Federal Register Vol. 81, No.57,

In the discussion of the provisions in this rule, the following acronyms or other abbreviations stand in for certain words or phrases:

Section 6(d)(4) of the FNA requires that each State agency implement an E&T program designed to help members of SNAP households gain skills, training, employment, or experience that increase participants' ability to obtain regular employment. State agencies may include one or more of the following components in their E&T program: Job search, job search training, workfare, work experience, work training, basic education programs, self-employment training programs, job retention services, and other programs as approved by the Secretary. State agencies submit E&T plans that outline planned components and budgets to FNS for approval annually.

The Department funds SNAP E&T programs through $90 million in E&T grants and an additional $20 million in grants for State agencies that pledge to serve all ABAWDs at-risk of losing eligibility due to time-limited participation. In addition to these grants, the Department reimburses State agencies for 50 percent of approved administrative costs beyond the E&T grant and for 50 percent of allowable participant expenses, such as transportation and dependent care.

SNAP work registrants not otherwise exempted by the State agency must participate in a SNAP E&T component if referred by the State agency. E&T programs may be mandatory or voluntary. In a mandatory program, failure to comply without good cause, results in disqualification from SNAP for a minimum sanction period which can vary depending upon State policy. Except in the case of permanent disqualification, an individual may resume SNAP participation after the sanction period expires and/or the individual complies with work requirements (whichever is later). State agencies may also serve voluntary E&T participants. Voluntary E&T participants are not subject to disqualification from SNAP for failure to comply with a SNAP E&T component.

This interim rule implements section 4022(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Even though the reporting requirements of this rule must be implemented by the beginning of first full fiscal year 180 days after publication of this rule, the Department is soliciting comments on this rule. The Department believes that it would benefit from the public's comments before publishing a final rule.

Section 4022(a)(3)(A) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 requires that “Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing the amendments made by subsection (a)(2).”

Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amends section 16(h)(5) of the FNA, to provide that:

• The Department develop standardized reporting measures for E&T programs;

• States agencies' annual E&T plans must identify additional reporting measures for each E&T component that is intended to serve at least 100 participants a year;

• The Department monitor State E&T programs and assess their effectiveness;

• State agencies submit an annual report on their E&T programs that includes the number of participants who have gained skills, training, work, or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment;

• The Department may require a State agency to make modifications to its E&T plan if it determines that the State agencies' E&T outcomes are inadequate.

These provisions will provide the Department with more information about the States with effective SNAP E&T programs and promising practices, and help identify those States that need technical assistance to improve their programs.

Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 also requires the Department to carry out up to 10 SNAP E&T pilot projects and to evaluate the SNAP E&T program nationally at least once every five years. This interim rule does not address these last two issues.

Section 4022(a)(2) amended section 16(h)(5)(B)(i) and (ii) of the FNA to require the Department to develop national reporting measures for States within the following requirements:

• The Department, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, must develop State reporting measures that identify improvements in the skills, training, education, or work experience of members of households participating in SNAP;

• The measures must be based on common measures of performance for Federal workforce training programs; and

• The measures must include additional indicators that reflect the challenges facing the types of members of households participating in SNAP who participate in a specific E&T component.

Yes. In addition to consulting with and reviewing DOL's current performance measures, the Department examined and discussed the performance indicators included in WIOA (visit http://www.doleta.gov/wioa/ for more information on this legislation).

After consultation with the DOL, the Department is establishing the following national reporting measures and requiring State agencies to report outcome data based on these measures. These reporting measures are similar to the performance indicators for the core programs in WIOA, but reflect the intent of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the unique characteristics of the SNAP E&T program and its participants, the required frequency of reporting, and how the Department will use the data. The reporting measures include:

• The number and percentage of E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T;

• The number and percentage of E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T;

• The median quarterly earnings of all the E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T; and

• The number and percentage of participants that completed a training, educational, work experience or an on-the-job training component.

Section 4022(a)(2) amended section 16(h)(5)(B)(ii) of the FNA to require each State agency's E&T plan to identify appropriate reporting measures for each proposed component that serves a threshold number of participants of at least 100 per year. State agencies will report the outcome data in their annual reports to FNS. The Department has adopted 100 per year because this is consistent with the minimum in the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Department is particularly interested in receiving comments about the reporting measures themselves, as well as the appropriateness of this threshold.

Because State agencies have broad flexibility in what E&T components they offer and how they structure their activities, the Department is not prescribing national reporting measures for specific components. Instead, the Department encourages State agencies, in designing their E&T component measures, consider the measures that are suggested in the Agricultural Act of 2014, which may include:

• The percentage and number of program participants who received E&T services and are in unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those services;

• The percentage and number of participants who obtain a recognized credential, including a registered apprenticeship, or a regular secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, while participating in, or within 1 year after receiving, E&T services;

• The percentage and number of participants who are in an education or training program that is intended to lead to a recognized credential, including a registered apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, a regular secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, or unsubsidized employment;

• Measures developed by each State agency to assess the skills acquisition of employment and training program participants that reflect the goals of the specific employment and training program components of the State agency, which may include:

○ The percentage and number of participants who are meeting program requirements in each component of the education and training program of the State agency;

○ The percentage and number of participants who are gaining skills likely to lead to employment as measured through testing, quantitative or qualitative assessment, or other method; and

○ The percentage and number of participants who do not comply with employment and training requirements and who are ineligible under section 6(b); and

○ Other indicators approved by the Secretary.

Yes. FNS will work with State agencies to identify appropriate reporting measures for each component. State agencies must include the reporting measures for individual components in their E&T plans, which must be submitted and approved by FNS on an annual basis.

The SNAP work registrant population, like the general SNAP population, is very diverse and faces a myriad of challenges to employment, such as measurable educational attainment and employment history, or intangibles such as substance abuse or mental health problems. The Department is interested in understanding the effectiveness of certain approaches with populations facing different barriers; however, this can be difficult to ascertain given that the complex nature of these challenges.

The Department believes that to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of SNAP E&T it must have a more complete picture of the population it is serving. The Department has very little detailed information on the characteristics of SNAP E&T participants. There are no existing reporting requirements or other mechanisms to collect this information. Therefore, in order to better serve SNAP E&T participants, this rule requires State agencies to report the following six characteristics for all E&T participants. The report will include the total number and percentage of all E&T participants who:

• Are voluntary vs. mandatory;

• have achieved a high school degree (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services;

• are ABAWDs;

• speak English as a second language;

• are male vs. female; and

• belong in the following age ranges: 16-17, 18-35, 36-49, 50-59, 60 or older.

For example, if a State had 10,000 E&T participants in a year, 2,000 of which were voluntary and 8,000 mandatory, these numbers would be reported along with the 20 and 80 percentages. State agencies currently collect most of this information as part of the application and it should be available through their eligibility systems or SNAP E&T tracking systems. This will not require additional reporting on the part of the SNAP recipient.

Of the above six characteristics required to be reported of all SNAP E&T participants, the Department has identified three that it believes are most important to understanding the challenges to employment faced by those SNAP E&T participants and former participants who are included in the four national reporting measures described above. These characteristics are: Voluntary or mandatory participation in E&T, those with low education attainment, and those who are ABAWDs. A participant may have more than one characteristic (e.g., may be a voluntary participant who is also an ABAWD). The Department believes obtaining data on those participants and former participants included in the national reporting measures who have these three characteristics is critical to the development of effective strategies to serve these populations. Therefore, the rule requires that for each national reporting measure States must submit summary data that disaggregate the four national measures by the following three characteristics.

• Individuals who are or were voluntary vs. mandatory participants;

• participants having achieved a high school degree (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services; and

• participants who are or were ABAWDs;

Thus, to illustrate, States will be required to report the total number and percentage of E&T participants and former participants in unsubsidized employment during Q2 after participation in E&T and the number and percentage of those participants who were mandatory and voluntary. If the State had 1,000 out of 10,000 E&T participants and former participants employed in the second quarter following completion of E&T (10 percent) and of the 1,000, 300 were voluntary and 700 were mandatory, these numbers would be reported along with the percentages.

Furthermore, in addition to reporting the median quarterly earnings of all the E&T participants and former participants, States will be required to report this outcome measure for the following subgroups: Voluntary participants, mandatory participants, those who have achieved a high school degree (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services, and ABAWDs.

WIOA established primary indicators of performance for the core programs related to employment, earnings, credential attainment/measureable skills gains as they relate to gaining/retaining employment, and serving employers. The SNAP E&T reporting measures required by this rule are closely aligned with, but not identical to, those in WIOA. The variations can be attributed to: (1) Difference in the required frequency of reporting (the Agricultural Act of 2014 requires a single annual report whereas the WIOA proposed regulations would require quarterly reports and an annual report); (2) difference in data needs; and (3) seeking a balance between value of information obtained and the burden of longer term tracking. FNS does not include a reporting measure for the effectiveness of serving employers or the number of participants that obtain credentials, in part because DOL and Department of Education are still in the process of developing this policy. In addition, because State agencies have broad flexibility in what E&T components they offer and how they structure their activities, the Department is not prescribing national reporting measures for specific components, like the percentage and number of participants who obtain a recognized credential, but the Department encourages State Agencies to consider such measures as described in

DOL published proposed regulations regarding WIOA in the “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions” proposed rule on April 16, 2015. The Department views DOL as the leader in employment policy and will look for ways to be consistent with any changes made to its performance measures in the final E&T rulemaking. The Department is interested in comments pertaining to the variance between the WIOA performance indicators and the SNAP E&T reporting measures.

The Department will use outcome data to monitor the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs. The Department will also share this information with policy makers, State agencies, and other stakeholders. In combination with the current data State agencies report to FNS regarding SNAP E&T, outcome data will help the Department identify E&T programs and components that produce a higher number and percentage of participants that obtain unsubsidized employment. The Department will use the data on median earnings to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of E&T programs and the components States have implemented. The Department will also use this data to assess and identify the most promising practices for State agencies that want to improve their SNAP E&T programs. The Department will use the data on educational attainment in a similar way, while the data regarding the characteristics of E&T participants will help the Department and States better understand the relative challenges different groups face.

Pursuant to section 16(h)(5)(D) of the FNA, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, this rule requires State agencies to submit an annual report to FNS by January 1 of each year, to include outcome data on the reporting measures outlined above for the Federal fiscal year ending the previous September 30. FNS may specify a standard format for the annual report.

Data will be measured within the fiscal year for which the State agency is reporting using the most recent data available during the reporting period for each measure and additional characteristics for the participants and former participants included in the reporting measures. Therefore, if an individual completed participation in E&T in the fourth quarter of FY 2018, information from the second quarter of FY 2019 concerning their employment would be included in reporting for FY 2019, even if that individual was no longer participating in SNAP.

Reporting for a fiscal year will include the characteristics of each E&T participant that participated in E&T during that fiscal year.

No, there is no minimum amount of earnings from unsubsidized employment in a quarter for an individual to be included in a reporting measure.

States that have committed to offering all at-risk ABAWDs a slot in a qualifying activity and have received an additional allocation of funds as specified in 7 CFR 273.7(d)(3) must include in their annual reports the following information:

• The monthly average number of individuals in the State who meet the conditions of § 273.7(d)(3)(i);

• The number of individuals to whom the State offers a position in a program described in § 273.24(a)(3)and (4);

• The number of individuals who participate in such programs; and

• A description of the types of employment and training programs the State agency offered to at-risk ABAWDs, and the availability of those programs throughout the State.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 amended section 16(h)(5)(A) of the FNA to require the Department to monitor SNAP E&T programs and assess their effectiveness in terms of preparing members of households for employment, including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for employment, and increasing the number of household members who obtain and retain employment subsequent to participation in E&T. The Agricultural Act of 2014 also amended section 16(h)(5)(C) of the FNA to require that the Department evaluate State agencies' E&T programs on a periodic basis to ensure:

• Compliance with Federal E&T program rules and regulations;

• that program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of the individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program component; and

• that reporting measures are appropriate to identify improvements in skills, training, work and experience for participants in an employment and training program component.

SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(a) already require FNS to conduct management evaluation (ME) reviews of designated, or “target”, areas of program operation each fiscal year. FNS identifies target areas each year based upon a number of considerations, including recent policy changes, risk to Federal funds, and risk to program access. For example, FNS may identify program access as an area that the regional offices are required to review in every State, and nutrition education as an area to be reviewed on an at-risk basis, as necessary. This affords FNS maximum flexibility to target its resources to those current areas of vulnerability or agency priorities. In past years, FNS has not required its regional offices to perform an ME of each State agency's E&T program; many operate very small job-search only programs. However, FNS has required its regional offices to review E&T programs in States that operate third party matching programs, or that have combined Federal and State budgets over a certain threshold. As part of its general monitoring and oversight responsibilities, FNS will meet the requirement of the FNA by continuing to perform MEs of States' E&T programs, but will also continue to establish in guidance which target areas to focus on each year.

In addition, through its current authority, FNS is required to review and approve State agencies' E&T plans and budgets. Through this process, FNS will ensure that individual components are structured to meet the needs of participants and that the reporting measures for individual components with more than 100 participants, required by this rule, are appropriate to measure the impact of the components on participants.

Yes. Section 16(h)(5)(E) of the FNA, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, gives the Department the authority to require a State agency to make modifications to its SNAP E&T plan to improve outcomes if the Department determines that the E&T outcomes are inadequate.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires that performance indicators be used to measure the outcome of government programs. The national reporting measures in this rule will provide data that be used to evaluate the effectiveness of E&T programs in moving SNAP recipients toward self-sufficiency.

Additionally, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of the SNAP E&T program and, in its final report, entitled “Food Stamp Employment and Training Program” (OIG #27601-16-At), released April 29, 2008, concluded that the data to evaluate the SNAP E&T program's impact was lacking. The chief recommendation of this audit report was that FNS establish reporting measures for the SNAP E&T program and require State agencies to submit outcome data, which FNS could then use to determine whether the program improves employability and helps participants prepare for or obtain jobs. FNS agrees with this recommendation and, through this rule, is establishing standardized reporting measures that capture the impact of E&T programs. As noted above, FNS will use data to help identify the most effective E&T programs and best practices, and will share this information with State agencies looking to improve or expand their E&T programs.

Currently, thirty-six State agencies have reporting measures and report E&T program outcome data in their E&T plans. State agencies use a variety of reporting measures, and the outcome data reported cannot be compared or summarized on a national level. Additionally, other work programs, such as those funded under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Wagner-Peyser Act (WPA), require State agencies to track, collect, and report outcome data. The measures in this rule are designed to be similar to the common measures used by these other work programs. The Department recommends that State agencies consult with State workforce and other agencies on data collection strategies and technical requirements.

A SNAP applicant or recipient who is placed in and begins an E&T component is considered a “participant” for reporting purposes. E&T participants who are placed in a component but do not show up for the first training appointment will not be counted in the base of participants for reporting measures. Individuals that complete an E&T component are also considered to be participants for reporting purposes, even if they are no longer participating in SNAP. The Department recognizes that some State agencies provide E&T services to SNAP participants who are under-employed and it does not wish to discourage this practice. As such, State agencies may include E&T participants who are already employed as countable participants, if placed in a component.

Yes. State agencies must count all E&T participants, both mandatory and voluntary, in the base for reporting measures. The Department recognizes that some State agencies have shifted the focus of their E&T programs to voluntary participants because these participants are often more motivated to work and seek training that will make them more employable. The interim reporting measures will reflect the effectiveness of the program for both mandatory and voluntary participants.

Unsubsidized employment means the E&T participant does not receive wages subsidized by a Federal, State or local government program, such as the TANF subsidized employment program or a SNAP work supplementation program. This is consistent with the definition of unsubsidized employment used by other Federal work programs. Participants who enter unsubsidized employment may still be receiving job retention services such as transportation reimbursements and dependent care.

The definition of unsubsidized employment is not limited to jobs with paid benefits, such as health care coverage. Although the Department recognizes the value of such benefits for SNAP households, it would add complexity to data collection and the Department believes it is not an essential reporting requirement for the purpose of the interim rule.

This rule requires that State agencies report the median average quarterly earnings for all E&T participants who had earnings from unsubsidized employment in the second quarter following completion of E&T. Median earnings will capture wage levels, and is consistent with the similar DOL reporting measure under WIOA. The “median” is determined by ranking participants' incomes from lowest to highest and identifying the middle income amount so that there are an equal number of incomes higher and lower. The median income is the amount in the middle—half the income amounts are higher, and half are lower. For example, for three participants earning $1,000, $1,500 and $3,500, the median income is $1,500 even though the average (or mean) would be $2,000. Using the median income can provide a more meaningful measure since it shows the halfway point, rather than the average, which can be significantly influenced by the larger incomes at the top or very small incomes at the bottom of the scale.

No. Outcome data will not affect Federal 100 percent grant funding for E&T programs. However, the Department retains the authority at § 273.7(d)(1)(i)(D) to consider outcome data as part of the scope of impact for a State's E&T program when evaluating requests for additional 100 percent funds.

State agencies may use E&T administrative funds provided by § 273.7(d)(1) and (2) to pay for development of reporting systems as necessary. E&T administrative funds may also be used to meet staffing requirements that result from reporting measure tracking, the cost of follow-up with E&T participants and other aspects of the measures.

The Department will not factor unemployment rates into the raw outcome data. Reporting measures are meant to reflect whether E&T programs are effective in moving participants toward employment and self-sufficiency. However, the Department will consider unemployment rates together with other important factors when looking at the unique challenges SNAP E&T participants face.

No. Workfare and work experience are defined as E&T components at section 6(d)(4) of the FNA, and participation in these components is captured in the FNS-583. Currently, many State agencies offer workfare and work experience as E&T components to provide participants with experience or training that will move them promptly into employment. As State agencies already report these activities on the FNS-583 as E&T components, the Department will not consider placement in such activities as unsubsidized employment to be included in the reporting measures.

The Department will not verify this information on a regular basis. However, FNS will review data collection methods and verify data as part of the ME review of States' E&T programs. This will help to ensure that reported data is accurate.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This interim rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Consistent with the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was developed for this interim rule.

As required for all rules that have been designated as significant by OMB, a RIA was developed for this interim rule. The RIA for this rule was published as part of the docket to this rule on www.regulations.gov. The following summarizes the conclusions of the regulatory impact analysis.

Need for Action: This interim rule implements requirements for State agencies to report outcome data for SNAP E&T programs as mandated by Section 4022(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The interim rule establishes five separate reporting measures and requires State agencies to report annually outcome data to monitor the effectiveness of E&T programs.

State agencies are also required to identify appropriate reporting measures for each proposed component that serves a threshold number of participants of at least 100 a year. The reporting measures for these components will be identified in State agencies' E&T plans and the outcome data will be reported to FNS in State agencies' annual reports.

Benefits: Benefits of this action include better data to inform policy makers regarding means to improve E&T effectiveness, ultimately benefiting SNAP E&T participants. National reporting measures will allow State and Federal program managers and policy makers to strategically plan on program tactics that will result in improved employment outcomes. Uniform reporting measures for E&T programs will potentially benefit SNAP applicants and recipients by providing data to help evaluate what works in SNAP E&T and share best practices from those programs.

Costs: FNS estimates that the costs will include one-time capital costs for developing new or modifying existing data collection systems for E&T programs, additional reporting burden for collecting and reporting data for the required reporting measures, and, for those States that need to develop new systems, annual operating and maintenance costs for those systems. FNS anticipates minimal burden to a small number of low-income families and minimal, if any, impact on program participation. FNS anticipates that some costs will be paid for using the existing federal grant money States receive to operate E&T. State funds spent in excess of the grant are reimbursed at a 50 percent rate by the Federal government.

Effect on State Agencies: The Department has estimated that the effect on State agencies will be two-fold: First, a one-time capital cost for developing new or modifying existing data collection systems for E&T programs; and second, a reporting burden for collecting and reporting data for the required outcome measures. Those States that need to develop new systems may also incur annual operating and maintenance costs.

Thirty-six State agencies currently have reporting measures and collect outcome data. However, the interim rule requires the addition of several data elements that none of these States are currently collecting.

While it is expected that, in the first-year, State agencies will expend time and effort to establish reporting systems, the ongoing burden as shown below in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the preamble is relatively moderate—about one and one-half staff-month per State.

Effect on Low-Income Families: Establishing reporting requirements that measure E&T outcomes will ultimately allow State agencies to better serve low-income populations by providing them with E&T services that lead to longer-term unsubsidized employment opportunities. In addition, the Department estimates that the burden of the rule on low-income families will be minimal. A small number of E&T participants may face additional reporting burden due to the need to contact these individuals to track outcomes that are not available through existing data sources.

Participation Impacts: The Department estimates that the impact on SNAP participation will be minimal. Establishing reporting requirements that measure E&T outcomes will allow State agencies to better serve low-income populations by providing them with E&T services that lead to longer-term unsubsidized employment opportunities.

The Department has reviewed this interim rule in accordance with Departmental Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any requirements that may have the purpose or effect of excluding, limiting, or otherwise disadvantaging any group or class of persons on one or more prohibited bases. After careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, and the characteristics of SNAP households and individual participants, the Department has determined that this rule will not have a disparate impact on any group or class of persons. The interim rule will require State agencies to collect and report outcome data on SNAP E&T programs and will not change work requirements or impact the population subject to work requirements. The Department specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer the Program from engaging in actions that discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, age, disability, and political beliefs. SNAP's nondiscrimination policy can be found at 7 CFR 272.6(a). The interim rule does not change these requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that will minimize any significant impacts on small entities. Pursuant to that review, it is certified that this interim rule will not have a significant impact on small entities. The provisions of this interim rule apply to State agencies, which are not small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost/benefit analysis, for rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This interim rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), the Program is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 13132, requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of the Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have Federalism impacts.

Currently, the Department, through FNS, has encouraged State agencies to establish reporting measures and to report outcome data in their State E&T plans. FNS informally consulted with State agencies to identify what E&T reporting measures and outcome data they collect in the absence of required reporting measures. An informal review of State agencies in FY 2007 showed that twenty-three State agencies had reporting measures and gathered outcome data on the number of E&T participants who entered employment. This review revealed wide variability in how State agencies' aggregate data, how employment was defined, and whether a direct link to participation in E&T was established. FNS reviewed FY 2013 State agency E&T plans and found that thirty-six State agencies track the number of E&T participants that enter employment. The interim rule will standardize the reporting measures that State agencies use and what outcome data State agencies report.

As modified by the Agricultural Act of 2014, section 16(h)(5) of the FNA requires that the Department monitor SNAP E&T programs and measure their effectiveness. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires that performance indicators be used to measure the outcome of government programs. Finally, a 2008 audit by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that FNS had sufficient systems in place to monitor State agency compliance and administration with laws and regulations, but recommended FNS establish reporting measures for the SNAP E&T program and require State agencies to submit outcome data to determine the Program's effectiveness.

This rule establishes standardized reporting measures and requires State agencies to report outcome data for the SNAP E&T program. The Department published a proposed rule establishing performance measures in 1991 (FR 43152, August 30, 1991). At that time, many State agencies and advocates responded that the rule would impose an unreasonable burden on State agencies. The Department did not codify that proposed rule. While State agencies may have similar concerns today, other Federal work programs, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Wagner-Peyser Act (WPA), have established standardized performance indicators and State workforce investment boards have more experience tracking entered employment, retention and earnings. By implementing Section 16(h)(5) of the FNA, the Department is following the lead of other Federal agencies and establishing standardized reporting measures and requiring State agencies to report outcome data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of E&T programs.

The Department has considered the impact of the interim rule on State and local agencies. This rule will implement reporting measures that are required by law and require the reporting of outcome data. The provisions in this rule are similar to the current practice of at least thirty-six State agencies. FNS will work with the remaining State agencies to provide guidance and technical assistance in meeting the requirements of this rule.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Currently, only two State SNAP E&T programs include partnerships or activities with Tribal organizations. On February 29, 2012, during a Tribal consultation, the Department explained the existing section 16(h)(5) of the FNA which required the Department to monitor and measure the effectiveness of E&T programs, and FNS's intention to write a proposed rule on E&T reporting measures and the reporting of outcome data. The Department invited Tribal officials or their designees to ask questions about the impact of a proposed rule on Tribal governments, communities, and individuals. The Department did not receive any comments or questions on its intention to write that rule. (Subsequently, the Agricultural Act of 2014 passed, which expanded the requirements and authority under section 16(h)(5) of the FNA, and included a requirement that the Department publish an interim rule identifying national reporting measures.) This session established a baseline of consultation for future actions, should any be necessary, regarding this rule. Reports from the Tribal consultation session will be made part of the Department's annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. The Department will provide additional venues, such as webinars and teleconferences, to periodically host collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve this rule in Indian country. FNS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule has tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175 and has consulted with Tribes as described above. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies that conflict with its provisions or that will otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the “Effective Date” paragraph of this rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This interim rule contains new provisions that will affect reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Section 271.8 has been amended to reflect the new reporting requirements. The changes in burden that will result from the provisions in the interim rule are described below, and are subject to review and approval by OMB. When the information collection requirements have been approved, the Department will publish a separate action in the Federal Register announcing OMB's approval.

Written comments on the information collection in this interim rule must be received by May 23, 2016. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to Moira Johnston, at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. For further information, or for copies of the information collection requirements, please contact Ms. Johnston.

All responses to this request for comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: SNAP: Employment and Training Program Monitoring, Oversight and Reporting Measures.

OMB Number: [0584—NEW].

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Abstract: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), FNS is submitting this information collection to OMB for its review. The interim rule will require State agencies to collect and report information on: (1) The number and percentage of E&T participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T; (2) The number and percentage of E&T participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T; (3) Median quarterly earnings of all E&T participants who worked in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T; (4) The total number and percentage of participants that complete a training, educational, work experience or an on-the-job training component; and (5) certain unique characteristics of SNAP E&T participants that will provide information on the challenges they face in obtaining employment.

The rule also requires State agencies to identify appropriate reporting measures for each proposed component that serves a threshold number of participants of at least 100 a year. The reporting measures for each component will be identified in States' E&T plans and the outcome data will be reported to FNS in their annual reports. Additionally, the rule requires that State agencies that have committed to offering all ABAWDs at risk of losing eligibility due to time-limited participation a slot in a qualifying activity and have received an additional allocation of funds, to report information regarding the use of those funds.

Respondents: The 53 State agencies that administer the SNAP E&T program.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One response per year for each State agency that administers the SNAP E&T program. States agencies will be required to report their outcome data annually.

Current status: Thirty-six State agencies currently identify reporting measures and collect outcome data. However, the interim rule requires the addition of several data elements that these State agencies are not currently collecting. While the Department believes that some of these State agencies may continue to use the systems they already have in place with modifications to meet the provisions of this rule, others may decide to implement new systems to meet the increase in data that is required to be reported to FNS. The remaining 17 State agencies that do not have reporting measures in place will all need to develop systems to collect and report the required data. In the first year that the rule is published, State agencies will need to develop E&T data collection systems, reprogram existing systems, build interfaces between SNAP eligibility and SNAP E&T data collection systems and decide what data will be collected manually.

Effect on State Agencies: The Department has estimated that the effect on State Agencies will be two-fold: First, a one-time capital cost for developing new or modifying existing data collection systems for E&T programs; and second, a reporting burden for collecting and reporting data for the required reporting measures. Those States that need to develop new systems may also incur annual operating and maintenance costs.

Prior to implementation: In the first year that the rule is published, States may develop new SNAP E&T systems, reprogram existing systems, build interfaces between SNAP eligibility and SNAP E&T systems, and/or decide what data will be collected manually. For several of the measures (e.g., employment, earnings, characteristics of E&T participants) State agencies' could use a variety of sources to obtain administrative data, such as SNAP automated eligibility systems. The Department anticipates that some State agencies will rely on government entities with which they already have agreements and will need to renegotiate those agreements.

Given the different size and complexity of States' E&T programs, variations in their E&T data systems, capabilities of their SNAP eligibility systems, and experience with reporting measures, it is not possible to develop a reliable estimate of the burden this rule places on State agencies to implement. Because of the uncertainties surrounding the exact methods States will use to collect and submit outcome data, we are requesting that States comment specifically on their potential capital start-up and operating and maintenance costs based upon consultation with potential data sources. After internal discussions with FNS regional office and State systems staff, FNS assumes an estimate of three staff-months (520 hours) per State to establish data collection and reporting systems to implement this rule, at a cost of approximately $1.2 million. This estimate of initial burden is a placeholder until FNS receives comments from States on their estimate of the time it will take to implement.

Annual ongoing burden from rule: While it is expected that in the first year State agencies will expend more time and effort to establish reporting systems, the ongoing burden as shown below is relatively moderate—about one and one half staff-month per State. The following estimates assume that State agencies will use a combination of methods to collect the data including existing automated systems data, new data collection, and some contact with SNAP E&T participants. In the regulatory impact analysis accompanying this rule, FNS estimates that the ongoing additional time burden will average no more than about 231 hours annually per State (about one and a half staff-months) on average (12,233 hours per year for all States), or less than $1 million in total. The breakdown of the 231 hours is itemized in the table below. FNS believes this estimate may be somewhat high since data that can be collected through automated data systems is expected to require less time than data collected through direct contact with SNAP E&T participants.

In addition to potential capital start-up and operating and maintenance costs, we are requesting that States comment specifically on our burden estimates.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 271 and 273 are amended as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

Background

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This final rule does not amend the Entity List, but modifies an entry on the Entity List as described further below by adding a temporary general license for two entities recently added to the Entity List.

BIS added Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation (ZTE Corporation), ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. (ZTE Kangxun), and two other entities to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. Details regarding the scope of the listing are at 81 FR 12004 (Mar. 8, 2016), (“Additions to the Entity List”). Each person on the Entity List has the right to request that its listing on the Entity List be removed or modified. Instructions on the request for removal or modification process are found at § 744.16 of the EAR.

The ERC reviews such requests in accordance with the procedures set forth in Supplement No. 5 to part 744. Specifically, as part of its review of requests to remove or modify a listing, the ERC will consider whether the circumstances that led to the decision to add the entity to the Entity List continue to exist. This includes reviewing whether there continues to be reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entity has been involved, is involved, or poses a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States—the standard for revising the Entity List established in § 744.11(b) of the EAR. In connection with a request by ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to remove or modify their listings on the Entity List submitted to BIS pursuant to the foregoing provisions, and binding commitments made by these entities to the U.S. Government, BIS is modifying the effect of their entries on the Entity List by adding a temporary general license to restore temporarily the status quo ante licensing policy pertaining to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun. This final rule does not apply to the other two entities added to Supplement No. 4 to part 744 (The Entity List) on March 8, 2016.

Specifically, this final rule makes the following change to the EAR:

This final rule amends the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to Part 744 to create a Temporary General License that returns until June 30, 2016 the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to that which was in effect just prior to their having been added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. For example, the authority of NLR or a License Exception that was available as of March 7, 2016, may be used as per this temporary general license. The temporary general license is renewable if the U.S. Government determines, in its sole discretion, that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun are timely performing their undertakings to the U.S. Government and otherwise cooperating with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter.

The impact of this temporary general license is that the license and other requirements specified in § 744.11 and Supplement No. 4 to part 744 pertaining to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun do not apply during the period the temporary general license is in effect. This means that the license requirements, license review policies, and license exceptions that applied on March 7, 2016, are applicable regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun until June 30, 2016, unless amended. However, the temporary general license does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR, such as those specified in §§ 744.2, 744.3 and 744.4 of the EAR. For example, this temporary general license does not relieve persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, this temporary general license does not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport, or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the national security and foreign policy objectives of this rule would be harmed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

Background

Section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) provides that when a company is selling foreign merchandise into the United States at less than fair value, and material injury or threat of material injury is found by the International Trade Commission, the Department shall impose an antidumping duty. An antidumping duty analysis involves a comparison of the company's sales price in the United States (known as the export price or constructed export price) with the price or cost in the foreign market (known as the normal value). See 19 CFR 351.401(a). See also section 772 of the Act (defining export price and constructed export price) and section 773 of the Act (defining normal value). The prices used to establish export price, constructed export price, and normal value involve certain adjustments. See, e.g., 19 CFR 351.401(b). In its May 19, 1997 final rulemaking, the Department promulgated regulatory provisions governing the use of price adjustments in the calculation of export price, constructed export price, and normal value in antidumping duty proceedings. Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997) (“1997 Final Rule”). In particular, the Department promulgated the current regulation at 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38), which provides a definition of “price adjustment.” In providing this definition, the Department stated that “[t]his term is intended to describe a category of changes to a price, such as discounts, rebates and post-sale price adjustments, that affect the net outlay of funds by the purchaser.” 1997 Final Rule, 62 FR at 27300.

The Department also enacted 19 CFR 351.401(c) that explains how the Department will use a price net of price adjustments. In the 1997 Final Rule, the Department explained that 19 CFR 351.401(c) was intended to “restate[] the Department's practice with respect to price adjustments, such as discounts and rebates.” Id., 62 FR at 27344.

The Department also addressed the following comment received on the 1997 Final Rule's proposed rulemaking, regarding whether “after the fact” price adjustments, that were not contemplated at the time of sale, would be accepted under 19 CFR 351.401(c):

On March 25, 2014, the Court of International Trade issued Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Koehler AG), remanding the Department's decision in Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, noted above. The Court ordered the Department to reconsider Papierfabrik August Koehler AG's rebate program. The Court disagreed with the Department's determination that the regulations permitted it to disregard certain price adjustments, the terms and conditions of which were not established or known to the customer at the time of sale, stating that “the regulations set forth a broad definition of price adjustment encompassing `any change in the price charged for . . . the foreign like product' that `are reflected in the purchaser's net outlay.' ” 971 F. Supp. 2d at 1251-52 (quoting 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38)) (emphasis added by Court). In accordance with the Court's order, on remand, under protest, the Department granted an adjustment for the rebates at issue. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, Court No.11-00147, Slip Op.14-31 (Ct. Int'l Trade March 25, 2014), dated June 20, 2014.

On December 31, 2014, the Department published a proposed modification of its regulations, 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c), which concern price adjustments in antidumping duty proceedings. See Modification of Regulations Regarding Price Adjustments in Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 79 FR 78742 (December 31, 2014) (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule explained the Department's proposal, in light of the Court of International Trade's decision in Koehler AG, to clarify that the Department generally will not consider a price adjustment that reduces or eliminates dumping margins unless the party claiming such price adjustment demonstrates that the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and known to the customer at the time of sale.

The Department received numerous comments on the Proposed Rule and has addressed these comments below. The Proposed Rule, comments received, and this final rule can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.Regulations.gov under Docket Number ITA-2014-0001. After analyzing and carefully considering all of the comments that the Department received in response to the Proposed Rule, the Department has adopted the modification with certain changes, and is amending its regulations accordingly.

The Department is modifying two of its regulations relating to price adjustments in antidumping duty proceedings: the definition of the term “price adjustment” in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38), and the Department's explanation of its use of prices net of price adjustments in 19 CFR 351.401(c).

In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed minor refinements to the definition of price adjustment in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38). In this final rule, and in light of a party's comment, as discussed in further detail below, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to refine the definition of price adjustment. In particular, we are including language in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to clarify that a price adjustment is not limited to discounts or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as well.

Prior to the Proposed Rule, 19 CFR 351.401(c) provided an explanation of the Department's use of prices net of price adjustment in calculating export price (or constructed exported price) and normal value (where price is used as the basis for normal value). In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed to modify 19 CFR 351.401(c), in light of the Court of International Trade's decision on Koehler AG, in two respects. First, in the first sentence of 19 CFR 351.401(c), the Department proposed language indicating that it would normally use a price that is net of any price adjustment. Second, the Department proposed to add a second sentence to 19 CFR 351.401(c) that clarified the Department generally would not consider a price adjustment that reduces or eliminates a dumping margin unless the party claiming such price adjustment demonstrates that the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and known to the customer at the time of sale.

In the final rule, as discussed below, in light of comments received from interested parties, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment. The Department has further provided in this final rule, as discussed in further detail below, a non-exhaustive list of factors which it may consider in determining whether to accept price adjustments that are made after the time of sale, also referred to as “after-the-fact” or “post-sale” adjustments.

The Department received numerous comments on its Proposed Rule. Below is a summary of the comments, grouped by issue category, followed by the Department's response.

Several commenters argue that the Proposed Rule is the appropriate response to Koehler AG and is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Department's proceedings and to prevent the manipulation of dumping margins through “after-the-fact” adjustments. These commenters argue that in Koehler AG, the Court improperly found that the plain language of the current regulations precludes the disallowance of any post-sale price adjustments. Without the Proposed Rule, these commenters argue that foreign producers and exporters would have every incentive to calculate the U.S. price reduction necessary to eliminate dumping, and then lower their prices accordingly through retroactive rebates to customers in the home or third-country market, thereby reducing or eliminating the dumping margins and undermining the integrity of the Department's proceedings.

One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is unnecessary because the Department has provided no evidence of respondents utilizing manipulative post-sale price adjustments and that existing regulations are sufficient to maintain the integrity of the Department's proceedings because, under 19 CFR 351.401(b)(1), the Department can already deny a price adjustment if it determines that the adjustment is not bona fide. This commenter further argues that the Proposed Rule unduly burdens respondents operating in industries where many discounts and rebates are agreed to on an ad hoc basis without documentation over the course of multiple transactions many months before the Department's proceedings.

Response: The Department finds that the proposed changes will help protect the integrity of our proceedings and are an appropriate response to Koehler AG, which hinders the Department's ability to address after-the-fact rebates which present the potential for manipulation of dumping margins. In Koehler AG the Court of International Trade held that the Department did not have the discretion under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c)—as currently written—to address such manipulative after-the-fact rebates. See 971 F. Supp. 2d at 1251-52. The Proposed Rule, and the further modifications adopted in this final rule, codify the Department's intent and discretion to prevent certain post-sale price adjustments, like those at issue in Koehler AG, and therefore are appropriate to protect the integrity of our proceedings. We believe that these further modifications, discussed below, should address any concerns that the Proposed Rule was unduly burdensome and does not account for actual business practices.

Several commenters state that the Proposed Rule is consistent with the Department's general statutory authority to impose antidumping duties pursuant to section 731 of the Act. One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is inconsistent with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. This commenter argues that a discount or rebate, regardless of when it is established and known to the customer, is a circumstance of sale which falls within the statute's instruction that normal value shall be increased or decreased by the amount of any difference between export price (or constructed export price) and normal value established to the Department's satisfaction to be due to differences in the circumstances of sale. This commenter notes that the statute does not include a requirement that the customer have knowledge of the adjustment prior to the sale.

This same commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Antidumping (AD) Agreement, which provides that due allowance shall be made for differences that affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale. This commenter notes the opinion of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in United States—Stainless Steel (Korea) that a condition or term of sale within the meaning of Article 2.4 is a condition or term that reasonably can be anticipated and accounted for at the time of sale. An additional commenter argues that any regulation that would necessarily disallow an adjustment only if it reduced or eliminated dumping margins could be construed as violating the “fair comparison” requirement of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement.

Response: The Department disagrees with the commenter's argument that the Department's proposed modifications to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c) are inconsistent with the statute. As an initial matter, the commenter argues that these modifications are inconsistent with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, which states that normal value shall be increased or decreased by the amount of any difference between export price (or constructed export price) and normal value established to the Department's satisfaction to be due to differences in the circumstances of sale. However, the statutory basis for the price adjustments addressed in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c) is not section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, but rather, is found in sections 772(a) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i), which provide that in determining export price or normal value the Department begins with the price at which the subject merchandise or foreign like product is first sold—in other words, the basic “starting price” provisions. See 1997 Final Rule, 62 FR at 27344 (“[The] use of a net price is consistent with the view that discounts, rebates and similar price adjustments are not expenses, but instead are items taken into account to derive the price paid by the purchaser.”) This is confirmed by the Department's treatment of the price adjustments described in 19 CFR 351.401(c) as something other than a circumstance of sale adjustment. Compare 19 CFR 351.401(c) (addressing use of price net of price adjustments) with 19 CFR 351.410 (addressing circumstances of sale adjustments which specifically cover direct selling expenses and assumed expenses between the seller and the buyer).

We disagree with the commenter's contention that the Proposed Rule was nevertheless inconsistent with the statute, which requires the Department to make adjustments for differences which affect price comparability, as well as the Department's obligation under U.S. law to calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible. As several commenters recognized, and as discussed in further detail below, the Department has a longstanding practice of denying certain post-sale price adjustments where there exists a potential for manipulation of the dumping margins, and the courts have affirmed this practice as consistent with the statute. See Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 834, 840 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998) (“Commerce's decision to reject price amendments that present the potential for price manipulation was a permissible interpretation of the statute.”); Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538, 555 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988) (“The ITA has been vested with authority to administer the antidumping laws in accordance with the legislative intent. To this end, the ITA has a certain amount of discretion [to act] . . . with the purpose in mind of preventing the intentional evasion or circumvention of the antidumping duty law.”), aff'd 898 F.2d 1577 (1990).

The Proposed Rule, in proposing certain modifications to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c), was intended to codify the Department's intent to prevent such potentially manipulative post-sale price adjustments. As discussed below, in this final rule the Department has made further modifications to these regulations to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment. These final modifications continue to be consistent with the Department's statutory authority, in setting the “starting price” of normal value or export price, and prevent the potential manipulation of dumping margins through certain post-sale price adjustments.

Finally, the Department disagrees with those commenters that argue that the Proposed Rule was inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. To the contrary, the Department finds that the Proposed Rule was consistent with U.S. law, which is consistent with our obligations under the AD Agreement. In any case, the relevant language which one commenter objected to with respect to specifically disallowing adjustments which reduce or eliminate dumping margins does not appear in the final rule.

Several commenters argue that the Proposed Rule codifies the Department's longstanding practice of disallowing price adjustments that reduce or eliminate dumping margins where the terms and conditions of the adjustment were not established and known to the customer at the time of sale. Several of these commenters argue that the Proposed Rule is consistent with other aspects of the Department's practice based on the principle that the Department's proceedings should be free from outcome-driven manipulation and that dumping margins should reflect the respondent's pricing behavior in the ordinary course of business.

One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule in its current form is overly broad and, if adopted, threatens to eliminate certain legitimate post-sale price adjustments that were previously granted by the Department. This commenter argues that the Department's practice has allowed for at least three categories of post-sale price adjustments that the Proposed Rule would preclude: (1) Price protection adjustments whereby a buyer seeks a price adjustment to sell a commodity downstream when commodity prices are rapidly changing; (2) post-invoice consumer rebates that offer the buyer a rebate at the time it sells the product to an end user, where such rebates often are not fixed at the time of the first sale; and (3) quality-upon-receipt discounts, which are common for perishable goods.

Response: We find that the Proposed Rule was intended to codify the Department's intent and discretion to prevent certain post-sale price adjustments. However, in light of certain comments, we recognize that the proposed modifications to 19 CFR 351.401(c) could have the unintended effect of limiting the Department's discretion to accept certain post-sale price adjustments which the Department has previously accepted. Therefore, as discussed below, we have made further modifications to 19 CFR 351.401(c) to ensure that the Department maintains its intended discretion.

Several commenters argue that the Department should adopt the Proposed Rule in its entirety, as it is an appropriate and necessary codification of the Department's established practice of disallowing certain post-sale price adjustments.

One commenter argues that the Department should clarify that the Proposed Rule is not intended to limit the Department's discretion to address post-sale price adjustments other than rebates or discounts, such as billings adjustments. This commenter observes that whereas prior to this modification 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) listed discounts, rebates, and post-sale price adjustments as examples of changes in price that could qualify as price adjustments, the Proposed Rule does not include the term “post-sale price adjustments.” This same commenter suggests that the Department consider a set of factors in determining whether to grant a price adjustment normally under its regulations. This commenter suggests that the Department could consider the following: (1) How common such post-sale price adjustments are for the industry; (2) the timing of the adjustment; (3) the number of such adjustments in the proceeding; (4) whether the reported changes reflect both increases and decreases to the originally negotiated prices in the relevant markets; (5) whether there is commercial documentation maintained in the ordinary course of business demonstrating that the price changes were negotiated by the parties and resulted in a change in the purchaser's net outlay and a change in the producer's net revenues; and (6) any other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy of the claimed adjustment.

Other commenters argue that the Proposed Rule in its current form is inconsistent with normal business practices in many industries investigated by the Department.

One commenter proposes modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to allow for a price adjustment if the party seeking the adjustment can demonstrate that the adjustment at issue is within the party's standard business practice that existed prior to the initiation of the proceeding.

Response: With respect to the proposed changes to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) in the Proposed Rule, these modifications were not intended to foreclose other types of price adjustments, such as billing adjustments and post-sale decreases to home market prices or increases to U.S. prices. Nonetheless, in light of a party's comment, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to refine the definition of price adjustment and to clarify that a price adjustment is not just limited to discounts or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as well.

With respect to 19 CFR 351.401(c), in light of concerns that the modifications in the Proposed Rule may have the unintended consequence of being overly restrictive and limiting the Department's discretion to accept certain post-sale price adjustments which it has previously accepted, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department generally will not accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment.

In determining whether a party has demonstrated its entitlement to such an adjustment, the Department may consider: (1) Whether the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and/or known to the customer at the time of sale, and whether this can be demonstrated through documentation; (2) how common such post-sale price adjustments are for the company and/or industry; (3) the timing of the adjustment; (4) the number of such adjustments in the proceeding; and (5) any other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy of the claimed adjustment. The Department may consider any one or a combination of these factors in making its determination, which will be made on a case-by-case basis and in light of the evidence and arguments on each record.

As demonstrated above, the Department is expressly referencing in this final rule certain of the factors suggested by one commenter. Other factors which are not expressly adopted here might fall under the last category we identify, i.e., “any other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy of the claimed adjustment.”

We have not adopted the one commenter's suggestion, either in the regulation itself, or in this final rule, to accept post-sale price adjustments if a company can demonstrate that the adjustment at issue is part of its standard business practice that existed prior to the initiation of the proceeding. We believe that the list we have identified above provides adequate factors for the Department to consider in determining whether a company has demonstrated its entitlement to an adjustment. We also note that the timing of the adjustment is one of those criteria. However, we believe that allowing a company to simply show that certain adjustments are part of its standard business practice might permit certain adjustments, such as those at issue in Koehler AG, that have the potential to manipulate the dumping margins. As discussed above, it is the Department's intention to codify its discretion to reject those types of adjustments.

One commenter agrees with the Department's proposal in the Proposed Rule to set the effective date of the final rule to apply to proceedings initiated on or after 30 days following the publication of the final rule. This commenter states that the proposed effective date is appropriate, and that it would be unfair to apply the final rule to shipments that took place prior to publication of the final rule.

Response: The Department agrees that it is appropriate that the final rule be effective for proceedings which are initiated on or after 30 days following the date of publication of the final rule. We note that the final rule will therefore apply to entries of merchandise that took place prior to publication of the final rule. However, we believe this does not result in unfairness as the regulations, both in their current form and in this final rulemaking, merely guide the Department on what adjustments to make to export price or constructed export price and normal value under certain factual scenarios in the course of an antidumping duty proceeding. The final rule therefore impacts the way in which the Department makes certain calculations in antidumping duty proceedings, and no entities would be required to undertake additional compliance measures or expenditures on entries that have already taken place.

In the final rule, the Department has added further refinements to the definition of price adjustment in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to clarify that a price adjustment is not limited to discounts or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as well. The Department has also made certain modifications to the new second sentence of 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment.

It has been determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)).

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published with the Proposed Rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of this rule. As a result, the conclusion in the certification memorandum for the Proposed Rule remains unchanged and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.

For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 351 is amended as follows:

The purpose of the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients is to set forth the LSC regulatory requirements to be audited by the Independent Public Accountants (“IPA”) as part of the recipients' annual financial statement audit and to provide suggested guidance to the IPAs in accomplishing this task. Pursuant to 45 CFR part 1641, IPAs are subject to suspension, removal, and/or debarment for not following OIG audit guidance as set out in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. Since the last revision of the LSC OIG's Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients, LSC has significantly revised and updated several regulations. By revising the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients, the LSC OIG intends that the Compliance Supplement accurately reflects these regulatory revisions and updates, including the corresponding changes to suggested audit guidance provided to the IPAs. A summary of the proposed changes follows.

The LSC OIG has included regulatory requirements under 45 CFR part 1604 in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. The inclusion sets forth the requirements dealing with the permissibility of recipient staff engaged in the outside practice of law along with suggested audit guidance for use by the IPAs.

The LSC OIG made major revisions to several regulatory summaries to reflect LSC's revisions to its regulations. Revised summaries include those for 45 CFR parts 1609 (fee generating cases); 1611 (eligibility); 1614 (private attorney involvement); 1626 (restrictions on legal assistance to aliens); and to a lesser extent, 1635 (timekeeping requirement). The summaries now follow the existing law and LSC regulations. The suggested audit procedures for each of these sections have been revised and updated to incorporate and take into consideration the regulatory changes.

The LSC OIG revised the case sampling methodology by reducing criteria utilized in the case selection process to clarify and simplify the process.

The LSC OIG updated and revised suggested audit procedures for the regulations. The updates and revisions are intended for clarification and simplification purposes and to provide added emphasis on internal controls.

The LSC OIG received ten comments during the public comment period. Four comments were submitted by LSC funded recipients: Prairie State Legal Services (PSLS), Colorado Legal Services (CLS), Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. (LOLLAF) and Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago (LAF). Three comments were submitted by IPAs. One comment was submitted by the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois (LTFI), separately joined by LAF. One comment was submitted by the Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants (SCLAID) of the American Bar Association. One comment was submitted by the non-LSC funded non-profit National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) through its Civil Policy Group and its Regulations and Policy Committee, which was also separately joined by LAF. All commenters appeared generally supportive of the changes the LSC OIG proposed to the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients.

The LSC OIG proposed making the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2015. Four commenters (PSLS, NLADA, CLS, LTFI) expressed concern over retroactive application of the revised Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients which they believed would result in additional audit costs, delays in submission and impact the current audit process that may be underway. The LSC OIG will make the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after April 30, 2016.

As part of finalizing the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients, typos were corrected and formatting problems were resolved in both the regulatory summaries and in the suggested audit procedures. One commenter (SCLAID) identified a formatting issue and typos in separate regulatory summaries that were all corrected.

The LSC OIG proposed inclusion of 45 CFR part 1604 in the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients and provided a regulatory summary of the applicable compliance requirements.

Comment—Two commenters (NLADA, CLS) expressed concern that the regulatory summary did not fully list all the permissible circumstances for the outside practice of law, specifically those contained in 45 CFR 1604.4(c)(2) and (c)(3).

Response—The LSC OIG has revised the regulatory summary to include the language contained in 45 CFR 1604.4(c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4).

The LSC OIG proposed revisions to update the regulatory summary for 45 CFR part 1611 in order to follow the current LSC regulation. The LSC OIG also proposed what it believed to be clarifying language relating to Older Americans Act (OAA) funds.

Comment 1—Six commenters (including NLADA, PSLS, CLS, LOLLAF, LTFI, LAF) expressed significant concern on the inclusion of the language relating to the OAA funds, arguing that it changed longstanding LSC policy and would have a detrimental impact on providing services to the elderly. NLADA stated “This section significantly changes longstanding guidance regarding eligibility determinations for senior citizens that would result in a reduction of services available to individuals age 60 and over.” This was mirrored by several other LSC funded commenters.

Response—To avoid confusion and unintended consequences, the LSC OIG has removed the language referring to OAA funds from this section.

Comment 2—NLADA also expressed concern relating to a suggested audit procedure for assessing the waiver of eligibility requirements. NLADA believed that the language needed revision “so that an auditor does not waste time looking for evidence of a waiver determination, but rather reviews whether the appropriate factors allowing income eligibility have been identified for households with income between 125% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.”

Response—The LSC OIG has modified the suggested audit procedure to provide better clarity by including the following language at the end of the suggested audit procedure: “or the recipient determined the client was eligible based on the factors set forth in 45 CFR 1611.5(a)(3) or (4).”

Comment—Two commenters (NLADA, CLS) expressed concern over the regulatory summary language regarding the prohibitions contained in 45 CFR 1612.6(c), describing it as “overly broad and/or confusing.” NLADA stated “The regulation does not contain a general prohibition on providing information in connection with legislation or rulemaking.” CLS stated “This sentence omits key elements in the actual Regulation that employees are only prohibited from soliciting or arranging for a request from any official to testify or otherwise provide information in connection with legislation or rulemaking.”

Response—The LSC OIG has revised the regulatory summary language pertaining to 45 CFR 1612.6(c) to more accurately reflect the prohibitions. Also, a technical correction was made to the 45 CFR 1612.3 language contained in the regulatory summary in order to include phraseology that had been inadvertently omitted from the initial draft publication. The language added is as follows (with emphasis placed on the additions and corrections):

(5) the issuance, amendment or revocation of any executive order. Recipients shall not use any funds to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone communication, letter, printed or written matter, administrative expense, or related expense, associated with an activity prohibited in (1)—(5) detailed above (45 CFR 1612.3).

The LSC OIG proposed revisions to update the regulatory summary for 45 CFR part 1614 in order to follow the current LSC regulation.

Comment—Two commenters (NLADA, CLS) expressed concern that the revised regulatory summary discussing § 1614.4(b)(1) omitted an important clause. NLADA stated that “The sentence in the Draft Supplement currently only references including support provided by private attorneys to the recipient” and does not mention subrecipient, an entire category of organizations that may receive private attorney support.

Response—The LSC OIG has revised the regulatory summary language as follows:

Comment 1—Two commenters (NLADA, CLS) expressed concern over the LSC OIG policy on high risk designation for LSC grantees, stating that it is unwarranted, could be confusing to stakeholders and be a misnomer to a specific auditee. NLADA recommended the elimination of this blanket designation by the LSC OIG.

Response—The LSC OIG will retain the policy of high risk designation at this time. If the LSC OIG accepted the requested modification to this section, it could allow IPAs to designate LSC grantees as low risk. Such a designation would result in audits not in compliance with statutory requirements.

Comment 2—NLADA also expressed concern relating to the suggested audit procedure on obtaining an understanding of internal controls in place associated with specific regulations. NLADA recommended that the LSC OIG include clarification that “. . . understanding internal controls means that the auditor has identified that there are systems in place to assure compliance.”

Response—The LSC OIG believes that the current language is sufficiently clear to the IPA that the internal controls relate to compliance with the applicable LSC regulatory requirement. No additional changes were made.

Comments provided by all three IPAs related to non-audit questions, satisfaction with improved procedures and commentary on utilizing the suggested audit procedures. No additional changes were made.

For the reasons stated above, the Legal Services Corporation Office of Inspector General revises the Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients. The Revised Compliance Supplement for Audits of LSC Recipients is available on the LSC OIG Web site at: https://www.oig.lsc.gov/images/pdfs/ipa_resources/April_2016_Compliance_Supplement.pdf.

This document announces that, on March 17, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the network change disclosure rules pertaining to copper retirement notices contained in the Commission's EWNS Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15-97, published at 80 FR 63322, October 19, 2015.

The OMB Control Number is 3060-0741. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room A-C620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0741, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 17, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 51. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0741.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0741.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, et al.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,357 respondents; 573,767 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-8 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; recordkeeping; third party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority is contained in 47 U.S.C. 222 and 251.

Total Annual Burden: 575,840 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

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

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 251, is designed to accelerate private sector development and deployment of telecommunications technologies and services by spurring competition. Section 222(e) is also designed to spur competition by prescribing requirements for the sharing of subscriber list information. These OMB collections are designed to help implement certain provisions of sections 222(e) and 251, and to eliminate operational barriers to competition in the telecommunications services market. Specifically, these OMB collections will be used to implement (1) local exchange carriers' (“LECs”) obligations to provide their competitors with dialing parity and non-discriminatory access to certain services and functionalities; (2) incumbent local exchange carriers' (“ILECs”) duty to make network information disclosures; and (3) numbering administration. The Commission estimates that the total annual burden of the entire collection, as revised, is 575,840 hours. This revision relates to a change in one of many components of the currently approved collection—specifically, certain reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements under section 251(c)(5). In August 2015, the Commission adopted new rules concerning certain information collection requirements implemented under section 251(c)(5) of the Act, pertaining to network change disclosures. The changes to those rules apply specifically to a certain subset of network change disclosures, namely notices of planned copper retirements. The changes are designed to provide interconnecting entities adequate time to prepare their networks for the planned copper retirements and to ensure that consumers are able to make informed choices. There is also a change in the number of potential respondents to the rules promulgated under that section. The number of respondents as to the information collection requirements implemented under section 251(c)(5) of the Act, has changed from 1,300 to 750, a decrease of 550 respondents from the previous submission. Under section 251(f)(1) of the Act, rural telephone companies are exempt from the requirements of section 251(c) “until (i) such company has received a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements, and (ii) the State commission determines . . . that such request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with section 254 . . . .” The Commission has determined that the number of potential respondents set forth in the previous submission inadvertently failed to take this exemption into account. There are 1,429 ILECs nationwide. Of those, 87 are non-rural ILECs and 1,342 are rural ILECs. The Commission estimates that of the 1,342 rural ILECs, 679 are entitled to the exemption and 663 are not entitled to the exemption and thus must comply with rules promulgated under section 251(c) of the Act, including the rules that are the subject of this information collection. Thus, the Commission estimates that there are 87 (non-rural) + 663 (rural) = 750 potential respondents. The Commission estimates that the revision does not result in any additional outlays of funds for hiring outside contractors or procuring equipment.

This document announces that, on March 17, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order, FCC 14-50, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1178. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1194, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on March 17, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3700(e)(2) through (6).

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1178. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1178.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399, Section 73.3700(e), Reimbursement Rules.

Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,900 respondents and 22,800 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1-4 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 31,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $5,625,000.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; and Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is some need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Invoices, receipts, contracts and other cost documentation submitted along with the form will be kept confidential in order to protect the identification of vendors and the terms of private contracts between parties. Vendor name and Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) will not be disclosed to the public.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) and approved for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to provide reimbursement to television broadcast stations that are relocated to a new channel following the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction, and to multichannel video programming distributors (MVDPs) that incur costs in carrying the signal of relocated television broadcast stations. Relocated television broadcasters and MVPDs (“eligible entities”) will be reimbursed for their reasonable costs incurred as a result of relocation from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund. Eligible entities will use the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399) to submit an estimate of their eligible relocation costs; to submit actual cost documentation (such as receipts and invoices) throughout the construction period, as they incur expenses; and to account for the total expenses incurred at the end of the project.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 3,411 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

The A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,054 mt, as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear will not be able to harvest 1,700 mt of the A season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(B)(1) and (2). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional Administrator has also determined that vessels using pot gear and vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA currently have the capacity to harvest this excess allocation and reallocates 1,500 mt to vessels using pot gear and 200 mt to vessels using jig gear. Therefore, NMFS apportions 1,000 mt of Pacific cod from the A season apportionments for catcher vessels less than 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear and 500 mt of Pacific cod from catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS also apportions 200 mt of Pacific cod from the A season apportionment for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA

The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) are revised as follows: 2,411 mt to the A season apportionment and 4,347 mt to the annual amount for catcher vessels less than 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear, 1,354 mt to the A season apportionment and 1,756 mt to the annual amount for catcher vessels equal to or greater than 50 ft. LOA using hook-and-line gear, 8,028 mt to the A season apportionment and 11,680 mt to the annual amount to vessels using pot gear, and 422 mt to the A season apportionment and 570 mt to the annual amount to vessels using jig gear.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear to vessels using pot or jig gear. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 18, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 222 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 11452, March 4, 2016).

As of March 18, 2016, NMFS has determined that approximately 200 mt of Pacific cod remain in the A season directed fishing allowance for Pacific cod apportioned to vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the A season allowance of the 2016 TAC of Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 18, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 8, 2016.

This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.