “specifications as to pleadings and documents.” Precise filing requirements are necessary because of section 10's strict time limit for Commission action. Also, commenters must be able to understand clearly the scope of the petition in order to comment on it. Finally, standard filing procedures inform petitioners precisely what the Commission expects from them in order to make the statutory determinations that the statute requires.

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

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Collections Related to Synthetic Turf Fields with Crumb Rubber Infill—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

Currently in the United States, there are more than 12,000 synthetic turf fields in use. While the Synthetic Turf Council has set guidelines for the content of crumb rubber used as infill in synthetic turf fields, manufacturing processes result in differences among types of crumb rubber. Additionally, the chemical composition may vary highly between different processes and source materials and may vary even within granules from the same origin.

Due to the limited information, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) propose to conduct two studies to investigate the chemical composition and use of crumb rubber infill in synthetic turf and the potential for exposure to environmental constituents that may result from contact with crumb rubber infill.

Prior to study initiation, outreach and engagement efforts may be undertaken among stakeholders, including but not limited to industry representatives, state or local partners, and sports coaches. These efforts will inform the design and implementation of the proposed studies and will involve less than ten respondents per stakeholder groups. The outreach and engagement efforts will allow us to better understand the manufacturing process for synthetic turf and crumb rubber infill and allow us to obtain first-hand perspectives on activities conducted on synthetic turf leading to potential exposures. Additionally, outreach efforts will involve discussions and coordination with state partners to identify their current and future research studies on synthetic turf.

The first study, titled “Determination of Field Operating Procedures, Use Conditions, and Chemical Composition of Crumb Rubber Infill in Synthetic Turf Fields,” will characterize field use procedures and conditions. The respondents will include facility representatives who are knowledgeable about the standard operating procedures for synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill. We aim to enroll an estimate of ten facilities in each of the four US census regions. The questionnaire will focus on key questions to characterize activity use patterns, field maintenance (e.g., redistribution of crumb rubber material), and other procedures and facility characteristics potentially affecting exposure to any chemicals of potential concern. Also, these facilities may be asked to supply samples from their synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill. The samples will be used to characterize the chemical constituents of the crumb rubber infill, including semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), metal content, and measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and SVOC emission levels.

The second study, titled “Characterization of Exposure Potential during Activities Conducted on Synthetic Turf with Crumb Rubber Infill,” will be the first assessment of activities conducted on synthetic turf for the purpose of characterizing potential exposure patterns. The study will include persons who use synthetic turf with crumb rubber infill (e.g., facility users) and who routinely perform activities that would result in a high level of contact to crumb rubber. This will allow for evaluation of potential high-end exposures to constituents in synthetic turf among this group of users. The respondents will be administered a detailed questionnaire on activity patterns on synthetic turf with crumb rubber infill. This instrument, along with extant videography of persons engaged in activities of interest, will be used to characterize exposure scenarios, including the nature and duration of potential exposures.

Furthermore, if time and resources allow, we will conduct a full exposure characterization sub-study among a subset of the respondents. If possible, we will use the facilities sampled in the first study to conduct activities for the full exposure characterization of facility users. The exposure characterization sub-study will likely include but is not limited to field environment and material sampling, personal air monitoring, dermal sampling, and urine collection. It is likely that some of the collection items will not be analyzed in the current project time frame but will be archived for future analysis.

The burden hours for the research study of crumb rubber infill composition and field operating procedures is 76 hours among 40 respondents; the burden hours requested for the research study of activity levels in persons playing on synthetic turf with crumb rubber infill is 216 hours among 60 respondents. The total estimated annual time burden requested for these studies equals 292 hours. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time in the study.

“Determination of Field Operating Procedures, Use Conditions, and Chemical Composition of Crumb Rubber Infill in Synthetic Turf Fields”

CMS is required to produce reports and statements of enrollment in Medicare Part A to confirm enrollment in minimum essential coverage under Section 6055 of the Affordable Care Act. The enrollment information must be provided to the IRS for tax administration purposes to enable the IRS to properly assess tax returns filed to ensure that Medicare Part A Enrollees are not assessed a tax penalty for not beenrolled in health care coverage.

For the reason explained above, the following routine use is added to Enrollment Data Base (EDB), System No. 09-70-0502:

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-402) (DD Act) provides, among other things, formula grants to States for the purpose of operating State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and Protection & Advocacy Systems for People with Developmental Disabilities. The DD Act provides authority and flexibility in Section 122 to AIDD to determine the formula for allocating annual grant awards using three statutory factors for determining each state's funding amount. These factors are:

The current formula is out of date. For example, the current formula uses the best data points available in the 1970s/1980s for determining need for services and financial need. These data are now outdated and severely undercount the population of individuals with developmental disabilities. The updated formula is believed to be more clear, concise, transparent, and consistent with Congress' intent to provide funds to states based on greatest need.

In addition to the formula, the DD Act prescribes minimum allotments for states with small populations and territories (Puerto Rico is not considered a territory under the DD Act). About half of the states receive a minimum allotment. The DD Act also requires adjusting (increasing) the minimum allotment amounts if certain criteria are met. After minimum allotments are met, the remaining appropriations are allocated using the formula.

Finally, the Act requires a hold-harmless for the State DD Councils that was passed as an amendment to the DD Act in 2003, P.L. 108-154. Through this hold-harmless clause, SCDD awards are based on the award amount from the previous year, FY 2000, FY 2001, or FY 2002, whichever is highest. If there are not enough funds available to fully fund all of the awards, the SCDDs then receive an equal percent reduction. It is important to note that a new formula may not immediately impact the SCDDs due to the hold harmless clause. The new formula would impact the SCDDs only when appropriations rise to such a level that all SCDDs would receive an increase in allotments above the previous fiscal year's award level.

AIDD convened a workgroup of researchers, retired SCDD and P&A directors, national associations, and AIDD staff in the spring of 2015 and held four meetings over a two month period. The workgroup reviewed the three elements required for the formula and discussed each, identifying potential data sources for each element in cooperation with the HHS Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation (ASPE). The workgroup discussed the strengths and challenges of the different data and based on these discussions provided recommendations to AIDD. In addition, the workgroup worked with the Grants Management Office at ACL to test the impact of different scenarios.

Beginning in FY 2017, AIDD's State DD Councils and P&A grants will use a new formula to distribute funds after meeting statutory minimums and hold-harmless requirements:

1. State/Territory Population (30%): Based on July Census figures released in August of each year.

2. Need for services (30%): Based on a 1.58 percent prevalence rate for developmental disabilities in each State and Territory from the HHS National Health Interview Survey on Disability (NHIS-D).

In determining the need for services, the workgroup discussed using data sources such as Medicaid and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; concluding that these data are unreliable because each State determines program eligibility and reporting requirements differently. The prevalence rate for developmental disabilities of 1.58 percent was established by the Federal government in the early 1990s through the NHIS-D and is still the most current prevalence rate available that meets the definition of Developmental Disabilities per the DD Act.

3. Financial need (40%): Use a combination of poverty (20%) and unemployment rates (20%) from July of each calendar year.

The workgroup thought it was best to use a combination of a State/Territory's poverty and unemployment rates because it best reflects the economic status of a State/Territory and, thus, their financial need.

This notice invites public comment on the new formula for the SCDD and P&A annual awards. We seek diverse perspectives including, but not limited to, that of grantees, technical assistance providers, and advocates, as well as federal agencies and for-profit and not-for-profit stakeholders. The comments will be important factors in finalizing the formula.

Privacy Act Notification Statement: Responses to this guidance notice are voluntary. Respondents are advised that the Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response.

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

Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348) establishes a premarket approval requirement for “food additives”; section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) provides an exclusion to the definition of “food additive” and thus from the premarket approval requirement, for uses of substances that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts. In the Federal Register of April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18938) (the 1997 proposed rule), we published a proposed rule that would establish a voluntary procedure whereby manufacturers would notify us about a view of a particular use (or uses) of a substance that is not subject to the statutory premarket approval requirements based on a determination that such use is GRAS. Under an interim policy announced in the proposed rule, we invited manufacturers to submit notices of their independent determinations for review under the framework of the proposed rule during the period between issuance of the proposal and any final rule based on the proposal. The proposed regulations (proposed 21 CFR 170.36 and 21 CFR 570.36) provide a standard format for the voluntary submission of a notice.

To assist respondents in submissions to our Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), we developed Form FDA 3667 entitled “Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Notice.” The form, and elements prepared as attachments to the form, may be submitted in electronic format via the Electronic Submission Gateway (ESG), or may be submitted in paper format, or as electronic files on physical media with paper signature page. While we do not expect Form FDA 3667 to reduce reporting time for respondents, use of the form helps to expedite our review of the information being submitted. For submissions to our Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), respondents may continue to send GRAS notices in letter format to the Agency, as instructed in our Federal Register notice of June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31800).

Presently, we have committed to issuing a final rule regarding “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe” in 2016, as part of a settlement agreement with the Center for Food Safety, which filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking to vacate our 1997 proposed rule.

Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of substances used in food and feed.

In the Federal Register of September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55857), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. We received a number of comments in support of the information collection generally. We also received one comment suggesting that the names, credentials, and affiliations of “qualified experts” associated with GRAS determinations be included on the form. We received a second comment suggesting that information submitted by manufacturers be reviewed by independent scientists. We appreciate this input. As discussed previously, rulemaking is underway that will necessitate a revision to the information collection provisions associated with our GRAS program and we continue to consider all comments.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The Agency is requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to certain panels identified in the following paragraphs:

The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act envisions for device advisory panels. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs regarding recommended classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices. The Committee also provides recommendations to the Commissioner or designee on complexity categorization of in vitro diagnostics under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices for use in anesthesiology and respiratory therapy and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational ear, nose and throat devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational gastroenterology, urology and nephrology devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational general and plastic surgery devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational in vitro devices for use in clinical laboratory medicine including pathology, hematology, histopathology, cytotechnology and molecular biology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Provides advice to the Center Director on complex or contested scientific issues between the FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The Panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to Agency decisions or actions.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational in vitro devices for use in clinical laboratory medicine including microbiology, virology, and infectious disease and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational in vitro devices for use in clinical laboratory medicine including clinical and molecular genetics and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices for use in the neurological system and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational orthopedic and rehabilitation devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational diagnostics or therapeutic radiological and nuclear medicine devices and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Persons nominated for the device panels should be full-time employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have similar appropriate ties to industry.

Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for a particular device panel. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the Committee of interest may be submitted to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the particular device panel. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process).

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 4040-0005. Form is available http://www.grants.gov or upon request.

Information Collection Request Title: SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance—Individual.

OMB No.: 4040-0005.

Abstract: The SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance—Individual is a common form used by Federal grant-making agencies for individual applicants without DUNS numbers to apply for Federal financial assistance.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance—The Individual common form is used by individuals not associated with organizations to apply for Federal financial assistance in the form of grants. These forms are submitted to the Federal grant-making agencies for evaluation and review.

Likely Respondents: Organizations and institutions seeking grants.

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

HHS does not use the form; however, HHS estimates that the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance—Individual's will take 1 hour to complete.

Once OMB approves the use of this common form, federal agencies may request OMB approval to use this common form without having to publish notices and request public comments for 60 and 30 days. Each agency must account for the burden associated with their use of the common form.

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

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code Appendix. The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by 46 United States Code 7115 and advises the Secretary on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

The agenda for the March 14, 2016 meeting is as follows:

(1) Opening remarks from Crowley Maritime leadership.

(2) Opening remarks from Coast Guard leadership.

(3) Opening remarks from the Designated Federal Officer.

(4) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum.

(5) Review of last full committee meeting's minutes.

(6) Introduction of new task(s).

(7) Presentation and discussion on marine casualty investigations and data analysis (could lead to future tasking for the committee).

(8) Public comment period.

(9) Presentation on mariner wellness.

(10) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate-

(a) Task statement 13, Mariner Occupational Health Risk Analysis. This is a joint task statement with the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee.

(b) Task statement(s) requesting recommendations on training content for a Designated Medical Examiner program.

(c) Task statement requesting recommendations on guidance to mariners on over the counter medications, energy drinks/pills, diet aids, and dietary supplements.

(d) The Committee may receive new task statements from the Coast Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

(10) Adjournment of meeting.

The agenda for the March 15, 2016 meeting is as follows:

(1) Continue work on Task Statements.

(2) Presentation from the Council on Chiropractic Education.

(3) Public comment period.

(4) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may vote on the working group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full committee takes any action on each report.

(5) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

(6) Adjournment of Meeting.

The CISA requires the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General to jointly develop and make publicly available—

• guidance to assist non-Federal entities and promote sharing of cyber threat indicators with the Federal Government;

• interim and final guidelines for the protection of privacy and civil liberties; and

• interim and final procedures related to the receipt of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures by the Government, which happen principally through the real-time DHS process, the existing DHS-operated Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) initiative and may also occur through direct submissions to Federal agencies.

The CISA also requires the Secretary of DHS, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense, to jointly develop interim procedures to facilitate and promote the sharing of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures by the Federal Government.

On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, which included at Division N, Title I the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA). Congress designed CISA to establish a voluntary cybersecurity information sharing process that encourages public and private sector entities to share cyber threat indicators and defensive measures while protecting privacy and civil liberties. The CISA requires various Executive Branch agencies to coordinate and create, within 60 days of enactment (i.e., not later than February 16, 2016), four guidance documents to facilitate this voluntary cybersecurity information sharing process. The CISA requires two of these interim documents to be made publicly available. See generally Public Law 114-113, Div. N, Title I secs. 103, 105).

The CISA sec. 103 requires the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of designated Federal entities,1 to jointly develop and issue procedures to facilitate and promote the sharing by the Federal Government of classified and unclassified cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, and other information and best practices related to mitigating cyber threats. The CISA sec. 103(b) requires these procedures to include a real-time sharing capability (namely the DHS Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) initiative); incorporate existing Federal information sharing processes, procedures, roles, and responsibilities to the greatest extent possible; account for sharing done in error; and protect against unauthorized access to cyber threat information. Further, the procedures must account for the review of cyber threat indicators to identify personal information not related to the threat, a technical capability to remove such personal information, and a notification process to alert any U.S. person whose personal information is improperly shared by a Federal entity.

The CISA sec. 105(a)(1) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of designated Federal entities, to jointly develop and issue interim policies and procedures relating to the receipt of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures by the Federal Government. These internal operational procedures describe general rules applicable to DHS and other Federal agencies and the operative processes of the DHS AIS system, including the statutory requirement for Federal agencies that receive cyber threat indicators and defensive measures to share them with other appropriate agencies.

The CISA sec. 105(a)(4) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to jointly develop and make publicly available guidance to assist non-Federal entities with sharing cyber threat indicators with Federal entities. This guidance includes explanations of how non-Federal entities can identify and share cyber threat indicators and defensive measures with the Federal Government in accordance with CISA and describes the protections non-Federal entities receive under CISA for sharing cyber threat indicators and defensive measures, including targeted liability protection and other statutory protections.

Finally, CISA sec. 105(b) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Department Heads and Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers of the designated Federal entities, to jointly develop and make publicly available interim guidelines relating to privacy and civil liberties that govern the receipt, retention, use, and dissemination of cyber threat indicators by a Federal entity. These privacy and civil liberties guidelines are consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) set forth in Appendix A of the “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,” published by the President in April 2011.

The CISA guidance documents may be found on www.us-cert.gov/ais.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.