Federal Register Vol. 81, No.77,

On April 13, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China.1 The Final Results contained an inadvertent error related to a certain company name. Specifically, the Final Results incorrectly identified Shanghai Ocean Flavor International Trading Co., Ltd. as Shanghai Ocean International International Trading Co., Ltd. in the “Final Results of the Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews” section.2

This correction to the Final Results is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), 751(a)(3), 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), 351.214 and 351.221(b)(4). of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On March 3, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of stainless steel sheet and strip (stainless steel) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 The notice of initiation stated that, in accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we would issue our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of initiation, unless postponed. Currently, the preliminary determination in this investigation is due no later than May 9, 2016.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigation if, among other reasons, the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement, or the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated. On April 13, 2016, AK Steel Corporation, Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products, North American Stainless, and Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (collectively, Petitioners) made a timely request to postpone the preliminary CVD determination.2 Therefore, pursuant to the discretion afforded the Department under 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and because the Department does not find any compelling reason to deny the request, we are fully extending the due date until 130 days after the Department's initiation for the preliminary determination, to July 11, 2016. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background

On August 7, 2008, the Department published AD and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on LWS imports from the PRC.3 The Government of the People's Republic of China challenged the LWS orders and three other sets of simultaneously imposed AD and CVD orders before the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO Appellate Body, in March 2011, found that the United States had acted inconsistently with its international obligations in several respects, including the potential imposition of overlapping remedies, or so-called “double remedies.” 4 The U.S. Trade Representative then announced the United States' intention to comply with the WTO's rulings and recommendations, and the Department initiated a Section 129 proceeding.5

On July 31, 2012, the Department issued its Final Section 129 Determination. In that determination, the Department found that an adjustment was warranted to the AD rates on LWS imports from the PRC to account for remedies that overlap those imposed by the CVD order.6 As a result, the Department reduced the applicable AD rate for separate rate companies from 64.28 percent to 20.19 percent and reduced the PRC-wide entity AD rate from 91.73 percent to 47.64 percent.7 The Department published a notice implementing the Final Section 129 Determination on August 30, 2012.8 Various parties challenged the Department's Final Section 129 Determination at the CIT.

Following the final disposition of litigation related to the Final Section 129 Determination regarding the AD and CVD investigations of circular welded pipe (CWP) from the PRC, in which the Department found no basis for making an adjustment to the AD rates under Section 777(A)(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),9 the CIT granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand in the litigation challenging the Final Section 129 Determination regarding the AD investigation of LWS from the PRC.10 On March 23, 2016, the Department issued its Final Remand Redetermination regarding the AD investigation of LWS from the PRC, in which it amended its Final Section 129 Determination regarding the AD investigation and denied the adjustment to the AD cash deposit rates granted to respondents in the Final Section 129 Determination.11 On March 30, 2016, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Remand Redetermination.12

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's March 30, 2016, judgment affirming the Final Remand Redetermination constitutes a final court decision that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Section 129 Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of publication requirements of Timken.

Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Department's Final Section 129 Determination regarding the AD investigation of LWS from the PRC, the Department is amending the Final Section 129 Determination, as implemented, regarding an adjustment to the AD cash deposit rates. The revised AD cash deposit rates are as follows:

Unless the applicable cash deposit rates have been superseded by cash deposit rates calculated in an intervening administrative review of the AD order on LWS from the PRC, the Department will instruct U. S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated AD duties at the rate noted above for each specified exporter and producer combination, for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 11, 2016.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 129(c)(2)(A) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

I. Abstract

Public Law 100-107 (The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987), which established the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and its Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), stipulates that organizational applicants for the award (see OMB Control #0693-006) receive “an intensive evaluation by a competent board of examiners which shall review the evidence submitted by the organization and, through a site visit, verify the accuracy of the quality improvements claimed.”

Per the statute, “the Director of the National Bureau of Standards shall rely upon” these examiners, as they are in essence the external workforce of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. Baldrige Program staff members manage and improve the award and all of its processes, but the examiners actually do the objective review of MBNQA applicants.

The Team Leader Consensus and Site Visit Surveys will be one key way that Baldrige staff members can communicate with and seek feedback from the external workforce (Baldrige Examiners). To manage these voluntary examiners (some private citizens, some government and military personnel), the Baldrige Program needs the ability to ask them of their preferences for the sector in which they will do their application review (e.g., do they want to review a health care applicant, manufacturing applicant), their availability to conduct reviews, their ability to travel on a site visit and about all of their logistical needs (e.g., dietary restrictions, cannot review an organization from a certain state due to conflicts in that state), their ability to perform particular MBNQA roles such as technical editor or team leader), their conflicts with a particular organization, etc. The Baldrige Program also needs to survey them to obtain qualitative information on performance, as being a Baldrige Examiner is a very competitive selection.

The Baldrige Program could not perform the intensive evaluation called for in the law without surveying its own workforce about their unique needs in relation to the MBNQA process (and its subprocesses). In fact, these volunteer examiners expect to be asked their preferences, as well as given the ability to give their feedback to improve processes.

Surveys are typically conducted via email or through a secure NIST file-sharing system if any MBNQA organization-specific information needs to be shared. Surveys can also be conducted over the phone if the number of examiners who need to be asked about a particular role or need is less than about 20. Often, a personal phone call is the best way to survey a subset of examiners, as maintaining positive relationships with examiners is very important to the program.

OMB Control Number: #0693-XXXX (New Collection).

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals, including private citizens. All must be U.S. citizens (proof of citizenship is required prior to Baldrige Examiner training).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500 per year.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 167 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

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

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

In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), as amended, the U.S. Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of State (the State Department), appoints a GAC to the U.S. Section to the IATTC, and a SAS that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce, other agencies of the U.S. Government, and other stakeholders. The purpose of the GAC shall be to advise the U.S. Section with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, with particular reference to development of U.S. policies, positions, and negotiating tactics. The purpose of the SAS is to advise the GAC on matters of science. NMFS West Coast Region provides administrative support for the GAC and SAS. The meetings of the GAC and SAS shall be open to the public, unless in executive session. The time and manner of public comment will be at the discretion of the chairs for the GAC and SAS.

The 90th meeting of the IATTC, the 33rd Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), as well as working group meetings for both the IATTC and AIDCP, will be held in La Jolla, California from June 20 to July 1, 2016. For more information on these meetings, please visit the IATTC's Web site: https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm.

The GAC meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Outcomes of the 2016 SAC to the IATTC (e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

(2) Implementation of the Antigua Convention including the development of a SOPP;

(3) Input from the SAS;

(4) Formulation of advice on issues that may arise at the upcoming 90th meeting of the IATTC, including the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures, U.S. proposals, and proposals from other IATTC members; and

(5) Other issues as they arise.

The SAS meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Outcomes of the 2016 Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the IATTC (e.g., stock status updates for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean);

(2) Implementation of the Antigua Convention including the development of a Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures (SOPP);

(3) Issues related to the impact of fishing on non-target species, such as shark, seabirds, sea turtles;

(4) Evaluation of the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures for 2016;

(5) U.S. proposals for the 90th meeting of the IATTC and proposals from other IATTC members; and

(6) Other issues as they arise.

The GAC and SAS call will exclusively consist of review and discussion of the draft SOPP in an effort to resolve most of the edits and comments before the GAC and SAS meeting so it does not take away from other agenda items.

The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Taylor Debevec (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by May 11, 2016.

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Greater Atlantic Region manages the golden tilefish fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Northeastern United States, through the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified at 50 CFR part 648 subpart N.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at § 648.294 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS requests information from tilefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) permit holders in order to process applications to ensure that IFQ allocation holders are provided a statement of their annual catch quota, and for enforcement purposes, to ensure vessels are not exceeding an individual quota allocation. In conjunction with the application, NMFS also collects IFQ share accumulation information to ensure that an IFQ allocation holder does not acquire an excessive share of the total limited access privileges, as required by section 303A(d)(5)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

NMFS requests transfer application information to process and track requests from allocation holders to transfer quota allocation (permanent and temporary) to another entity. NMFS also collects information for cost recovery purposes as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to collect fees to recover the costs directly related to management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of IFQ programs. Lastly, NMFS collects landings information to ensure that the amounts of tilefish landed and ex-vessel prices are properly recorded for quota monitoring purposes and the calculation of IFQ fees, respectively. Having this information results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.

The IFQ Allocation permit application, IFQ holder cap form, and the IFQ transfer form are all paper applications. These applications can be filled out online, but must be printed and signed to complete. The IFQ cost recovery process is entirely online at www.pay.gov and the IFQ reporting requirements are completed through a phone call to NMFS interactive voice response phone line.

OMB Number: 0648-0590.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time per Response: IFQ Allocation Permit Application, 30 minutes; IFQ Holder Cap Form, 5 minutes; IFQ Transfer Form, 5 minutes; IFQ Cost Recovery, 2 hours; IFQ Reporting Requirements, 2 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 42.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $45.

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

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

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 at Volume 81 FR page 2202. This comment period ended March 15, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

Description: This form is for use by AmeriCorps State and National grantees who want to receive reimbursement for funds spent accommodating AmeriCorps members with disabilities.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Disability Accommodation Reimbursement Request Form.

OMB Number: TBD.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Grantees of AmeriCorps State & National and AmeriCorps members with disabilities.

Total Respondents: 20.

Frequency: Once.

Average Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3.33 hours.

Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintenance): None.

On December 10, 2015, the President signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Public Law 114-95, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Under section 5(c) of the ESSA, CSP grants awarded in FY 2016 and earlier years will operate in accordance with the requirements of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and any continuation awards applicable to these grants also will operate in accordance with such requirements.

The FY 2016 CSP Grants for SEAs competition is similar to the previous year's competition, with a few changes to simplify the application and review process, consistent with feedback from applicants, peer reviewers, and panel monitors. Notably, the competitive preference priorities have been streamlined and the selection criteria have been reduced in number and simplified. In addition, to ensure that CSP funds are used efficiently by SEAs and their subgrantees, the Department has established a maximum amount of subgrant funds that an SEA may award to a subgrantee for planning, program design, and initial implementation of a charter school. In developing their applications, applicants should review the application package available at www.grants.gov for additional information concerning the priorities, application requirements, and selection criteria for this competition, as well as more detailed information on the application submission process.

As in FY 2015, the Department seeks to achieve three main goals through this competition. The first goal is to ensure that CSP funds are directed toward the creation of high-quality charter schools. For example, under selection criterion (d) Project Design, reviewers will consider how an applicant's CSP project design furthers its overall strategy for increasing the number of high-quality charter schools in the State, including how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will be awarded to eligible applicants demonstrating the capacity to create high-quality charter schools.

The second goal is to strengthen public accountability for authorized public chartering agencies (also referred to as authorizers) and their charter schools through rigorous and transparent charter school authorization and oversight processes. For example, Absolute Priorities 1 Periodic Review and Evaluation and 2 Charter School Oversight require an applicant to demonstrate that its State implements specific charter school authorization and oversight policies to ensure public accountability for charter schools in the State, including holding authorized public chartering agencies accountable for the quality of the charter schools in their portfolios.

The third goal is to support and improve academic outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students through equal access to high-quality charter schools, improved academic performance for students at the greatest risk of academic failure, and a concerted effort to increase student-body diversity in charter schools. Diversity—in particular racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity—is a critical component of improving outcomes for all students, including educationally disadvantaged students. Accordingly, under selection criterion (f) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies, reviewers will consider the quality of an applicant's plan to help ensure that authorized public chartering agencies approve charter school petitions that incorporate school models, practices, or strategies that may be effective in improving outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students, including models, practices, and strategies that focus on increasing student-body diversity. These approaches may include, for example, site-location and transportation planning to facilitate charter school enrollment of students from different neighborhoods or communities, targeted recruitment of high-need student populations to attract diverse pools of applicants to charter schools, weighted admissions lotteries for educationally disadvantaged students to increase student body diversity in charter schools, academic themes and course offerings to attract a diverse group of students, or other practices, including evidence-based practices related to serving educationally disadvantaged students, such as practices designed to increase access to rigorous coursework or intensive, near-peer mentoring for such students. In addition, the dissemination of best practices related to student discipline and school climate may help prevent disproportionate suspensions and expulsions, and increase retention and academic performance, of educationally disadvantaged students enrolled in charter schools. Under selection criterion (e), Dissemination of Information and Best Practices, reviewers will consider the quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices related to student discipline. Lastly, as part of our commitment to transparency and ensuring that charter schools are serving all students, including our Nation's high-need students, we include an invitational priority designed to encourage applicants to describe how they publicly report student demographic information for each charter school in their State, as well as how they publicly report comparable demographic information for school districts and public schools in the surrounding areas.

Although related, the goal of increasing student-body diversity should not be confused with basic compliance requirements related to non-discrimination. We remind applicants of the need to ensure charter school compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and policies, and expect grantees to include appropriate oversight in their subgrantee monitoring plans with respect to the following areas:

(1) For all charter schools that receive CSP or other Federal funds, compliance with non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), and applicable State laws;

(2) For charter schools that are opened and operate as single-sex schools, compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34(c). In addition, with respect to opening and operating co-educational charter schools that offer single-sex classes or extracurricular activities, the applicant must ensure that charter schools in its State comply with the Title IX regulations at 34 CFR 106.34(b). Please see the application package for further information;

(3) For charter schools that are closing (whether voluntarily or otherwise), compliance with applicable laws that govern public school closures generally, and requirements for closing out CSP subgrants properly. The Department encourages SEAs to develop written procedures and guidelines to assist charter schools that close in addressing various issues, including appropriate disposition of the school's assets, placement of students in other public schools, the transfer of student records, and protection of students' personal information.

Priorities: This notice includes two absolute priorities, two competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The absolute priorities and Competitive Preference Priority 1 are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program, published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34201) (NFP), and Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from section 5202(e) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(e)(3)(B)).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both of the following absolute priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Periodic Review and Evaluation

To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every five years, unless required more frequently by State law, and takes steps to ensure that such reviews take place. The review and evaluation must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in the school's charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation. This periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity for the authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.

Absolute Priority 2—Charter School Oversight

To meet this priority, an application must demonstrate that State law, regulations, or other policies in the State where the applicant is located require the following:

(a) That each charter school in the State—

(1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency;

(2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency; and

(3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and

(b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)) as one of the most important factors when determining whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 15 points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, and an additional five points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. Applications addressing each of these priorities may receive up to a total of 20 priority points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes (Up to 15 additional points)

To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use one or more of the following:

(a) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for evaluating charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance or review of a charter school, including a final review immediately before the school opens for its first operational year.

(b) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of charter petitions to assess whether, and the extent to which, the charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one or more high-quality charter schools.

(c) Clear and specific standards and formalized processes that measure and benchmark the performance of the authorized public chartering agency or agencies, including the performance of its portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual dissemination of information on such performance.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—One Authorized Public Chartering Agency Other Than a Local Educational Agency, or an Appeals Process (0 or 5 points)

To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State—

(a) Provides for one authorized public chartering agency that is not a local educational agency (LEA), such as a State chartering board, for each individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school pursuant to State law; or

(b) In the case of a State in which LEAs are the only authorized public chartering agencies, allows for an appeals process for the denial of an application for a charter school.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Public Reporting of Charter School Demographics

The Secretary encourages projects that specify how, on an annual basis, the SEA publicly reports, or will publicly report, on student demographics (e.g., socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, English language learner status, and disability status) of each charter school in the State, and how the SEA publicly reports comparable data for school districts and public schools in the surrounding areas.

Application Requirements:

Applications for funding under the CSP Grants for SEAs program must address the application requirements described below.

These application requirements are from sections 5203(b) and 5204(e) and (f) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b(b), 7221c(e) and (f)), and the NFP. An applicant may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria, when applicable.

(a) Disseminating best practices: Describe how the SEA will disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools to each LEA in the State.

(b) Federal funds and programs: Describe how the SEA—

(i) Will inform each charter school in the State regarding Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and

(ii) Will ensure that each charter school in the State receives the charter school's commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year, including during the first year of operation of the school.

(c) IDEA Compliance: Describe how charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law, and LEAs in which charter schools are located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.).

(d) Logic model: Provide a complete logic model (as defined in this notice) for the project. The logic model must address the role of the grant in promoting the State-level strategy for expanding the number of high-quality charter schools through startup subgrants, optional dissemination subgrants, optional revolving loan funds, and other strategies.

(e) Lottery and enrollment preferences: Describe (1) how lotteries for admission to charter schools will be conducted in the State, including any student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery that charter schools are required or expressly permitted by the State to employ; and (2) any mechanisms that exist for the SEA or authorized public chartering agency to review, monitor, or approve such lotteries or student enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery. In addition, the SEA must provide an assurance that it will require each applicant for a CSP subgrant to include in its application descriptions of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a description of the proposed lottery and any enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery the charter school employs or plans to employ, and how those enrollment preferences or exemptions are consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute (for information related to admissions and lotteries under the CSP, please see section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance (January 2014) at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html).

(f) Objectives: Describe the objectives of the SEA's charter school grant program and how these objectives will be fulfilled, including steps taken by the SEA to inform teachers, parents, and communities of the SEA's charter school grant program;

(g) Revolving loan fund: If an SEA elects to reserve a portion of its grant funds (no more than 10 percent) to establish a revolving loan fund, describe how the revolving loan fund would operate; and

(h) Waivers: If an SEA desires the Secretary to consider waivers under section 5204(e) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(e)), include a request and justification for any waiver of any statutory or regulatory requirement over which the Secretary exercises authority except any such requirement relating to the elements of a charter school described in section 5210(1) of the ESEA.

Definitions:

The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, the NFP, and section 5210 of the CSP authorizing statute (20 U.S.C. 7221i).

Academically poor-performing charter school means—

(a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three years and that—

(1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA) over the past three years; and

(2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth of at least an average of one grade level for each cohort of students in each of the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other assessments approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or

(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for academically poor-performing charter school, provided that the SEA provides (1) the specific definition it proposes to use; and (2) a written explanation of how the proposed definition is at least as rigorous as the standard in paragraph (a).

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Developer means an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out.

Educationally disadvantaged students means economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, migrant students, limited English proficient students (also referred to as English learners or English language learners), neglected or delinquent students, or homeless students.

Eligible applicant means a developer that has (a) applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school; and (b) provided adequate and timely notice to that authority under section 5203(d)(3) of the ESEA.

High-quality charter school means—

(a) A charter school that shows evidence of strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following factors:

(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment (including, if applicable and available, high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) for all students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter school;

(2) Either—

(i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) at the charter school; or

(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student academic achievement for all populations of students served by the charter school;

(3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary education attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education persistence rates) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter school that are above the average academic achievement results for such students in the State;

(4) Results on a performance framework established by the State or authorized public chartering agency for the purpose of evaluating charter school quality; and

(5) No significant compliance issues, particularly in the areas of student safety, financial management, and equitable treatment of students; or

(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for high-quality charter school, provided that the SEA provides (1) the specific definition it proposes to use; and (2) a written explanation of how the proposed definition is at least as rigorous as the standard in paragraph (a).

Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students), the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or could (if not addressed or if it represents a pattern of repeated misconduct or material non-compliance) lead to the revocation of a school's charter by the authorizer.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR 3474. (d) The NFP.

Type of Award: Discretionary grant.

Estimated Available Funds: $160,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: $2,000,000 to $42,000,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $10,000,000 per year.

Estimated Number of Awards: 8 to 12.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

Maximum Award: There is no maximum award amount for this competition. See Reasonable and Necessary Costs in section III.3.(a) below, however, for information regarding the maximum amount of funds that SEAs may award for each planning, program design, and initial implementation subgrant.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Other:

(a) Reasonable and Necessary Costs: The Secretary may elect to impose maximum limits on the amount of subgrant funds that an SEA may award to an eligible entity.

For CSP grants awarded under this competition, the maximum amount of subgrant funds that an SEA may award to an eligible entity for planning, program design, and initial implementation of a single charter school is $800,000.

(b) Other CSP Grants: A charter school that receives or has received CSP funds for planning, program design, or initial implementation under section 5202(c)(2) of the ESEA (CFDA No. 84.282B), or for the replication or expansion of a high-quality charter school under one of the Department's Appropriations Acts 1 (CFDA No. 84.282M), is not eligible to receive subgrant funds from an SEA under this program for the same or a substantially similar purpose.

Likewise, a charter school that receives or has received subgrant funds from an SEA under this program is ineligible to receive other CSP funds for the same or a substantially similar purpose under section 5202(c)(2) of the ESEA, including for planning, program design, or the initial implementation of a charter school (CFDA No. 84.282B), or for the replication or expansion of a high-quality charter school (CFDA No. 84.282M) under one of the Department's Appropriations Acts.

1. Address To Request Application Package: Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-6818 or by email: [email protected].

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 60 pages, using the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: April 21, 2016.

Date of Pre-Application Webinar: The Department will hold a pre-application Webinar for prospective applicants from 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. on April 26, 2016.

Individuals interested in participating in this Webinar are encouraged to pre-register through our Web site at (https://educateevents.webex.com/educateevents/onstage/g.php?d=743947188&t=a). There is no registration fee for participating in this Webinar.

For further information about the pre-application Webinar, contact Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-6818 or by email: [email protected].

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 1, 2016.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 30, 2016.

4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

5. Funding Restrictions: Grant funds must be used to carry out allowable activities, as described in section 5204(f) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)). The following funding restrictions apply to this competition:

Planning and Implementation Subgrants: An eligible applicant receiving a subgrant under this program may use the subgrant funds only for—

(a) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include (i) refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and (ii) professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and

(b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include (i) informing the community about the school; (ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies; (iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and (iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources. (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(3))

The FY 2016 Appropriations Act authorizes the use of CSP funds “for grants that support preschool education in charter schools.” Accordingly, an application submitted under this competition may propose to use CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools. For information on the use of CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools, see “Guidance on the Use of Funds to Support Preschool Education” at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/csppreschoolfaqs.doc.

Dissemination Subgrants: An SEA may reserve not more than 10 percent of its grant funds to make subgrants to eligible charter schools to carry out dissemination activities. A charter school may use dissemination subgrant funds to assist other schools in adapting the charter school's program (or certain aspects of the charter school's program) or to disseminate information about the charter school through such activities as—

(a) Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;

(b) Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student academic achievement in each of the schools participating in the partnership;

(c) Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and

(d) Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student achievement.

Award Basis. In determining whether to approve a grant award and the amount of such award, the Department will consider, among other things, the amount of any unobligated carryover funds the applicant has under an existing CSP grant and the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous or existing award under any Department program (34 CFR 75.217(d)(3)(ii) and 75.233(b)). In assessing the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous or existing award, the Secretary will consider, among other things, the outcomes the applicant has achieved and the results of any Departmental grant monitoring, including the applicant's progress in remedying any deficiencies identified in such monitoring.

We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

7. Other Submission Requirements. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

Applications for grants under the CSP Grants for SEAs competition, CFDA number 84.282A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

You may access the electronic grant application for CSP Grants for SEAs competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.282, not 84.282A).

Please note the following:

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason, it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

• You do not have access to the Internet; or

• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX: (202) 205-5630.

Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282A, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from the NFP, section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c), and 34 CFR 75.210. Peer reviewers will use the Scoring Allocation Chart in the Appendix to this notice in evaluating an SEA's response and assigning points to each selection criterion. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion and its component factors (if applicable) is provided in the Appendix.

In evaluating an application, the Secretary considers the following selection criteria:

(a) Educationally Disadvantaged Students. (20 U.S.C. 7221c) The Secretary considers the contribution that the charter schools grant program will make to assisting educationally disadvantaged and other students in meeting State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards.

(b) Vision for Growth and Accountability. (NFP) The Secretary determines the quality of the statewide vision, including the role of the SEA, for charter school growth and accountability. In determining the quality of the statewide vision, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the creation of high-quality charter schools during the project period, including a reasonable estimate of the number of high-quality charter schools in the State at both the beginning and the end of the project period; and

(2) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the closure of academically poor-performing charter schools in the State (i.e., through revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary termination of a charter) during the project period.

(c) Past Performance. (NFP) The Secretary considers the past performance of charter schools in a State that enacted a charter school law for the first time five or more years before submission of its application. In determining the past performance of charter schools in such a State, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) in the State; and

(2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of academically poor-performing charter schools (as defined in this notice) in the State.

(d) Project Design. (NFP) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the SEA's charter school subgrant program, including the extent to which the project design furthers the SEA's overall strategy for increasing the number of high-quality charter schools in the State and improving student academic achievement. In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The quality of the SEA's process for awarding subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation and, if applicable, for dissemination, including—

(i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will be awarded to eligible applicants demonstrating the capacity to create high-quality charter schools; and

(ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence, of (a) the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the project period and the average size of those subgrants, including an explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based; and (b) if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage related to the overall quality of the applicant pool.

(2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees.

(e) Dissemination of Information and Best Practices. (NFP) The Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information about charter schools and best or promising practices of successful charter schools to each LEA in the State as well as to charter schools, other public schools, and charter school developers (20 U.S.C. 7221b(b)(2)(C) and 7221(c)(f)(6)). If an SEA proposes to use a portion of its grant funds for dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(6)(B)), the SEA should incorporate these subgrants into the overall plan for dissemination. In determining the quality of the SEA's plan to disseminate information about charter schools and best or promising practices of successful charter schools, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State for identifying and disseminating information and research (which may include, but is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about best or promising practices in successful charter schools, including how the SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities.

(2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to student discipline and school climate.

(f) Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies. (NFP)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan (including any use of grant administrative or other funds) to monitor, evaluate, assist, and hold accountable authorized public chartering agencies. In determining the quality of the SEA's plan to provide oversight to authorized public chartering agencies, the Secretary considers how well the SEA's plan will ensure that authorized public chartering agencies are—

(i) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with respect to educationally disadvantaged students, consistent with applicable law;

(ii) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that are consistent with the definition of high-quality charter school as defined in this notice;

(iii) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter or performance contract; and

(iv) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters or performance contracts.

(2) The Secretary considers the quality of the SEA's plan (including any use of grant administrative or other funds) to monitor, evaluate, assist, and hold accountable authorized public chartering agencies. In determining the quality of the SEA's plan to provide oversight to authorized public chartering agencies, the Secretary considers how well the SEA's plan will ensure that authorized public chartering agencies are—

(i) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers that have the capacity to create charter schools that can become high-quality charter schools;

(ii) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the terms of their charter or performance contracts and complying with applicable State and Federal laws;

(iii) Using increases in student academic achievement as one of the most important factors in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions on a comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter or performance contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the voluntary termination of charters held by academically poor-performing charter schools; and

(iv) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems, including those based on college- and career-ready standards.

(g) Policy Context for Charter Schools. (NFP) The Secretary considers the policy context for charter schools under the proposed project. In determining the policy context for charter schools under the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the State's charter school law, including—

(i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools; and

(ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum; and

(2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law and LEAs in which charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

4. Performance Measures:

(a) Program Performance Measures (GPRA Measures). The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has established two performance indicators to measure progress towards this goal: (1) The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and (2) the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).

(b) Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure (as defined in this notice) would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.

(2) Baseline data. (i) Why each proposed baseline (as defined in this notice) is valid; or (ii) If the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target (as defined in this notice) is ambitious (as defined in this notice), yet achievable, compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

(4) Data Collection. The applicant must also describe in the application: (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

6. Project Director's Meeting: Applicants approved for funding under this competition must attend a two-day meeting for project directors at a location to be determined in the continental United States during each year of the project. Applicants may include the cost of attending this meeting in their proposed budgets.

We are clarifying that, in accordance with the Senate report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (S. Rep. No. 114-74, at 170 (2015)) and the prior notices inviting applications for the IAL program, the Secretary reserves the right to fund a sufficient number of high-quality literacy and book distribution projects to ensure that no less than 50 percent of IAL funds go to applications from LEAs (on behalf of school libraries) for high-quality school library projects that increase access to a wide range of literacy resources (either print or electronic) and provide learning opportunities for all students.

Program Authority: Sections 5411-5413 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; title III of Division H of Public Law 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.

We use multiple acronyms and terms in this notice. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this notice and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of This Document. The information in this notice is organized as follows:

On August 31, 2015, the EPA published an initial notification in the Federal Register (FR) acknowledging receipt of an AMEL approval request for the operation of an MPGF at OCC's ethylene plant in Ingleside, Texas, (see 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015). This initial notification solicited comment on all aspects of the AMEL request and the resulting alternative operating conditions that are necessary to achieve a reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions required by various standards in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 that apply to emission sources that would be controlled by these pressure-assisted MPGF. These standards point to the operating requirements for flares in the General Provisions to parts 60 and 63, respectively, to comply with the emission reduction requirements. Because pressure-assisted MPGF cannot meet the velocity requirements in the General Provisions, OCC requested an AMEL. This action provides a summary of the comments received as part of the public review process, our responses to those comments, and our approval of the AMEL request received from OCC for use of a pressure-assisted MPGF at their Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant, along with the operating conditions they must follow for demonstrating compliance with the AMEL request.

Additionally, the August 31, 2015, FR initial notification also solicited comment on a framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests that we anticipate, when followed, would afford the Agency the ability to review and approve future AMEL requests for MPGF in a more efficient and expeditious manner. This action provides a summary of comments received on the framework as part of the public review process, our responses to those comments, and finalizes a framework for streamlining future pressure-assisted MPGF AMEL requests. We note that future AMEL requests would still require a notice and an opportunity for the public to comment.

OCC submitted an AMEL request to the EPA on December 16, 2014, seeking to operate an MPGF for use during limited high-pressure maintenance, startup, and shutdown events, as well as emergency situations at their ethylene plant in Ingleside, Texas. In their request, OCC cited various regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 that will apply to the flare waste gas streams that will be collected and routed to their pressure-assisted MPGF. OCC sought such an AMEL request because their MPGF is not designed to operate below the maximum permitted velocity requirements for flares in the General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. OCC provided information that the MPGF they propose to use will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions for flares complying with these General Provisions requirements (for further background information on the regulatory flare requirements and a facility's ability to request an AMEL, see 80 FR 52427-52428, August 31, 2015).

This section contains a summary of major comments and responses, and rationale for the approved MPGF operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the MPGF will achieve a reduction in emissions of HAP and VOC at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of other traditional flare systems complying with the requirements in 40 CFR 60.18(b) and 40 CFR 63.11(b). This section also contains a summary of the major comments and responses received on the framework for streamlining approval of future MPGF AMEL requests and our rationale for finalizing this framework.

Comment: Commenters stated that the LFL cz equation (i.e., Eqn. 2 in Section III below) should be revised so that the calculated LFL vg is expressed in volume percent rather than in volume fraction.

Response: While the equation is mathematically correct with respect to calculating LFL vg in volume fraction, we agree with the commenters that it should be revised to reflect the same units as the compliance metric of LFL vg in volume percent. Since multiplying the volume fraction term by 100 will yield a result in units of volume percent, we have updated Eqn. 2 in Section III to reflect this consistency change.

Comment: Commenters stated that the calibration requirements in Table 2 of Section III of this notice require OCC to monitor net heating value by gas chromatograph (GC) and follow the procedure in Performance Specification (PS) 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and that these requirements require a daily mid-level calibration check and that the EPA should change them from a daily basis to a weekly basis. Commenters stated that a weekly calibration should be allowed because operating conditions in Table 2 in Section III(1)(f) of this notice only allow the time needed to perform a daily calibration, along with other maintenance periods and instrument adjustments, to not exceed 5 percent and that a daily calibration will lead to a built-in loss of monitor downtime of almost 5 percent since it requires 1 hour in a 24-hour day (e.g., 4.2 percent of the time). Commenters also requested that this monitor downtime should be calculated on a rolling 12-month basis for compliance purposes and that the EPA clarify that the calibration and maintenance procedures conducted when the flare is not receiving regulated material be excluded from the monitor downtime calculation.

Response: The requirement to perform a daily mid-level calibration check for a GC is codified in the procedure of PS 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and Table 2 of Section III in this notice already provides some relief with respect to the amount of analysis needed (i.e., a single daily mid-level calibration check can be used (rather than triplicate analysis)) for the calibration checks on a GC. The AMEL does not require monitoring with a GC, but rather allows for the use of either a GC or a calorimeter to demonstrate compliance with the monitoring and operating requirements. Given that OCC's MPGF will handle both planned maintenance, startup and shutdown events as well as potential emergency situations, a monitoring system used to demonstrate compliance for this AMEL must be capable of producing a reliable result instantaneously, and the more frequent (i.e., daily) calibrations required in PS 9 provides a high level of assurance that the GC reading will be both precise and accurate. Thus, we are not changing the requirement within PS 9 to allow less frequent (i.e., weekly) calibration checks for a GC. We do understand that monitoring equipment can break down or need maintenance from time to time to continue to perform reliably. Therefore, to provide flexibility that ensures the GC is maintained properly, we are clarifying that calibration and maintenance procedures conducted when the flare is not receiving regulated material are excluded from the monitor downtime calculation. Also, we are clarifying that monitor downtime to perform calibration and maintenance procedures may not exceed 5 percent of the time when the flare is receiving regulated material, calculated on an annual, non-rolling average basis as OCC further clarified in their comments on the AMEL request during a conference call with the EPA (see memorandum, “Meeting Record for January 12, 2016, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and Occidental Chemical Corporation,” at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738).

Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should include a provision in the final AMEL to allow a small percentage of downtime (i.e., 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material) for video camera maintenance and repair/replacement. One commenter asked for the EPA to add language to clarify that the video camera requirement for monitoring visible emissions applies only when the flare is receiving regulated material.

Response: Given that the MPGFs approved in earlier AMELs, as well as OCC's MPGF, are all back-up control devices, we are clarifying that the video camera requirement for monitoring visible emissions applies only when the flare is receiving regulated material. Furthermore, while we realize that MPGFs have sufficiently tall fences built around them primarily for safety, their design does pose a potential challenge with respect to allowing a person on the ground to monitor the MPGFs for visible emissions. Given that the AMEL requests we have approved to date from The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) (see 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015), as well as this AMEL approved for OCC, all allow for permitted use of MPGF only in cases of maintenance, startup, shutdown, and emergency situations and not on a continuous basis, the time when the MPGF is not in operation should be sufficient for video camera maintenance and repair/replacement to occur. Therefore, we are not including a provision to allow any downtime for video camera maintenance and repair/replacement when the MPGF is receiving regulated material.

Comment: A few commenters suggested that the EPA clarify the language in the referenced operating conditions in Section III(2) of this notice which states: “Each stage of MPGF burners must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame.” Specifically, commenters requested that the EPA clarify that while each stage of the MPGF is equipped with a minimum of two pilots, that only one continuously lit pilot flame is needed when the stage is in operation.

Response: We disagree that it is necessary to change the operating conditions language in Section III(2) as suggested by the commenters, and we believe the requirements for the OCC AMEL approval should be consistent with the previous AMEL operating conditions published for both Dow and ExxonMobil (see 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015). The operating conditions in Section III(2) and reporting requirements in Section III(6) of this notice are clear that the MPGF system should be equipped with a minimum of two pilots per stage and that a flame must be present at all times the stage is in use and burning regulated material. In addition, a complete loss of pilot flame for more than 1 minute in a 15-minute period is an excess emission that must be reported.

Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify the language with respect to requiring “records” in the excess emissions reporting requirements and suggested replacing the term with “periods.”

Response: We disagree with changing the terminology “records” to “periods” in the excess emissions reporting requirements. Section III(6)(c) of the operating conditions below are clear that we are not requiring reporting of all records that an owner or operator may keep or that they may be required to keep as a condition of AMEL approval for a given MPGF, but rather, that the owner or operator must report the specific information in the excess emissions report.

Comment: One commenter stated that the framework for streamlining approval of future MPGF AMEL requests should not require information unrelated to a burner equivalency determination, information that has already been submitted to other parts of the Agency for permitting purposes, or proprietary MPGF burner design information. Specifically, the commenter stated that the EPA should remove the following information from the framework that owners or operators seeking approval of an MPGF AMEL are required to submit:

• Details of the overall emissions control scheme: Section IV(1)(b).

• MPGF capacity and operation (including number of rows (stages), number of burners and pilots per stage and staging curve): Section IV(1)(b).

• MPGF burner size and design: Section IV(1)(c) and (1)(d).

• Cross-light testing: Section IV(5) in its entirety.

• Flaring reduction considerations: Section IV(6)(a).

Another commenter stated that at Section IV(3)(a)(ii), for an engineering evaluation demonstration, once a burner of a specific type, size, and geometry has been tested on a waste gas, that burner can be considered to be proven stable and smokeless for that waste gas only. Further, the commenter states that engineering assessment and extrapolation should only be permitted under the framework where burner design and waste gas are the same as tested because any deviation in burner design or waste gas could lead to significant changes in stability or smokeless capacity.

Response: First, we note that the objective of the framework is to provide the regulated community with a clear and concise understanding of the minimum information that must be provided to the Agency so that we can adequately evaluate an MPGF AMEL request. The information listed in the framework is necessary to evaluate whether an MPGF operates properly and controls emissions of regulated material at least equivalent to applicable regulations. Hence, information related to details of the overall emissions control scheme, MPGF capacity, operation and burner size, cross-light testing, and flaring reduction considerations are all important and necessary information to adequately make an equivalency determination. Therefore, we are not removing them from the framework.

Second, with respect to submitting information that may have been developed and submitted already for permitting purposes, we note that this framework is designed to help streamline and expedite future approvals of MPGF AMEL requests. If an owner or operator does not submit the information set forth in the framework, additional time and resources will have to be spent to evaluate the AMEL request.

Lastly, with respect to concerns about MPGF burner design and the potential for some of the information to be proprietary (e.g., geometry, tip drillings, and hole size), we note that the MPGF burner tests conducted to date indicate that flare head design (along with waste gas composition) can influence flame stability, which is one of the more important factors affecting performance of the MPGF that the Agency must consider in whether to approve an AMEL request and agree with the commenter that flare stability is affected by burner design/waste gas combination tested (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015, for more details). To the extent the owner, operator or flare vendor/manufacturer considers this information to be CBI, they should note that in their MPGF AMEL request, and we will provide details on our CBI policy and procedures on how they should submit this information to the Agency after the AMEL request has been received. At a minimum, facilities should note the flare vendor and burner model name.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the framework allow flare vendors/manufacturers and owners or operators to determine and document the most appropriate burner testing durations (e.g., 5-minute screening test to determine flameout followed by three 15-minute tests at other more stable points). Another commenter suggested that for the sole purpose of flame stability evaluation, 3 to 5 minutes is sufficient for a testing duration.

One commenter suggested that the specific requirements of the flare flame stability tests be enumerated in Section IV(4)(b) below since it references back to performance test information in Section IV(3)(a)(i).

Response: After consideration of the comments received during the comment period as well as the supplemental technical information received after the close of the comment period (see memorandum, “Meeting Record for January 7, 2016, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and Zeeco,” at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738), we agree with the commenters that the duration of the MPGF stability test runs in Section IV(4)(c) can be shortened from 15 minutes, but disagree with the commenters that we should allow flare vendors/manufacturers and owners or operators to determine and document the most appropriate burner testing durations. In reviewing the available test data on an MPGF where unstable test runs with constant conditions were observed, a few runs were aborted in 4 minutes or less due to instability (see memorandum, “Review of Available Test Data on Multipoint Ground Flares,” at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738-0002). The commenters have suggested that the instability was related to the changing and decreasing heat content and composition of the fuel gas stream as the fuel gas mixture was being produced for the trial flare run. If the demonstration had instead relied upon a constant gas mixture that could have been produced in a mix tank, rather than an online mixer, than the demonstration of stability could have been done over a shorter duration. In addition, when correlating back the MPGF stability testing duration to the averaging time for a monitoring system like a GC that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating conditions laid out in Section III below, the total testing time of the three runs should tie back to the time it takes for one GC analysis cycle to occur (e.g., 15 minutes in duration). Therefore, based on these reasons, as well as in order to minimize emissions from the MPGF stability testing requirements, we are finalizing in Section IV(4)(c) that the duration of each individual MPGF stability test run must be a minimum of 5 minutes in duration rather than the longer period of 15 minutes in duration that was in the initial framework.

Regarding the comment to enumerate the performance test information in Section IV(4)(b) rather than cross-referencing to Section IV(3)(a)(i), we disagree that the change is necessary.

Comment: One commenter stated that in lieu of using a generic olefin gas or an olefinic gas mixture for purposes of the destruction efficiency/combustion efficiency performance demonstration specified in the framework, the framework should require the performance test to be based only on waste gas representative of the proposed flaring application, in conjunction with the specific burner type proposed for use.

Response: As discussed in Section IV(3)(a), the framework provides the owner or operator with the option to test the MPGF using a representative waste gas or a waste gas, such as an olefin gas or olefinic gas mixture, that will challenge the performance and smokeless capacity of the MPGF. Since MPGF testing is occurring prior to plant construction and startup, sufficient representative waste gas may not be available to satisfy the testing requirements specified. Therefore, we allow olefin gas or olefinic gas mixtures to be considered since they represent the olefins industry where the MPGF installations are being used and since they have been shown to challenge MPGF performance. For this reason, we disagree with the commenter that we should amend this requirement in the framework.

Comment: A few commenters suggested that the EPA allow the AMEL framework to provide approval for alternate proposed combustion parameters or on-line monitoring requirements and technology.

One commenter suggested that the framework should provide success criteria for submittal and that a clear articulation of the criteria the Agency will use to promptly approve an AMEL request is needed.

Response: As laid out in Section IV (7) below, sources should consider all the information laid out in their AMEL application and make recommendations on the type of monitoring and operating conditions necessary for the MPGF to demonstrate equivalent reductions in emissions as compared to flares complying with the requirements at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11. Additionally, we note that while the framework should provide the regulated community a blueprint for the minimum information the Agency needs to review and eventually finalize an MPGF AMEL request, the Clean Air Act requires us to provide the public with notice and opportunity to comment on the AMEL (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015, and 80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015, for more details) and consider this input before any AMEL request can be formally finalized. Because of this statutory requirement, we cannot provide any additional language for the regulated community with respect to promptly approving an AMEL request without first considering public comments regardless of whether or not all the information submitted to the Agency exactly follows the framework in Section IV below.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the framework should specify that cross-light testing is only required when every burner in the MPGF does not have a continuous pilot.

Another commenter agreed with the cross-light testing specified in the framework.

Response: An MPGF can have hundreds of burners and, when seeking an approval of an AMEL request, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the system can be operated with a flame present at all times when regulated material is routed to the flare and that the burners will light and combust this regulated material. To date, the AMEL requests for MPGF systems we have approved indicate that cross lighting will be used to light the vast majority of individual burners within a given stage, which is why this testing requirement is specified in the framework. If a future MPGF design will not use cross lighting, the owner or operator must demonstrate through testing how the burners within a stage will be lit to combust regulated material. Because this would be a different design from the MPGF that informed our development of the framework, different requirements from those specified in Section IV (5) below for the pilot flames and pilot monitoring systems may be required for such an MPGF system and these should be conveyed in the AMEL request.

Comment: One commenter suggested that a mechanism similar to the “Framework for Streamlining Approval for Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL” should also be made available for elevated flares that use pressure-assisted burners.

Response: While we understand the commenter's suggestion that the Agency clearly prescribe a path forward for evaluating non-MPGF pressure-assisted flare designs that may not be able to comply with the flare requirements of 40 CFR 60.18(b) or 40 CFR 63.11(b), this request is beyond the scope of both OCC's MPGF AMEL request and the framework for pressure-assisted MPGF.

Based on information the EPA received from OCC and the comments received through the public comment period, we are approving OCC's request for an AMEL and establishing operating requirements for the pressure-assisted MPGF at OCC's Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant. The operating conditions for OCC's MPGF that will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions being controlled by a steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted flare complying with the requirements of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b) are as follows:

(1) The MPGF system must be designed and operated such that the combustion zone gas net heating value (NHV cz) is greater than or equal to 800 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) or the combustion zone gas lower flammability limit (LFL cz) is less than or equal to 6.5 percent by volume. Owners or operators must demonstrate compliance with the NHV cz or LFL cz metric by continuously complying with a 15-minute block average. Owners or operators must calculate and monitor for the NHV cz or LFL cz according to the following:

(i) The owner or operator shall determine NHV cz from compositional analysis data by using the following equation:

(ii) For MPGF, NHV vg = NHV cz.

(i) The owner or operator shall determine LFL cz from compositional analysis data by using the following equation:

(ii) For MPGF, LFL vg = LFL cz.

(c) The operator of an MPGF system shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring flare vent gas flow rate.

(d) The operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring (i.e., at least once every 15 minutes), calculating, and recording the individual component concentrations present in the flare vent gas or the owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring, calculating, and recording NHV vg.

(e) For each measurement produced by the monitoring system, the operator shall determine the 15-minute block average as the arithmetic average of all measurements made by the monitoring system within the 15-minute period.

(f) The operator must follow the calibration and maintenance procedures according to Table 2. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments, or checks to maintain precision and accuracy and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

(2) The MPGF system shall be operated with a flame present at all times when in use. Each stage of MPGF burners must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame. The pilot flame(s) must be continuously monitored by a thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence of a flame. The time, date, and duration of any complete loss of pilot flame on any stage of MPGF burners must be recorded. Each monitoring device must be maintained or replaced at a frequency in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

(3) The MPGF system shall be operated with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours. A video camera that is capable of continuously recording (i.e., at least one frame every 15 seconds with time and date stamps) images of the flare flame and a reasonable distance above the flare flame at an angle suitable for visible emissions observations must be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The owner or operator must provide real-time video surveillance camera output to the control room or other continuously manned location where the video camera images may be viewed at any time.

(4) The operator of an MPGF system shall install and operate pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header, as well as a valve position indicator monitoring system for each staging valve to ensure that the MPGF operates within the range of tested conditions or within the range of the manufacturer's specifications. The pressure monitor shall meet the requirements in Table 2. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

(5) Recordkeeping Requirements.

(a) All data must be recorded and maintained for a minimum of 3 years or for as long as applicable rule subpart(s) specify flare records should be kept, whichever is more stringent.

(6) Reporting Requirements.

(a) The information specified in Section III (6)(b) and (c) below should be reported in the timeline specified by the applicable rule subpart(s) for which the MPGF will control emissions.

(b) Owners or operators should include the following information in their initial Notification of Compliance status report:

(i) Specify flare design as a pressure-assisted MPGF.

(ii) All visible emission readings, NHV cz and/or LFL cz determinations, and flow rate measurements. For MPGF, exit velocity determinations do not need to be reported as the maximum permitted velocity requirements in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 are not applicable.

(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when a complete loss of pilot flame on any stage of MPGF burners occurs.

(iv) All periods during the compliance determination when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.

(v) All periods during the compliance determination when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not.

(c) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of periods of excess emissions in their Periodic Reports. These periods of excess emissions shall include:

(i) Records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least 1 minute when regulated material was routed to the MPGF and a complete loss of pilot flame on a stage of burners occurred.

(ii) Records of visible emissions events that are time and date stamped and exceed more than 5 minutes in any 2-hour consecutive period.

(iii) Records of each 15-minute block period for which an applicable combustion zone operating limit (i.e., NHV cz or LFL cz) is not met for the MPGF when regulated material is being combusted in the flare. Indicate the date and time for each period, the NHV cz and/or LFL cz operating parameter for the period and the type of monitoring system used to determine compliance with the operating parameters (e.g., gas chromatograph or calorimeter).

(iv) Records of when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners are operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected and the range of tested conditions or manufacturer's specifications.

(v) Records of when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period, whether the stage was supposed to be open, but was closed or vice versa, and the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected.

We are finalizing a framework that sources may use to submit an AMEL request to the EPA in order to use an MPGF as control devices to comply with new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. At a minimum, sources considering use of an MPGF as an emissions control technology should provide the EPA with the following information in its AMEL request when demonstrating MPGF equivalency:

(1) Project Scope and Background.

(a) Size and scope of plant, products produced, location of facility, and the MPGF proximity, if less than 2 miles, to the local community and schools.

(b) Details of overall emissions control scheme (e.g., low pressure control scenario and high pressure control scenario), MPGF capacity and operation (including number of rows (stages), number of burners and pilots per stage and staging curve), and how the MPGF will be used (e.g., controls routine flows, only controls flows during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance, emergencies).

(c) Details of typical and/or anticipated waste gas compositions and profiles to be routed to the MPGF for control.

(d) MPGF burner design including type, geometry, and size.

(e) Anticipated date of startup.

(2) Regulatory Applicability.

(a) Detailed list or table of applicable NESHAP and/or NSPS, applicable standards that allow use of flares, and authority that allows the owner or operator to request an AMEL.

(3) Destruction Efficiency/Combustion Efficiency Performance Demonstration.

(a) Sources must provide a performance demonstration to the Agency that the MPGF pressure-assisted burner being proposed for use will achieve a level of control at least equivalent to the most stringent level of control required by the underlying standards (e.g., 98-percent destruction efficiency or better). Facilities can elect to do a performance test that includes a minimum of three test runs under the most challenging conditions (e.g., highest operating pressure and/or sonic velocity conditions) using passive Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (PFTIR) testing, extractive sampling or rely on an engineering assessment. Sources must test using fuel representative of the type of waste gas the MPGF will typically burn or substitute a waste gas such as an olefin gas or olefinic gas mixture that will challenge the MPGF to achieve a high destruction efficiency smokelessly.

(i) If a performance test is conducted on the burners, a test report must be submitted to the Agency which includes at a minimum: A description of the testing, a protocol describing the test methodology used, associated test method quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) parameters, raw field and laboratory data sheets, summary data report sheets, calibration standards, calibration curves, completed visible emissions observation forms, a calculation of the average destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency over the course of each test, the date, time and duration of the test, the waste gas composition and NHV cz and/or LFL cz the gas tested, the flowrate (at standard conditions) and velocity of the waste gas, the MPGF burner tip pressure, waste gas temperature, meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction and relative humidity), and whether there were any observed flare flameouts.

(ii) If an engineering assessment is done, sources must provide to the Agency a demonstration that a proper level of destruction/combustion efficiency was obtained through prior performance testing for a similar equivalent burner type design. To support an equivalent burner assessment of destruction/combustion efficiency, sources must discuss and provide information related to design principles of burner type, burner size, burner geometry, air-fuel mixing, and the combustion principles associated with this burner that will assure smokeless operation under a variety of operating conditions. Similarly, sources must also provide details outlining why all of these factors, in concert with the waste gas that was tested in the supporting reference materials, support the conclusion that the MPGF burners being proposed for use by the source will achieve at least an equivalent level of destruction efficiency as required by the underlying applicable regulations.

(4) MPGF Stability Testing.

(a) The operation of an MPGF with a stable, lit flame is of paramount importance to continuously ensuring good flare performance; therefore, any source wishing to demonstrate equivalency for purposes of using these types of installations must conduct a stability performance test. Since flare tip design and waste gas composition have significant impact on the range of stable operation, sources should use a representative waste gas the MPGF will typically burn or a waste gas, such as an olefin or olefinic mixture, that will challenge the MPGF to perform at a high level with a stable flame as well as challenge its ability to achieve smokeless operation.

(b) Sources should first design and carry out a performance test to determine the point of flare flame instability and flameout for the MPGF burner and waste gas composition chosen to be tested. Successful, initial demonstration of stability is achieved when there is a stable, lit flame for a minimum of 5 minutes at consistent flow and waste gas composition. It is recommended, although not required, that sources determine the point of instability at sonic flow conditions or at the highest operating pressure anticipated. Any data which demonstrate instability and complete loss of flame prior to the 5-minute period must be reported along with the initial stable flame demonstration. Along with destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency, the data elements laid out in Section IV(3)(a)(i) above should also be reported.

(c) Using the results from Section IV(4)(b) above as a starting point, sources must perform a minimum of three replicate tests at both the minimum and maximum operating conditions on at least one MPGF burner at or above the NHV cz or at or below the LFL cz determined in Section IV(4)(b). If more than one burner is tested, the spacing between the burners must be representative of the projected installation. Each test must be a minimum of 5 minutes in duration with constant flow and composition for the three runs at minimum conditions, and the three runs at the maximum conditions. The data and data elements mentioned in Section IV(4)(b) must also be reported.

(5) MPGF Cross-light Testing.

(a) Sources must design and carry out a performance test to successfully demonstrate that cross lighting of the MPGF burners will occur over the range of operating conditions (e.g., operating pressure and/or velocity (Mach) condition) for which the burners will be used. Sources may use the NHV cz and/or LFL cz established in Section IV(4) above and perform a minimum of three replicate runs at each of the operating conditions. Sources must cross-light a minimum of three burners and the spacing between the burners and location of the pilot flame must be representative of the projected installation. At a minimum, sources must report the following: A description of the testing, a protocol describing the test methodology used, associated test method QA/QC parameters, the waste gas composition and NHV cz and/or LFL cz of the gas tested, the velocity (or Mach speed ratio) of the waste gas tested, the MPGF burner tip pressure, the time, length, and duration of the test, records of whether a successful cross-light was observed over all of the burners and the length of time it took for the burners to cross-light, records of maintaining a stable flame after a successful cross-light and the duration for which this was observed, records of any smoking events during the cross-light, waste gas temperature, meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity), and whether there were any observed flare flameouts.

(6) Flaring Reduction Considerations.

(a) Sources must make a demonstration, considering MPGF use, on whether additional flare reduction measures, including flare gas recovery, should be used and implemented.

(7) MPGF Monitoring and Operating Conditions.

(a) Based on the results of the criteria mentioned above in this section, sources must make recommendations to the Agency on the type of monitoring and operating conditions necessary for the MPGF to demonstrate equivalent reductions in emissions as compared to flares complying with the requirements at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, taking into consideration a control scheme designed to handle highly variable flows and waste gas compositions.

We anticipate this framework will enable the Agency to review and approve future AMEL requests for MPGF installations in a more expeditious timeframe. We note, however, that future AMEL requests are still subject to public notice and comment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is creating a Privacy Act system of records to allow the agency to maintain records that are necessary to conduct environmental assessments at residential properties in order to respond to emergency situations and during environmental assessment activities conducted by EPA under many different programs including Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This system of records promotes transparency, efficiency, and improved environmental and health outcomes by encompassing all records associated with EPA residential assessment work, including the database repositories, field documentation, and analytical reports. Over the course of these assessments EPA is often required to support or work closely with state and local agencies or federal agencies in responses to evaluate the health and welfare of affected communities. EPA's environmental assessment activities at residential properties include: Obtaining and tracking legal access to the properties; gathering environmental data through sampling activities, such as sampling air, water, soil, or other environmental media at sites; collecting information about pipelines, building materials, and other residential infrastructure at residences; and collecting residential contact information such as name, address, and phone number to allow response teams to correspond with individuals affected by environmental contamination.

The types of data collected in environmental assessments include names of residents; address information; phone number or other contact information; test results from environmental sampling; information about the building structure, such as the age of the structure, information about the service lines, plumbing and pipe information, and building materials in the structure; information about the length of residence or ownership of the structure; and geographic information system (GIS) coordinates. This information is collected to ensure an appropriate and cohesive response to emergency situations, to protect the health and welfare of residents potentially affected by an environmental emergency or environmental response situation, and to ensure that the data are accessible as needed for coordination of response activities.

Information and data collected in environmental assessments will generally be stored in an agency-approved electronic database, which will be managed by EPA system administrators. Other associated records may also be stored in other electronic or paper formats, such as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft Word documents or tables, or in file folders. All electronic files are stored on government furnished equipment (GFE) until they are ultimately sent to the appropriate agency records repository for storage pursuant to their appropriate record schedule. All GFE used for the purposes of residential assessments are secured according to EPA's security policies which include password protection and local encryption. During the course of the assessment records may also be temporarily stored off site in secure facilities such as incident command posts or EPA field offices which are maintained and secured by EPA staff.

The system will be maintained by the EPA's Office of Emergency Response in the Office of Land and Emergency Management (“OLEM”), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mail Code 5101 T, Washington, DC 20460.

Information maintained pursuant to this SORN may be located at EPA Headquarters Offices or at EPA Regional Offices or at field offices established as part of the residential assessment field work, depending upon the location where the assessment is conducted or where computer resources are located. Databases may be hosted at the EPA's National Computer Center at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina or at cloud hosting procured and managed by EPA.

Records protected under the Privacy Act are subject to agency-wide security requirements. For information in agency databases, privacy is maintained by limiting access to the database that contains the personal information. Access to the database is limited to individuals designated as System Administrators, Remedial Project Managers, Data Sponsors, On-Scene Coordinators, Information Management Coordinators, Budget Coordinators, Regional or Headquarters Attorneys, Regional or Headquarters Managers, Data Entry Support Staff, Support Contractors, and any other EPA staff with assigned responsibilities that require access to the data. In appropriate circumstances, limited access to the database systems may be provided to state and local public health authorities in conformity with federal, state, and local laws when necessary to protect the public health or safety.

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

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit II.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the Table in this unit and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions.

DTEA HCl is a biocide registered for use in cooling water systems to control bacterial, fungal, and algal slimes. An ecological risk assessment identified potential ecological risks to aquatic organisms. To address these potential risks, EPA is proposing label language changes to reduce discharge into bodies of water, limit use frequency and location, and reduce certain use rates. A final decision will be made after Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) determinations have been made.

The aliphatic alcohols, C1-C5 case contains two active ingredients, ethanol and isopropyl alcohol, which are registered for use as sanitizers, disinfectants and bactericides on agricultural premises and equipment, medical premises and equipment, industrial areas, residential and public access areas, in antifouling paints for boats, and as a plant growth regulator. The Agency has concluded that there are no human or ecological risk concerns associated with the pesticidal uses of aliphatic alcohols, C1-C5 based on use patterns and chemical characteristics. Additionally, no additional data are required in support of this registration review case, and a “no effect” determination has been made for endangered species and designated critical habitat for such species. A final decision will be made after the EDSP determination has been made.

Bentazon is a selective, contact, early post-emergence herbicide registered to control broadleaf weeds and sedges in numerous agricultural field crops, including corn, soybeans, beans, rice, cereals, and potatoes, and for use in and around trees and vines of various fruit and nut crops. Bentazon is also registered for use to control weeds in residential and recreational lawns and around ornamental plants. EPA published draft registration review human health and ecological risk assessments in 2014. The Agency has concluded that bentazon does not pose human health risks of concern. The ecological risk assessment concluded that there are risks of concern for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants and acute risks for some birds and mammals. The Agency is proposing that bentazon labels include drift and herbicide resistance management language and increased spray droplet sizes, and allow one application annually except under specific circumstances to reduce risks to non-target plants and wildlife. This proposed interim decision does not include a finding under the EDSP, nor does it contain a complete ESA or pollinator component for bentazon.

The registration review docket for propoxur opened in December 2009. Propoxur is an N-methyl residual carbamate insecticide registered for use to control ticks, fleas, and a variety of insects in-and-around industrial, commercial, and residential facilities. EPA published draft registration review human health and ecological risk assessments in July 2015. For the human health assessment, the Agency concluded that propoxur posed risks of concern from dietary and residential post application exposure. A voluntary final cancellation order was issued for the following uses, which fully mitigated the human health risks of concerns: All indoor aerosol, spray, and liquid formulations; use in food handling establishments; and indoor crack and crevice uses were cancelled effective September 22, 2015. The draft ecological risk assessment initially concluded that there were no risks of concern to non-listed species nor to listed species, except for listed aquatic invertebrates from outdoor spot treatment use made near aquatic water bodies. However, additional information on the use of propoxur outdoor spot treatments support that this use is not likely to result in quantities of active ingredient that would result in potential effects to listed aquatic species. Therefore, the draft propoxur ecological risk assessment has been amended to reflect this use information and is posted to the propoxur docket at this time. The amended ecological risk assessment indicates that there is no reasonable expectation for any registered use of propoxur to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. A “no effect” determination was made for all federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Propoxur has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. In addition, a pollinator risk assessment will not be required for propoxur due to negligible exposure pathways to terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees). Pending the EDSP determination action, EPA is planning to issue an interim registration review decision for propoxur.

Propoxycarbazone-sodium is an herbicide that controls post-emergent grasses and broadleaf weeds including cheat grass, downy brome, jointed goatgrass, pigweed, wild oat, and mustard in wheat and triticale. EPA conducted a comprehensive human health risk assessment which indicated that there are no risks of concern for human health. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there are potential risks of concern for non-target terrestrial plant species from all uses of propoxycarbazone sodium, which is consistent with the herbicidal mode of action. To reduce risk to non-target terrestrial plants, the Agency is proposing several spray drift reduction measures. The Agency is also proposing herbicide resistance management language to be included on all propoxycarbazone-sodium labels. This proposed interim decision does not include an endangered species determination, or any human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP. The Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the assessment of risks to threatened and endangered species, potential endocrine disruptor risk, and an assessment of risks to bees.

Sodium acifluorfen is an herbicide that is registered for control of broadleaf weeds in soybean, peanuts, rice, and strawberry. EPA conducted a comprehensive human health risk assessment, which indicated that there are no risks of concern for human health. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there are potential risks of concern for non-target terrestrial plant species from the aerial use of sodium acifluorfen. To reduce risk to non-target terrestrial plants from aerial spray drift, the Agency is proposing the deletion of aerial use on strawberries and the implementation of uniform spray drift management language across all labels. The Agency is also proposing the inclusion of herbicide resistance management language on all sodium acifluorfen labels. This proposed interim decision does not include an endangered species determination, or any human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP. The Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon a finding under ESA, an EDSP determination, and an assessment of risks to bees.

Thidiazuron is a plant growth regulator applied as a pre-harvest defoliant to cotton in southern states such as Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia. Thidiazuron reduces foliage, dry leaves, and immature fruiting structures, at the time of harvest, which contribute to the staining of harvested cotton. Quantitative human health and ecological risk assessments, including a screening-level endangered species risk assessment, were conducted for thidiazuron. EPA did not identify any human health risks. EPA identified possible risk to non-target terrestrial plants from use of thidiazuron. In its proposed interim decision, EPA is proposing risk mitigation to reduce spray drift to non-target terrestrial plants. EPA is making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of thidiazuron, nor is it making an endangered species finding. EPA's registration review decision for thidiazuron will depend upon the result of an EDSP Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act section 408(p) determination, complete pollinator determination, and an endangered species determination.

The registration review docket for a pesticide generally includes earlier documents related to the registration review of the case. For example, the review opened with a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the initial docket. The documents in the docket describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the pesticides included in the Table in this unit, as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents. Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim registration review decisions for products containing the pesticides listed in the Table in this unit.

The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.

The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the Table in this unit. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments.

Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. Links to earlier documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/reg_review_status.htm.

Background

The .gov domain was first established in 1985 under the Internet Engineering Task Force of the Internet Society, RFC 920, 1480, 1591, 1811, and 2146 as a generic top-level domain (TLD) for government entities in the United States. In 2003, GSA published the Federal Management Regulation final rule, Internet GOV Domain (41 CFR part 102-173), at 68 FR 15089 (March 28, 2003), which codified existing guidance and best practice methods for domain management, then stratified across governmental and non-governmental bodies, and expanded the .gov domain to permit inclusion of state, local, and tribal governments (SLTTs).

GSA is designated as the TLD owner and Domain Policy Authority for governmental entities in the United States, including Federal, state, local and tribal governments. OGP oversees the enabling rule (41 CFR part 102-173, Internet GOV Domain—hereafter “Final Rule”) and administers the .gov domain registration and renewal process in accordance with the original rule and the .gov Domain Registration and Management Guidance. The rule and the guidance govern registrations and renewals for second-level domains under the top level .gov domain.

When GSA published the Final Rule in 2003, it initiated the assessment of fees for the registration and annual renewal .gov domains by Federal Government agencies, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, and SLTTs. At the time, GSA stated in the Federal Register that the Final Rule “merely establishes a ceiling for the charges that GSA may assess in the future if circumstances require it. These charges, if established, will be based on the costs of operations and market rates.”

Since publication of the Final Rule, all bodies seeking to register and use a .gov domain are assessed a $125 per annum fee for registration and for annual renewals. The fee has remained unchanged since 2003, even as new laws, enhanced security protocols, protections and controls, and increased operational costs have substantially raised the overall cost for GSA to manage the .gov domain.

OGP solicited advice and feedback from stakeholders representing all levels of government, internationally, as well as the private sector to better inform decision-making about whether a per annum fee increase should occur. The research details also yielded insight as to the amount the increase would be considered reasonable.

41 CFR 102-173.45 sets the fee for new .gov domain registrations at no more than $1,000 per year, and the charge for annual .gov domain renewals at no more than $500 per year. The current fee of $125 per annum has been in effect since publication of the Final Rule. To compensate for increased operational costs and security requirements of maintaining the .gov domain, GSA will raise the fee for both new registrations and annual renewals to $400 per annum. This fee will be the same for all entities who apply to initially register, or renew, an existing registration of a .gov second-level domain name and are approved, per 41 CFR 102-173.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval.

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

In FR Doc. 2016-08327, appearing on page 21559 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, April 12, 2016, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 21560, in the second column, in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph, the telephone number is corrected to read “240-402-7001”.

2. On page 21560, in the third column, in the first paragraph, the address for Phibro Animal Health Corp. is corrected to read “GlenPointe Centre East, 3d floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666”.

3. On page 21572, in the first column, in the third paragraph, the address for Phibro Animal Health Corp. is corrected to read “GlenPointe Centre East, 3d floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666”.

On April 12, 2016, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy Notice” link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions.

Docket: The proposed policy is available in docket ID FEMA-2016-0007. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

The purpose of the proposed policy is to establish minimum standards for Public Assistance projects to promote resiliency and increase achieved risk reduction under the authority of Stafford Act § 323, 42 U.S.C. 5165a and § 406(e), 42 U.S.C. 5172. When using Public Assistance funds to repair, replace or construct buildings located in hazard-prone areas, applicants would use, at a minimum, the hazard-resistant standards reflected or referenced in the International Building Code (IBC). Costs associated with meeting these standards would be eligible. The proposed policy language would replace Chapter 2:VII.C.2 of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), available at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/111781.

The proposed policy does not have the force or effect of law.

FEMA seeks comment on the proposed policy, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID FEMA-2016-0007. Based on the comments received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the proposed policy. Although FEMA will consider any comments received in the drafting of the final policy, FEMA will not provide a response to comments document. When or if FEMA issues a final policy, FEMA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the final policy available at http://www.regulations.gov. The final policy will not have the force or effect of law.

I. Background

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/FEMA-013 Operational Use of Publicly Available Social Media Internet Sources for Situational Awareness System of Records.”

This system of records will allow DHS/FEMA to maintain a state of disaster and emergency response readiness through situational awareness of publicly available information posted on social media to take appropriate actions when necessary or to provide information related to a disaster to the first responder community for situational awareness purposes. Situational awareness is defined as “information gathered from a variety of sources that, when communicated to emergency managers and decision makers, can form the basis for incident management decision-making.” See sec. 515 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 321d(b)(1)).

The DHS/FEMA Office of Response and Recovery (ORR), Response Directorate is the office responsible for situational awareness activities and also operates DHS/FEMA Watch Centers, including the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) and FEMA's Regional Response Coordination Centers (RRCC). The Operational Use of Publicly Available Social Media for Situational Awareness Initiative, as led by the DHS/FEMA ORR, monitors and reviews publicly available social media and uses a set of keywords or “hash-tags” to find and retrieve content relevant to DHS/FEMA for situational awareness purposes. Under this Initiative, DHS/FEMA generally will not: (1) Actively seek PII; (2) post any information; (3) actively seek to connect with other internal/external personal users; (4) accept other internal/external personal users' invitations to connect; or (5) interact on social media sites. However, DHS/FEMA is permitted to establish user names and passwords to form profiles and follow relevant government, media, and subject matter experts on social media sites in order to use search tools under established criteria and search terms for monitoring that supports providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.

DHS/FEMA social media monitoring is not designed to collect PII from members of the public; however, given the unpredictable nature of disasters and emergency management and the unrestricted nature of social media, DHS/FEMA may collect a limited amount of PII from the public through its monitoring of social media. The information may be provided to first responders during in extremis situations involving the possible loss of life. PII on the following categories of individuals may be collected when it lends credibility to the report or facilitates coordination with Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT), foreign, or international government partners: (1) Individuals within the United States in extremis situations involving potential life or death circumstances; (2) senior U.S. Government officials who make public statements or provide public updates about natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including catastrophic incidents; (3) U.S. Government spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates about natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including catastrophic incidents; (4) U.S. private sector officials and spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates about natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including catastrophic incidents; (5) names of anchors, newscasters, or on-scene reporters who are known or identified as reporters in their post or article, or who use traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed; and (6) public officials, current and former, who are victims of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including catastrophic incidents.

Consistent with DHS's information-sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/FEMA-013 Operational Use of Publicly Available Social Media Internet Sources for Situational Awareness System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/FEMA may share information from this system with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.

DHS is publishing this system of records notice to describe DHS/FEMA's collection of PII through social media monitoring. DHS/FEMA collects and maintains minimal PII that is necessary to respond to, report on, and contact or assist individuals in extremis situations. This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA-013 Operational Use of Publicly Available Social Media Internet Sources for Situational Awareness System of Records.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

Background and Purpose

On February 13, 2015, President Obama signed E.O. 13691 intended to enable and facilitate “private companies, nonprofit organizations, and executive departments and agencies . . . to share information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents and collaborate to respond in as close to real time as possible.”

In accordance with E.O. 13691, DHS has entered into a cooperative agreement with a non-governmental ISAO Standards Organization led by the University of Texas at San Antonio with support from the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) and the Retail Cyber Intelligence Sharing Center (R-CISC). The ISAO Standards Organization is to work with existing information sharing organizations, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, relevant agencies, and other public and private sector stakeholders to identify a common set of voluntary standards or guidelines for the creation and functioning of ISAOs.

The May meeting in Anaheim California is part of this collaborative effort. This meeting is another in a series of workshops to assure transparency in the standards development process. Previous in-person workshops were held by DHS on June 9, 2015 at the Volpe Center in Cambridge, MA, and on July 30, 2015 at San Jose State University in San Jose, CA; and by the ISAO Standards Organization on November 9, 2015 at the LMI Headquarters in Tysons, VA, and February 9, 2016 at the University of Texas at San Antonio in San Antonio, TX.

The Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (ISAO) Standards Organization is working with its six Standards Working Groups (SWGs) to develop documents to address the creation and functioning of ISAOs. The initial set of draft documents will focus on the needs of those seeking to join or form an ISAO and should be released for public comment by early May. The initial set of voluntary standards should be released for comment in June 2016.

Specific questions to be addressed include:

• What needs to be considered by a newly-forming ISAO and what are the first steps?

• What capabilities might an ISAO provide?

• What types of information will be shared and what are some mechanisms for doing so?

• What security and privacy is needed for a newly-forming ISAO?

• What mentoring support is available for newly-forming ISAOs?

• What government programs and services are available to assist ISAOs?

• What concerns do regulators and law enforcement have about the new ISAO construct?

During the May 19th public meeting in Anaheim, California, the Standards Organization will encourage public discussion and debate of the ISAO Working Groups initial draft documents. Additionally, the Standards Organization seeks input on proposed voluntary standards. All input and comments received in this forum will be evaluated by the ISAO Standards Organization and working groups as the initial set of documents are finalized for publication by September. The minutes from this meeting will be made available to the public at www.isao.org.

You may submit written comments to the docket using one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Although this is not a rulemaking action, comments are being submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal in an effort to provide transparency to the general public.

(2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

(3) Mail: ISAO Standards Organization, c/o LMI, 1777 NE Loop 410, Suite 808, San Antonio, TX 78217-5217.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods. All comments must either be submitted to the online docket on or before November 4, 2015, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

Executive Order 13691 can be found at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/13/executive-order-promoting-private-sector-cybersecurity-information-shari.

For additional information about the ISAO Standards Organization, draft products, and the May public meeting (including a link to reduced rate hotel rooms), please go to www.ISAO.org.

The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We seek review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on the following permit requests

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) and giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, nest monitor, capture, measure, band, release, and set up, monitor and maintain cameras) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni), take (harass by survey, nest monitor, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); take (harass by survey) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.); and take (locate, nest monitor, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) in conjunction with survey and monitoring activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, transport, take biological samples, attach transmitters and wing markers, perform veterinary care, release, and monitor) the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) in conjunction with reintroduction activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, analyze soil samples, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, collect biological samples, and release) the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum) in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, California, in conjunction with research activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate and monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (Ambystoma californiense) in Sonoma County, California; take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) throughout the range of the species; and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, and collect voucher specimens) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma Counties, California, in conjunction with survey activities for the species for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate and monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus); take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi); and take (harass by survey and nest monitoring) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) in conjunction with survey and population monitoring activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and erect/install symbolic fencing and signs) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni) in conjunction with survey activities in San Diego and Ventura Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, nest monitor, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) throughout the range of the species in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada; take (locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) and Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) in conjunction with surveys, population monitoring, and territorial mapping activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate, handle, measure, relocate, and release) the Morro shoulderband snail (Banded dune) (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) in San Luis Obispo County, California; and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) throughout the range of the species in California, in conjunction with survey activities for the species for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate, handle, measure, relocate, and release) the Morro shoulderband snail (Banded dune) (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) in conjunction with survey activities for the species in San Luis Obispo County, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (captive rear, perform husbandry, transport, insert PIT (passive integrated transponder) tag, perform biological testing, treat, euthanize, perform behavior studies, and perform genetic analysis) throughout all life stages, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) and mountain yellow-legged frog ((southern California DPS, and northern California DPS) (Rana muscosa)) in conjunction with research, captive rearing, and general husbandry activities at the San Francisco Zoo and Gardens in San Francisco, California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey) the light-footed Ridgway's rail (light-footed clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus levipes) (R. longirostris l.) in San Diego County, California; take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); and take (locate and monitor nests, remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests, capture, handle, and band) least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), in conjunction with population monitoring, research, and survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); and take (harass by survey, and locate and monitor nests) least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), in conjunction with population monitoring, and survey activities throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, measure, sex, insert PIT tag, radio-collar, vaccinate, collect biological samples, treat for ear mites, test for reproductive capacity and status, transport, and release) the Santa Cruz Island fox (Urocyon littoralis santacruzae), and Santa Catalina Island fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae) in conjunction with research activities on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County and Santa Catalina Island in Los Angeles County, California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (captive rear, perform husbandry, transport, insert PIT tag, perform biological testing, treat, euthanize, perform behavior studies, and perform genetic analysis) throughout all life stages, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae), and mountain yellow-legged frog ((southern California DPS, and northern California DPS) (Rana muscosa)) in conjunction with research, captive rearing, and general husbandry activities at the Oakland Zoo, Oakland, California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, measure, insert PIT tag, and release) the arroyo toad (arroyo southwestern) (Anaxyrus californicus) and the mountain yellow-legged frog (southern California DPS) (Rana mucosa) in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, California; take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, and Humboldt Counties, California; and take the unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) in the Santa Clara River in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, and Sugarloaf Pond in the San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino County, California, in conjunction with survey activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, and locate and monitor nests) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) in conjunction with survey and population monitoring activities in Ventura County, California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, capture, band, and release) California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni) in conjunction with survey and population monitoring activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, and release) the Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on incidental take permit (ITP) applications for take of the federally listed American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) resulting from activities associated with geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued to the applicant under the Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (ICP). The original ICP was approved on May 21, 2014 (publication of the FONSI notice was on July 25, 2014; 79 FR 43504). The draft amended ICP was made available for comment on March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12113), and approved on April 13, 2016. The ICP and the associated environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact are available on the Web site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ABBICP. However, we are no longer taking comments on these finalized, approved documents.

We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., TE-123456) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before April 2, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from somewhere near Port Williams, in Atchison County, KS.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Kansas State Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas.

In late 1916 or early 1917, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unnamed and unrecorded site somewhere near Port Williams in Atchison County, KS, by George Remsberg, a well-known amateur archeologist. Remsberg reported that he excavated a relatively recent Native American burial in Atchison County, KS, from the Bluma family farm near Walnut Creek, though he does not specify the location. This area was Kickapoo land from 1832 to 1854. The association of a string of glass beads indicated a relatively recent burial. The human remains consist of a cranium and an associated mandible. The cranium was determined to be that of a 20-30 year old male of mixed ancestry. No known individuals were identified. The 168 associated funerary objects are 1 lot of glass beads, 5 chert chips, 1 mussel shell section, 1 stone, 63 non-human skeletal elements, and 97 pottery sherds.

Remsberg sent some materials he collected in Kansas to Wallingford Historical Society in Connecticut in 1917. That institution returned the materials to the Kansas State Historical Society on April 20, 1990.

Officials of the Kansas State Historical Society have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 168 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Robert J. Hoard, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW. 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615, telephone (785) 272-8681 x269, email [email protected], by May 23, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas may proceed.

The Kansas State Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Kansas State Historical Society that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.

In 1964, artifact collectors excavated 18 cultural items and two human burials at the Doniphan site, 14DP2, in Doniphan County, KS. The human remains were reburied at the site after osteological analysis by the Kansas State Historical Society, but the 18 associated funerary objects, consisting of 5 projectile points, 11 white glass beads, and 2 small metal rings were given to the Kansas State Historical Society. These are identified by the designation UBS 1991-105.

The Doniphan site has long been known to be a Kaw village, though earlier components also are present. It was visited by French Military office Étienne Veniard de Bourgmont in 1724 on his way to visit western tribes. This village also may be the one that appears on the 1718 map by Delisle and noted as ruins by Lewis and Clark in 1805.

Between 1904 and 1935, human remains and 154 artifacts were removed from the Blue Earth site, 14PO24, Pottawatomie County, KS, by Kansas State University faculty member J.V. Cortelyou. In 1956, the human remains and artifacts were donated to the Kansas State Historical Society. The human remains were destroyed by the Kansas State Historical Society in 1957 and 1958, according to an accession book, but the funerary objects were retained. The 154 unassociated funerary objects are 1 disk shell bead, 3 small burned bone fragments, 1 Dentalium bead, 140 shell disk beads, 2 shell pendants/ornaments, 1 drilled stone object, 1 incised stone pipe, and 5 incised bone beads. These are identified by the designation UBS 1991-99.

The Blue Earth Village is shown on a 1795 map by Antoine Soulard and is identified as a Kaw site. It was the principle Kaw village for approximately 30 years. It was partially excavated in 1937 by archaeologist Waldo Wedel and tested by archaeologist John Tomasic of the Kansas State Historical Society in 2012. Both excavations produced material consistent with a Kaw occupation. Zebulon Pike also traded with the Kaw at this location in 1806.

Officials of the Kansas State Historical Society have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 172 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Dr. Robert J. Hoard, State Archeologist, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW. 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615-1099, telephone (785) 272-8681 ext. 269, email [email protected], by May 23, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma may proceed.

The Kansas State Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

The following officials are the State contacts for their respective proposals:

The States' new agreement application, including proposed budget and work plan, are due April 1, 2016. In accordance with 30 CFR 1227.101(b)(1), the States request that ONRR delegate the royalty management functions of conducting audits and investigations. The States request delegation of these functions for producing Federal oil and gas leases within the State boundaries, as applicable. This is for producing Federal oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf, subject to revenue sharing under 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(g); and for other producing solid mineral or geothermal Federal leases within the State. The States do not request delegation of royalty and production reporting functions. In addition to audit and investigation authority, the State of Wyoming also requests to renew its authority under 30 CFR 1227.101(b)(2) to issue Orders to Pay, Orders to Perform, and tolling agreements as a result of an audit or compliance review; it also requests to renew its subpoena authority under the Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act related to oil and gas revenues owed to the United States and shared with the State, which are attributable to leased Federal onshore property within the State.

The States have asked ONRR to renew the delegations within the time required by 30 CFR 1227.110(b). The States of Alaska, California, and Utah request 100-percent funding of the delegated functions for a 3-year period beginning July 1, 2016, with the opportunity to extend for an additional 3-year period. The States of Colorado, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming request 100-percent funding of the delegated functions for a 3-year period beginning October 1, 2016, with the opportunity to extend for an additional 3-year period. The States have a current audit delegation agreement with ONRR, as shown in the table below:

Therefore, ONRR has determined that we will not hold a formal hearing for comments under 30 CFR 1227.105.

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

Agenda: The primary purpose of the meeting will be for the AMWG to discuss the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Budget and Workplan for Fiscal Year 2017 and the 2017 hydrograph. There will also be updates on: (1) The Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, and (2) current basin hydrology. The AMWG will discuss other administrative and resource issues pertaining to the GCDAMP. To participate in the WebEx/conference call, please use the following instructions:

1. Go to: This will need to be changed if the date/time changes https://ucbor-events.webex.com/ucbor-events/onstage/g.php?MTID=e41d62843c7f459f40c6daf75840d7a01.

2. If requested, enter your name and email address.

3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: AMWG.

4. Click “Join Now”.

Audio Conference Information:

There will be limited ports available, so if you wish to participate, please contact Linda Whetton at (801) 524-3880 to register.

To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16may25/index.html. Time will be allowed for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments on the call. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84138; telephone (801) 524-3635; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at [email protected], at least five (5) days prior to the call. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Cambria Company LLC on April 14, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain quartz slabs and portions thereof. The complaint names as respondents Wilsonart LLC of Temple, TX; and Dorado Soapstone LLC of Denver, CO. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3139”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Paice LLC and Abell Foundation, Inc. on April 15, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hybrid electric vehicles and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Volkswagen AG of Germany; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. of Herndon, VA; Dr. Ing. H.C. F. Porsche AG of Germany; Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of Atlanta, GA; Audi AG of Germany; and Audi of America, LLC of Herndon, VA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3141”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures).4 Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of ResMed Corp; ResMed Inc. and ResMed Ltd. on April 14, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents BMC Medical Co., Ltd. of China; 3B Medical, Inc. of Lake Wales, FL; and 3B Products, L.L.C. of Lake Wales, FL. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3140”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).