Federal Register Vol. 82, No.45,

Overview of This Information Collection

(1) Agency: USDA, AMS.

(2) Title: Regulations for Voluntary Grading, Certification, and Standards—7 CFR 54, 56, 62, and 70.

(3) OMB Number: 0581-0128.

(4) Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2017.

(5) Type of Request: Request for extension of and revision of a currently approved information collection.

(6) Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) directs and authorizes the USDA to develop and improve standards of quality, grades, grading programs, and certification services which facilitate the marketing of agricultural products. To provide programs and services, section 203(h) of the AMA (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, including assessment and collection of fees for the cost of service. The regulations in 7 CFR 54, 56, and 70 provide a voluntary program for grading, certification and standards of shell eggs, poultry products, rabbit products, meats, prepared meats, and meat products. The regulation in 7 CFR 62—Quality Systems Verification Programs (QSVP) is a collection of voluntary, audit-based, user-fee funded programs that allow applicants to have program documentation and program processes assessed by AMS auditor(s) and other USDA officials.

AMS also provides other types of voluntary services under these regulations, including contract and specification acceptance services and verification of product, processing, further processing, temperature, and quantity. Because this is a voluntary program, respondents request or apply for the specific service they wish, and in doing so, they provide information. The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA (AMS, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program's QAD national and field staff, which includes state agencies) and is used to conduct services requested by respondents. Information collected includes but is not limited to: Total received volume in pounds or cases, volume in pounds of graded, processed and reprocessed products, case volume of graded product, applicant's name, billing and facility address, commitment hours, and requests for approval of commodity specifications or chemical compounds. AMS is the primary user of the information.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of AMA, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program.

(7) Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.197 hours per response.

(8) Respondents: Livestock, meat, poultry, shell egg industries, or other agricultural enterprises; state or local governments; or other business organizations.

(9) Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,564.

(10) Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 34.47.

(11) Estimated Total Annual Responses: 53,915.

(12) Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 10,655.63 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AMS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of AMS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All responses will become a matter of public record, including any personal information provided.

Title: Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order).

OMB Number: 0581-0268.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2017.

Type of Request: Extension and Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information program was created to help strengthen the position of Christmas trees in the marketplace, and maintain, develop, and expand markets for Christmas trees in the United States. The Order (7 CFR part 1214) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).

The Order was implemented on November 2011, and immediately stayed. The stay was lifted on April 7, 2014, in accordance with the provisions of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). Currently, the Christmas tree program is being administered by the Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board) appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and financed by a mandatory assessment on producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees. The assessment rate is $0.15 per Christmas tree cut and sold domestically or imported into the United States. The program provides for an exemption for producers and importers that cut and sell or import fewer than 500 Christmas trees annually. In 2018, a referendum will be held among eligible producers and importers to determine whether they favor continuation of the program.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Order and the 1996 Act. The objective in carrying out this responsibility includes assuring the following: (1) Funds are collected and properly accounted for; (2) expenditures of all funds are for the purposes authorized by the 1996 Act and Order; and (3) the board's administration of the programs conforms to USDA policy.

The Order's provisions have been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize information already submitted under other Christmas tree programs administered by USDA and other State programs.

The forms covered under this collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out reports and remitting assessments to the Board. The forms are simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information.

Collecting information yearly would coincide with normal industry business practices. The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. The requirement to keep records for two years beyond the fiscal period of their applicability is consistent with normal industry practices. In addition, the information to be included on these forms is not available from other sources because such information relates specifically to individual producers and importers who will be subject to the provisions of the Order and 1996 Act. Therefore, there is no practical method for collecting the required information without the use of these forms.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

Estimate of Burden: Public recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.398 hour per response.

Respondents: Producers and importers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,455.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 26,885.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.16.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 10,701 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-795-3610, conference ID: 6858129. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by March 24, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-684-1262, conference ID: 8293372. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over landline connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Iowa Advisory Committee link: http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=248. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

This notice informs the public that the FirstNet Board and the Board Committees will convene an open public teleconference and webinar Combined Board Committees and Board meeting on March 14, 2017.

Background: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)) (Act) established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that is headed by a Board. The Act directs FirstNet to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. The FirstNet Board is responsible for making strategic decisions regarding FirstNet's operations. The FirstNet Board held its first public meeting on September 25, 2012.

Matters to be Considered: FirstNet will post a detailed agenda for the Combined Board Committees and Board Meeting on its Web site, http://www.firstnet.gov, prior to the meeting. The agenda topics are subject to change. Please note that the subjects that will be discussed by the Board Committees and the Board may involve commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential or other legal matters affecting FirstNet. As such, the Board Committee Chairs and Board Chair may call for a vote to close the meetings only for the time necessary to preserve the confidentiality of such information, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1424(e)(2).

Times and Dates of Meeting: A combined meeting of the FirstNet Board and FirstNet Board Committees will be held on March 14, 2017, between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. (EST). The meeting of the Board and Board Committees will be open to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 2:05 p.m. and 2:35 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST). The Board and Board Committees will be in a closed session from 2:05 p.m. to 2:35 p.m. (EST). The times listed above are subject to change. Please refer to FirstNet's Web site at www.firstnet.gov for the most up-to-date information.

Place: The meeting on March 14, 2017, will be conducted via teleconference and webinar. Members of the public may listen to the meeting by dialing toll free 1-877-709-5347 and using passcode 1534864. To view the slide presentation, the public may visit the URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/com/nc/join and enter Conference Number PWXW3143798 and audio passcode 1534864. Alternatively, members of the public may view the slide presentation by directly visiting the URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=PWXW3143798&p=1534864&t=c.

Other Information: The teleconference for the Combined Board Committees and Board Meeting is open to the public. On the date and time of the meeting, members of the public may call toll free 1-877-709-5347 and use passcode 1534864. To view the slide presentation, the public may visit the URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/com/nc/join and enter Conference Number PWXW3143798 and audio passcode 1534864. Alternatively, members of the public may view the slide presentation by directly visiting the URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=PWXW3143798&p=1534864&t=c.

If you experience technical difficulty, please contact the Conferencing Center customer service at 1-866-900-1011. Public access will be limited to listen-only. Due to the limited number of ports, attendance via teleconference will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The Combined Board Committees and Board Meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations are asked to notify Ms. Miller-Kuwana by telephone (571) 665-6177 or email at [email protected] at least five (5) business days before the applicable meeting.

Records: FirstNet maintains records of all FirstNet Board proceedings. Minutes of the FirstNet Board Meeting and the Board Committee meetings will be available at www.firstnet.gov.

On December 8, 2011, the Department published the AD Order on MLWF from the PRC.1 On November 1, 2016, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the AD Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).2 On November 16, 2016, the Department received a notice of intent to participate in this review from Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (“CAHP”), an ad hoc association of domestic manufacturers of MLWF, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 CAHP claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act as a manufacturer in the United States of a domestic like product as well as an association whose members are interested parties. On December 1, 2016, the Department received a complete and adequate substantive response from CAHP within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the AD Order. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the AD Order.

The products covered by the AD Order are multilayered wood flooring composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) in combination with a core. All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise, without regard to: Dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face ply, thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of inner plies; width; and length); wood species used for the face, back, and inner veneers; core composition; and face grade. Multilayered wood flooring included within the definition of subject merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished surface to protect the face veneer from wear and tear) or “prefinished” (i.e., a coating applied to the face veneer, including, but not exclusively, oil or oil-modified or water-based polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-cured urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde finishes). The veneers may be also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether the face (or back) of the product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed by any method or multiple methods, or hand-scraped. In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or not it is manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism (for example, tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of the subject merchandise regardless of whether the product meets a particular industry or similar standard.

The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range of materials, including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, high-density fiberboard (“HDF”), stone and/or plastic composite, or strips of lumber placed edge-to-edge.

Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively, may be in the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products are included within this definition regardless of the actual or nominal dimensions or form of the product.

Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either flooring are made from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of HDF, and a stabilizing bottom layer.

Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.5

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the AD Order and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked, is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frnl. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 25.62 percent.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.218, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

Background

In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), on January 17, 2017, and January 25, 2017, respectively, the Department published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ammonium sulfate from the PRC and its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”).1 On March 2, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports and subsidized imports of ammonium sulfate from the PRC, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.2

The merchandise covered by these orders is ammonium sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula (NH4)2SO4.

The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other products, including by, for example, blending (i.e., mixing granules of ammonium sulfate with granules of one or more other products), compounding (i.e., when ammonium sulfate is compacted with one or more other products under high pressure), or granulating (incorporating multiple products into granules through, e.g., a slurry process). For such combined products, only the ammonium sulfate component is covered by the scope of these orders.

Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs in countries other than China.

Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to these orders is not excluded when commingled (i.e., mixed or combined) with ammonium sulfate from sources not subject to these orders. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of these orders.

The Chemical Abstracts Service (“CAS”) registry number for ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.

The merchandise covered by these orders is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of ammonium sulfate that are sold in the United States at LTFV. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of ammonium sulfate from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 9, 2016, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination. 3

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of subject merchandise from the PRC. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amount indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed below. The Department has made no adjustments to the antidumping cash deposit rate because the Department has made no findings in the countervailing duty investigation that any of the programs are export subsidies.4

The weighted-average antidumping duty margin is as follows:

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing ammonium sulfate is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of ammonium sulfate from the PRC.5 Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, we are publishing this countervailing duty order.

As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of ammonium sulfate entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2016, the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination. 6

However, section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Therefore, entries of ammonium sulfate made on or after March 2, 2017, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register, are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties, due to the Department's discontinuation, effective March 2, 2017, of the suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute suspension of liquidation, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register, and to assess, upon further instruction by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rate for the subject merchandise. The Department will also direct CBP to require a cash deposit for each entry of subject merchandise in an amount equal to the net countervailable subsidy rates listed below. The All-Others rate applies to all producers and exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed.

This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to ammonium sulfate from the PRC pursuant to sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of orders currently in effect by either visiting http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html or by contacting the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce Building.

These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a), 736(a), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the REEEAC pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), on July 14, 2010. The REEEAC was re-chartered on June 18, 2012, June 12, 2014, and June 9, 2016. The REEEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the export competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency products and services.

On March 22, 2017, the REEEAC will hold a conference call to potentially approve recommendations and/or a letter to the Secretary of Commerce informing of actions to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.

The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, March 17, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Mail Stop: 4053, Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, March 17, 2017, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.

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

Title of Collection: G5 System Post Award Budget Drawdown e-Form.

OMB Control Number: 1855-0028.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 36,592.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 36,592.

Abstract: In response to grant monitors need for a better reporting mechanism for grantee budgets, the G5 team developed a new electronic budget form for grantees to complete. This new electronic form requires grantees to detail the budget categories from which they are expending funds in order for Department grant monitors to track more carefully the drawdowns and financial management systems of grantees. Although this form may be used by all grantees, at this time only grantees on cost reimbursement or route payment status will be required to use this form when reporting their budget, requesting funds, and accessing funds.

Current Department regulations sections 74.20-74.28 and 74.50-74.53 address the financial management and reporting requirements of grantees. This form developed in G5 serves as the mechanism for grantees to report expenditures and track their spending in order to ensure compliance with Department regulations. The currently used budget form, the SF 524, is not comprehensive enough to meet the needs of grant monitors to efficiently and effectively monitor this sub-set of grantees. This data collection extension without change has enhanced the ability of grant monitors to track the budgeting of grantees and the management of their funds.

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

Title of Collection: Application Forms and Instructions for the International Research and Studies (IRS) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0795.

Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector; Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

Abstract: The Instructions for the International Research and Studies (IRS) program provides grants to institutions, public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to conduct research and studies to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields. The information will be used as a basis for project monitoring and performance reporting, among other grant administration activities.

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

Title of Collection: Student Support Services Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0525.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,072.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,348.

Abstract: Student Support Services (SSS) program grantees must submit the Annual Performance Report (APR) annually. The reports are used to evaluate grantees' performance for substantial progress, respond to GPRA requirements, and award prior experience points at the end of each project (budget) period. The Department also aggregates the data to provide descriptive information on the projects and to analyze the impact of the (SSS) Program on the academic progress of participating students. The revisions to the APR are as follows Field 6b IPEDS Unit ID is the primary source for data on colleges, universities, and technical and vocational postsecondary institutions in the United States, Section I, Part 3 Competitive Preference Priorities is a collection of supporting data of the interventions proposed during the Student Support Services grant competition, Field 38 Participant's Case Number is a TRIO generated number to be used as a “match key” to ensure accuracy and consistency in reporting; data for that field can be downloaded from the SSS APR Web site and Field 39 Deceased participant status which allows respondents to report on deceased participants.

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

Title of Collection: Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program (CFDA 84.022A).

OMB Control Number: 1840-0005.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 355.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,875.

Abstract: This application package is used by both institutions of higher education and individual applicants to apply for fellowships under the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Application (DDRA) program. Information submitted in this collection will be used during the peer review to evaluate and score the applications, and to make funding decisions. The Department requires this information collection in order to make discretionary grant awards under this program.

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

Title of Collection: American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0817.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 70.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 840.

Abstract: The information is required of institutions of higher education that apply for grants under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program authorized under Title III, Part A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This information will be used in making funding recommendations.

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

Title of Collection: Written Application for the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind Formula Grant.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0660.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9.

Abstract: This document is used by States to request funds to administer the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind (IL-OIB) program. The IL-OIB is provided for under Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to assist individuals who are age 55 or older whose significant visual impairment makes competitive employment extremely difficult to attain but for whom independent living goals are feasible.

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

Title of Collection: Native American Language (NAL@ED) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 40.

Abstract: The Office of Indian Education (OIE) of the Department of Education (ED) requests clearance for the Native American Language (NAL@ED) Program Grant Application authorized under Title VI, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); included among those amendments was the addition of the new NAL@ED program in section 6133 of the ESSA. It is a competitive discretionary grant program. The grant applications submitted for these programs are evaluated on the basis of how well an applicant addresses the selection criteria, and are used to determine applicant eligibility and amount of award for projects selected for funding.

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

Title of Collection: Loan Rehabilitation: Reasonable and Affordable Payments.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0120.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 35,282.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 35,282.

Abstract: Borrowers who have defaulted on their Direct Loan or FFEL Program loans may remove those loans from default through a process called rehabilitation. Loan rehabilitation requires the borrower to make 9 payments within 10 months. The payment amount is set according to one of two formulas. The second of the two formulas uses the information that is collected in this form. The form is being revised to make it easier for borrowers to complete by either eliminating unnecessary language or simplifying language already on the form.

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

Title of Collection: Financial Status and Program Performance Final Report for State and Partnership for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).

OMB Control Number: 1840-0782.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 134.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,030.

Abstract: The purpose of this information collection is to determine whether recipients of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) have made substantial progress towards meeting the objectives of their respective projects, as outlined in their grant applications and/or subsequent work plans. In addition, the final report will enable the Department to evaluate each grant project's fiscal operations for the entire grant performance period, and compare total expenditures relative to federal funds awarded, and actual cost-share/matching relative to the total amount in the approved grant application. This report is a means for grantees to share the overall experience of their projects and document achievements and concerns, and describe effects of their projects on participants being served; project barriers and major accomplishments; and evidence of sustainability. The report will be GEAR UP's primary method to collect/analyze data on students' high school graduation and immediate college enrollment rates.

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

Title of Collection: Application and Employment Certification for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0110.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 728,419.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 364,210.

Abstract: Final regulations for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program were published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2008 (73 FR 63256) and were codified in 34 CFR 685.219. These regulations require a borrower to submit an application for loan forgiveness to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). To determine whether a borrower is eligible for loan forgiveness, the Department must confirm that the borrower was employed full-time by a qualifying public service organization at the time each of the required 120 payments was made. Because borrowers must make 120 payments on or after October 1, 2007 before becoming eligible for forgiveness, the earliest that any borrower could apply for forgiveness under PSLF would be October 1, 2017.

The Department is creating an application for forgiveness and revising the Employment Certification Form which is already part of this collection. Pages 2 through 6 of the current Employment Certification Form will also be embedded in the application. Slight changes have been made to the language on the Employment Certification Form to increase consistency and understanding.

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

Title of Collection: Annual Performance Reports for Title III, Title V, and Title VII Grantees.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0766.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,114.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 23,390.

Abstract: Titles III, V, and VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), provide discretionary and formula grant programs that make competitive awards to eligible institutions of higher education and organizations (Title III, Part E) to assist these institutions to expand their capacity to serve minority and low-income students. Grantees submit an annual performance report to demonstrate that substantial progress is being made towards meeting the objectives of their project.

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

Title of Collection: Measuring Educational Gain in the National Reporting System for Adult Education.

OMB Control Number: 1830-0567.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 15.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 600.

Abstract: Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 462 establishes procedures the Secretary uses to consider literacy tests for use in the National Reporting System (NRS) for adult education. This information is used by the Secretary to determine the suitability of published literacy tests to measure and report educational gain under the NRS.

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

Title of Collection: Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee Report.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0046.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 9,348.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,127.

Abstract: The information collected on the Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee Report will be used to document Federal Consolidation loans held by lenders who are responsible for sending interest payment rebate fees to the Secretary of Education using ED Form 4-619.

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

Title of Collection: Teacher Verification Form for Title II Scholarship Recipients.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0753.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,000.

Abstract: In order to implement the requirements of the statute, confidential information on scholarship recipients will be collected. Specifically, the institution of higher education (IHE) will report to ED the name, address, Social Security Number, and date of birth for each recipient at the time a scholarship award is made. These data will be used to track students after the completion of their studies (or withdrawal from the program) to ascertain whether they are fulfilling the teaching requirement of their award.

Any data that is required and maintained by ED itself will be maintained in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. To assure that sensitive data about scholarship recipients are not compromised, all data—whether submitted electronically or as hard copy—will be maintained in a secure location. Access to these data will be limited only to staff who are directly responsible for working with the Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) Program and this information is only available onsite at the TQE office via desktop computer.

As noted in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the authority for collecting the requested information from and about TQE scholarship recipients is Title II, Section 204(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and 31 U.S.C. Chapter 37. IHE students are advised that participation in the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants scholarship program is voluntary and that giving the Department their Social Security Numbers (SSNs) is voluntary, but they must provide the requested information, including their SSNs, to participate. The information will be used to ensure that recipients of scholarships provided with funds under Title II of the Higher Education Act subsequently: (1) Complete a teacher education program and teach in a high-need school of a high-need local educational agency for a period of time equivalent to the period for which the recipient received scholarship assistance; or (2) repay the amount of the scholarship. The information in students' records may be disclosed to third parties as authorized under routine uses in the appropriate systems of records, either on a case-by-case basis, or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement.

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

Title of Collection: Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA-2).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0017.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 80.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 320.

Abstract: The Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA 2) collects data on the vocational rehabilitation (VR) and supported employment (SE) program activities for agencies funded under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). The RSA-2 captures: Administrative expenditures for the VR and SE programs; VR program service expenditures by category; SE administrative expenditures and service expenditures; expenditures for the VR program by number of individuals served; the costs of types of services provided; and a breakdown of staff of the VR agencies.

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Excess Uranium Inventory B. Statutory Authority C. Procedural History D. Request for Information E. Market Analyses II. Analytical Approach A. Overview B. Factors Under Consideration III. Summary of Information Under Consideration A. Uranium Mining Industry 1. Prices 2. Production at Existing Facilities 3. Employment Levels in the Industry 4. Changes in Capital Improvement Plans and Development of Future Facilities 5. Long-Term Viability and Health of the Industry B. Uranium Conversion Industry 1. Prices 2. Production at Existing Facilities 3. Employment Levels in the Industry 4. Changes in Capital Improvement Plans and Development of Future Facilities 5. Long-Term Viability and Health of the Industry C. Enrichment Industry 1. Prices 2. Production at Existing Facilities 3. Employment Levels in the Industry 4. Changes in Capital Improvement Plans and Development of Future Facilities 5. Long-Term Viability and Health of the Industry IV. Request for Comments V. Confidential Business Information I. Introduction A. Excess Uranium Inventory

The Department of Energy (DOE) holds inventories of uranium in various forms and quantities—including low-enriched uranium (LEU), highly-enriched uranium (HEU), depleted uranium (DU) and natural uranium (NU)—that have been declared as excess and are not dedicated to U.S. national security missions. Within DOE, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) coordinate the management of these excess uranium inventories. DOE explained its approach to managing this inventory in a July 2013 Report to Congress, Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan (2013 Plan).

In recent years, DOE has managed its excess uranium inventory in part by entering into transactions in which DOE transfers certain forms of excess uranium in exchange for services. Specifically, DOE transfers uranium in exchange for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for down-blending of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to LEU. DOE currently transfers uranium for these two programs at an aggregate rate of approximately 2,100 metric tons of natural uranium equivalent (MTU) per year.1

DOE manages its excess uranium inventory in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., “AEA”) and other applicable law. Specifically, Title I, Chapters 6-7, 14, of the AEA authorizes DOE to transfer special nuclear material and source material. LEU and natural uranium are types of special nuclear material and source material, respectively. The USEC Privatization Act (Pub. L. 104-134, 42 U.S.C. 2297h et seq.) places certain limitations on DOE's authority to transfer uranium from its excess uranium inventory. Specifically, under Section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10(d)(2)(B)), the Secretary must determine that certain transfers of natural or low-enriched uranium “will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry, taking into account the sales of uranium under the Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement and the Suspension Agreement” before DOE makes these transfers under its AEA authority (hereinafter referred to as “Secretarial Determination” or “Determination”). Section 306(a) of Division D, Title III of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), limits the validity of any determination by the Secretary under Section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act to no more than two calendar years subsequent to the determination.

Section 3112(e) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10(e)), however, provides for certain transfers of uranium without the limitations of Subsection 3112(d)(2). For example, under Subsection 3112(e)(2), the Secretary may transfer or sell enriched uranium to any person for national security purposes. Nevertheless, the Department will consider the impact of transfers made pursuant to Section 3112(e) along with other DOE transfers in any determination made to assess the adverse impacts of the Department's transfers under Section 3112(d).

The Secretary has periodically determined whether certain transfers of natural and low-enriched uranium will have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industries. DOE issued the most recent Secretarial Determination under Section 3112(d) covering transfers for cleanup at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and down-blending of HEU to LEU on May 1, 2015. To inform the May 1, 2015, Secretarial Determination and Analysis (2015 Secretarial Determination), DOE held two rounds of public comment and review prior to the determination.2 DOE solicited input from the public on issues ranging from the potential effect and consequences of DOE uranium transfers on the uranium market, past and future, to the factors that should be considered by DOE in assessing whether its transfers would have an adverse material impact. In addition, DOE tasked Energy Resources International, Inc. (ERI) with assessing the potential effects on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries from potential DOE transfers based on scenarios involving different volumes of DOE transfers. Based on input from the public and the ERI report, DOE then prepared a separate analysis and recommended a course of action to the Secretary. The resulting 2015 Determination covered transfers of up to a total of 2,500 MTU natural uranium equivalent in calendar year 2015, broken down as follows: Up to 500 MTU per year of natural uranium equivalent in the form of LEU transferred for down-blending services, up to 2,000 MTU of natural uranium equivalent for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, except where transfers of LEU are less than 500 MTU equivalent. Total transfers may not exceed 2,500 MTU equivalent in 2015 and 2,100 MTU equivalent in subsequent years.3 For calendar year 2016 and thereafter, the Determination covered up to 2,100 MTU per calendar year natural uranium equivalent, broken down as follows: Up to 500 MTU per year of natural uranium equivalent in the form of LEU transferred for down-blending services, with the balance transferred for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

DOE began planning for a potential new Secretarial Determination pursuant to Section 3112(d) to cover uranium transfers in exchange for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for down-blending of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to LEU in 2016. As a preparatory step, DOE sought information from the public through a Request for Information (RFI) published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2016 (July 2016 RFI) (81 FR 46917) (a detailed discussion of the RFI is provided in section D).

Also in late 2016, following the close of the comment period on the RFI, the Secretary determined that the exchange of LEU for HEU down-blending services serves a national security purpose and these transfers would be covered by Section 3112(e)(2). The Secretary determined that down-blending HEU to LEU supports the Department's nonproliferation goals and promotes national security by ensuring the HEU can never again be used in a nuclear weapon. Pursuant to Section 3112(e), these transfers for down-blending purposes no longer require a Secretarial Determination under Section 3112(d). However, the proposed enriched uranium transfers under this program will still be considered for purposes of assessing the impact of DOE's uranium transfers in a potential Secretarial Determination under Section 3112(d). At this time, the amount of natural and LEU that DOE is transferring is consistent with the 2015 Secretarial Determination.

DOE is now soliciting additional public input on its proposed transfers of natural uranium for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant under Section 3112(d). Again, DOE has commissioned a report by ERI (2017 ERI Report), which analyzes four scenarios involving different volumes of DOE transfers.

In the July 19, 2016 Request for Information, DOE solicited information from interested stakeholders and specifically invited comment on the following questions.

(1) What are current and projected conditions in the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment markets?

(2) What market effects and industry consequences could DOE expect from continued transfers at annual rates comparable to the transfers described in the 2015 Secretarial Determination?

(3) Would transfers at a lower annual rate or a higher annual rate significantly change these effects, and if so, how?

(4) Are there any anticipated changes in these markets that may significantly change how DOE transfers affect the domestic uranium industries?

In response to this request, DOE received comments from individuals and organizations representing diverse interests across the nuclear industry. DOE received comments from members of the uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries. DOE also received comments from trade associations, nuclear utilities, local governmental bodies, and members of the public. All comments are available at http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/excess-uranium-management. 4 Citations to RFI comments are denoted by the commenter and page number of comments submitted; e.g., “Uranium Producer, at 3”, is found on page 3 of “Uranium Producer's” comments submitted in response to the July 2016 RFI.

A number of commenters expressed views on matters that were not specifically within the scope of the RFI. For example, many commenters requested that DOE reserve a certain amount of its HEU for down-blending to 19.75% U-235 for use in the development and demonstration of advanced reactor concepts. See, e.g., Comment of Peterson, at 1; Comment of URENCO, at 3; Comment of The Breakthrough Institute, at 1. Several commenters also asked the Department to make additional information publicly available about the excess uranium inventory, including the amount and type of material that remains in the inventory and any plans to declare additional material to be excess to national security needs. A number of commenters also asked DOE to work with industry and to update its uranium management plans or to release a strategy outlining the specific annual quantities of uranium to be transferred in the future. See, e.g., Comment of Duke Energy, at 1, Comment of Cameco, at 3; Comment of NEI, at 2.

While these comments are outside the scope of the potential Secretarial Determination under consideration, DOE understands the advantage of providing as available updated information regarding its remaining excess uranium inventories and plans for future uranium management. Information on DOE's planned uranium transfers in the future, to the extent currently available, have been incorporated into the ERI analysis as appropriate. For additional clarity, DOE provides here updated information on the excess uranium inventory, as of the end of 2015.

In preparation for the potential Secretarial Determination that is the subject of this notice, DOE has tasked ERI with preparing an analysis of the potential effects on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries of the introduction of DOE excess uranium inventories in various forms and quantities during calendar years 2017 through 2026.5 It is important to note that the various levels of sales or transfers were developed for analytical purposes, and do not bind the Secretary in making his determination. For this analysis, DOE tasked ERI to consider the effect of options for planned DOE transfers on the domestic uranium industries under four different scenarios.

Under the Base Scenario, DOE would continue transfers at the current annual rate of 2,100 MTU per year until 2020, at which point NNSA barters would end. Aggregate transfers for each year in 2017 and in 2018 would be 2,100 MTU of natural uranium equivalent; 2021 MTU in 2019; and 495 MTU in 2020 when EM natural UF6 supplies are exhausted. As previously mentioned, NNSA barters in years 2017-2019 are not covered by the potential Secretarial Determination which is the subject of this notice, but are still considered in ERI's market analyses. NNSA barters are assumed to end in 2019, after which (2019 to 2025) NNSA would continue to down-blend HEU but the resulting down-blended LEU would be held for later use and not bartered. Required purchases of blend stock for down-blending from commercial suppliers in 2019 to 2025 result in a negative net amount of material transferred in years 2020 and after because it actually creates new demand.

Under Scenario 1, DOE would cease transfers for EM's cleanup work after 2016, but NNSA barters would be at the same levels as in the Base Scenario based on the determination that NNSA uranium barters serve a national security purpose.

Under Scenario 2, DOE would transfer an aggregate total of 1700 MTU through 2018, 1,652 in 2019, 1,136 MTU in 2020, 464 MTU in 2021, and there would be negative net amounts of transfers in years 2022-2026 due to commercial purchases of uranium by the Government.

Under Scenario 3, DOE would transfer an aggregate of 2,500 MTU in 2017 and 2018, 1,780 MTU in 2019 and again there would be a negative net amount of material transferred in 2020 through 2025 due to commercial purchases of uranium by the Government.

DOE also asked ERI to provide specific categories of information in its analysis, including a discussion of price volatility and regional differences in the global markets. DOE tasked ERI to discuss the implications of changing certain assumptions underlying its analysis, specifically regarding what proportion of DOE material would enter the global market as compared to the domestic market and regarding the share of DOE material delivered under long-term contracts. ERI's report also includes updated information regarding changes in the market between February 2015 and November 2016. Both the 2015 ERI Report and the 2017 ERI Report can be found at http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/excess-uranium-management.

DOE issues Secretarial Determinations pursuant to Section 3112(d) of the USEC Privatization Act. Section 3112(d) states that DOE may transfer “natural and low-enriched uranium” if, among other things, “the Secretary determines that the sale of the material will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry, taking into account the sales of uranium under the Russian HEU Agreement and the Suspension Agreement.” After considering this statutory language, in its 2015 Secretarial Determination and Analysis, DOE explained in detail its analytical approach to determine adverse material impact within the meaning of the statute and under the factual conditions existing at the time of a Secretarial Determination.6 Of note, DOE described transfers as having an “adverse material impact” when a reasonable forecast predicts that an industry will experience “material” harm that is reasonably attributable to the transfers. As further explained, in DOE's view the proper inquiry is to what degree the effects of DOE's transfers would make an industry weaker based on an analysis reflecting existing conditions. As a general proposition, “adverse material impact” would be a harm of real import and great consequence, beyond the scale of normal market fluctuations. DOE also identified the six factors it would use in the analysis to arrive at a determination of adverse material impact.

DOE plans to utilize the same analytical approach and factors in determining adverse material impact in this potential new Secretarial Determination.

As explained, in preparation for a potential Determination in 2017, DOE proposes to evaluate the following factors set forth in the 2015 Secretarial Determination and Analysis:

1. Changes to prices;

2. Changes in production levels at existing facilities;

3. Changes to employment in the industry;

4. Changes in capital improvement plans and development of future facilities;

5. The long-term viability and health of the industry; and,

6. As required by statute, sales under certain agreements permitting the import of Russian-origin uranium.

In response to the RFI, DOE received comments from several entities suggesting DOE should change its method and approach to determining adverse material impact. As an initial point, several commenters have cited the ConverDyn litigation (a lawsuit in which ConverDyn challenged, among other things, the 2014 Secretarial Determination) as requiring DOE to change its definition and methodology for reaching a determination on adverse material impact because the court held DOE's method to be in violation of law. See, e.g., Comment of Energy Fuels Resources, at 1; Comment of UPA, at 1. This interpretation of the court's rulings in the ConverDyn litigation is incorrect. In 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed as moot the entirety of ConverDyn's challenge to the 2014 Secretarial Determination and its allegation with respect to DOE's 2013 Excess Uranium Management Plan. Without ruling on the merits, the court left intact two of ConverDyn's claims regarding the Department's authority to transfer uranium under the USEC Privatization Act. Although the court indicated that ConverDyn could seek to amend its complaint to challenge the 2013 Plan in the context of its application in the 2015 Secretarial Determination, the court did not address or rule on DOE's methodology in the 2015 Secretarial Determination. ConverDyn and DOE subsequently reached a settlement and the case was dismissed. While DOE is mindful of the results of the ConverDyn litigation, the ConverDyn litigation does not mandate a change in DOE's method of determining adverse material impact.

In addition, several commenters have stated that DOE failed to define “adverse material impact,” in its 2015 Secretarial Determination. Further, commenters noted that to the extent DOE has defined “adverse material impact,” the definition should be a more quantitative and less relative standard subject to the factual context in which it is applied. See, e.g., Comment of ConverDyn, at 1-2; Comment of Energy Fuels, at 1-2. As noted in the 2015 Secretarial Determination and Analysis, Congress did not define the term “adverse material impact,” leaving it to the Department to “exercise judgment to develop an understanding of “adverse material impact” in its statutory context, as applicable to a given potential transfer or sale of uranium.” 7 As previously noted, DOE's interpretation of the term is explained in depth in the 2015 Secretarial Determination. DOE continues to believe that this approach is appropriate and declines to adopt a specific quantitative standard for the reasons stated in the 2015 Determination.

Several commenters suggested alternative definitions and standards to assess adverse material impact. For example, commenters suggested that DOE reconsider its definition of “adverse material impact” to encompass scenarios where DOE transfers are not the primary cause of total losses in one of the domestic uranium industries. See, e.g., Comment of ConverDyn, at 1; Comment of Energy Fuels, at 1-2; Comment of UPA, at 1. Energy Fuels and ConverDyn have also suggested that DOE's standard for “adverse material impact” be directly linked to production costs for the uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment markets. Comment of ConverDyn, at 2; Comment of Energy Fuels, at 1-2. While DOE does not believe that production costs alone should be used to determine adverse material impact, and that its comprehensive approach to analyzing market impacts is appropriate, DOE will account for production costs in the factors considered in its analysis. In this way, information on production costs continues to be relevant to DOE's analysis of the market impacts of transfers.

Several commenters, in response to the July 2016 RFI, have suggested that DOE consider other methodology factors in its market analysis. Where appropriate, we have addressed these other factors in our analysis of existing factors.

Finally, comments on specific policy recommendations related to uranium transfers, such as arranging for transfers to be placed in the long-term market as opposed to the spot market or using other budgetary mechanisms to pay for services, have been taken into consideration, but are not addressed in this notice, which describes only the information used in analyzing the market impact of current and potential future transfers. Comment of Cameco, at 2; Comments of Duke Energy, at 1.

In the following section, DOE summarizes for each industry the information that DOE believes to be relevant with respect to the above-listed factors. In addition to the 2017 ERI Report and the comments received in response to the July 2016 RFI, in some instances DOE refers to additional information from other sources. Where available, DOE provides a link to where these documents are available on the internet.

DOE recognizes that both market prices and realized prices of current uranium producers contribute to the market effect of DOE uranium transfers. The realized prices are a factor of both the change in market prices and the contours of various contracts through which the industry members sell their uranium. As in the 2015 Secretarial Determination and Analysis, DOE will consider these two aspects of price together, using available data for each industry.

In preparation for the proposed Secretarial Determination, DOE tasked ERI with estimating the effect of DOE transfers on the market prices for uranium concentrates during the period 2017 through 2026. The potential effect is evaluated using market clearing price analyses, using annual and cumulative methodology,8 as well as an econometric model to establish a correlation between the spot market price for uranium concentrates and active supply and demand. For its market clearing price model, ERI constructs individual supply and demand curves and compares the clearing price with and without DOE transfers.9 To develop its supply curves, ERI gathers available information on the costs facing each individual supply source. ERI then uses that information to estimate the marginal cost of supply for each source using a discounted cash flow analysis, when possible. 2017 ERI Report, 44 n.33. ERI's market clearing price methodology assumes a perfectly inelastic demand curve based on its Reference Nuclear Power Growth forecast.10 ERI assumes that secondary supply is utilized first, followed by primary production. ERI states, “In over-supplied markets . . . the amount of primary production required to meet requirements, including normal strategic inventory building, is well below actual production.” 2017 ERI Report, 45. Several commenters have, in the past and in response to the July 2016 RFI, suggested that any DOE analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of the total impacts of all past DOE transfers. Comment of Cameco, at 1. ERI's cumulative analysis methodology includes information on these cumulative impacts, in addition to annual impacts. ERI notes that the annual method shows lower price effects through 2023 for uranium, through 2021 for conversion and through 2026 for enrichment. The larger price effects found when using the cumulative methodology is consistent with the importance of excess inventory buildup in the current market.” 2017 ERI Report, 56. ERI's econometric analysis is also used to simulate the spot market price effect for uranium concentrates with and without DOE inventory transfers.

Applying the cumulative approach to the four scenarios listed in Section I.E, ERI estimates that DOE transfers will have the effects listed in Table 2.11 It is important to emphasize that this is not a prediction that prices will drop by the specified amount once DOE begins transfers following a new determination. These price effects represent ERI's predictions using the cumulative approach for2017 through 2019. See Table 4.4 of 2017 ERI Report, 53.

ERI's cumulative market clearing model shows a change in average clearing price attributed to the DOE inventory of $5.1/pound for the uranium market for the period 2014 through 2016. Using a multivariable econometric model, ERI developed a correlation between the monthly spot prices published by TradeTech with published offers to sell uranium for delivery within one year of publication and published inquiries to purchase uranium for delivery within one year. ERI's multivariable correlation estimates how the spot market prices would respond to the availability of new supply from DOE. 2017 ERI Report, 61-62. Applying this econometric model results in an estimated spot market price effect of $5.3 per pound U3O8 over the last three years (2014-2016). Looking forward, ERI estimated that spot market prices would be $3.5 per pound U3O8 or 8% lower if Base Scenario DOE inventory releases take place over the next ten years (2017-2026) compared to no release of DOE inventory. The effect is higher in the near-term at $4.4 per pound and 12% lower prices. As noted earlier, the price effects attributed to past and current DOE inventory releases are already built into current spot market prices. 2017 ERI Report, 63.

UPA attached to its comment a market analysis it commissioned from TradeTech, LLC, a uranium market consultant. Comment of UPA, Attachment, TradeTech, DOE Request for Information Response (2016) (hereinafter “TradeTech Report”). Using its proprietary model that correlates active spot supply to active spot demand, TradeTech estimates that DOE's transfer reduced the spot price by an average of $2.79 in 2012, $3.81 in 2013, $4.18 in 2014, and $6.17 in 2015. TradeTech Report, 7. TradeTech's Analysis did not include a prediction of the future effect of DOE's transfers at current rates or other levels.

The 2017 ERI Report considers realized prices, production costs and profit margins across the uranium industry, noting that these vary between companies. Across the industry, ERI reports that the average delivered price for U.S. end-users was $44/pound-U3O8 in 2015 or 21% below the 2011 peak. 2017 ERI Report, 71. ERI expected additional decline by the end of 2016, although floor prices in many market-related contracts are preventing end-users from reaping the full benefit of the 2016 spot market price decline and providing suppliers with a higher minimum price than they might otherwise receive.

To estimate the realized prices for U.S. producers, which varies from company to company, ERI gathered information from public filings representing approximately 90% of U.S. production. 2017 ERI Report, 72. ERI provides Figure 4.23 (2017 ERI Report, 73) showing the change in realized uranium prices over time for several U.S. producers. It is apparent that some mining companies have chosen to sell on a spot market price basis, while others have hedged their exposure to spot market prices by locking in prices using a base price escalated approach for a portion of their portfolio. ERI estimates that the share of U.S. production that comes from companies that are effectively “unhedged” (with no long-term contracts at higher prices), has declined from 25% in 2012 to just 3% in 2015 and 2017. 2017 ERI Report, 73.

EIA reports several figures that are relevant to the prices realized by current production facility operators. For 2015, EIA reported the weighted average price of uranium purchased by U.S. reactor operators from all sources was $44.13 per pound U3O8. EIA, 2015 Uranium Marketing Annual, 5.12 Uranium purchased directly from U.S. producers were purchased at $52.35 per pound U3O8, however, these purchases were only 1.5 million pounds U3O8 equivalent of a total of 56.5 million pounds U3O8 equivalent purchased in 2015. EIA, 2015 Uranium Marketing Annual, 3.

During 2015, 21% of the uranium was purchased under spot contracts at a weighted-average price of $36.80 per pound. The remaining 79% was purchased under long-term contracts at a weighted-average price of $46.04 per pound. Spot contracts are contracts with a one-time uranium delivery (usually) for the entire contract and the delivery is to occur within one year of contract execution (signed date). Long-term contracts are contracts with one or more uranium deliveries to occur after a year following the contract execution. EIA reports that 54 new purchase contracts (long-term and spot) were signed in 2015 at a weighted average price of $37.97. EIA, 2015 Uranium Marketing Annual, 1.

ERI reports that in 2015, U.S. production declined 34% to 3.3 million pounds and that U.S. Production in 2016 was expected to decline an additional 10% to below 3.0 million pounds. 2017 ERI Report, 68. Production peaked in 2014, with a number of new starts that had been spurred by the price run-up in 2006 and 2007. A number of these facilities have limited production in response to the decline in prices.

In addition to the information described above, DOE is considering information from EIA reports. EIA reports on production in the domestic uranium industry on a quarterly and annual basis. According to EIA, U.S. primary production in 2015 stood at 3.34 million pounds U3O8. EIA's preliminary figures for 2016 indicates that U.S. production of uranium concentrates declined 13% from 2015 production to 2.92 million pounds U3O8.13 This is consistent with ERI's forecast. U.S. uranium was produced at seven U.S. uranium facilities in Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah.

Using a three-year average to smooth out year-to-year differences, EIA data shows that average production costs remained fairly constant from 2009-2012 at about $40 per pound. The EIA average production costs have steadily declined since 2012, however, as U.S. producers cut costs in response to lower market prices including curtailed operations at higher cost mines, resulting in a three-year average production cost of $31/pound in 2015. 2017 ERI Report, 76. By comparison, the spot price of uranium averaged less than $26 per pound U3O8 in 2015. Total expenditures for U.S. uranium production was an average of $35.44 per pound when spread across uranium production of 3.34 million pounds U3O8. EIA, 2015 Uranium Production Report, 3, 10 (2016).

DOE has also considered information contained from EIA reports relating to employment in the domestic uranium production industry. EIA's 2015 Uranium Production Report states that employment stood at 625 person-years in 2015, a decrease of 21% from the 2014 total, and the lowest level since 2004. EIA, 2015 Uranium Production Report, 2 (2016). While employment in mining grew slightly, from 246 to 251 person-years, employment in exploration fell 32.6% from 86 person-years in 2014 to 58 person-years in 2015. EIA, 2015 Uranium Production Report, 9 (2016).

In its analysis, ERI found that EIA's employment figures correlated to changes in spot and term prices. 2017 ERI Report, 65. Having estimated that the total price effect of DOE inventory releases averaged $2.1/pound in 2012-2015, ERI's correlations indicate the DOE price effect lowered employment by an average of 30 person-years in 2012-2015 using the cumulative methodology.14 2017 ERI Report, 66. ERI estimates that employment would be lowered by 40 person-years in 2017 through 2026 using the cumulative methodology for the Base Scenario in 2017 through 2026. ERI notes that the cumulative effect of past DOE releases is already in place. 2017 ERI Report, 66. If DOE were to halt future EM releases (as in Scenario 1), then employment would be lowered by an average of 31 person-years or 4.7% over the ten-year period 2017 to 2026.

Though no commenter provided company-specific numbers, several referred to decreases in employment in recent years caused by decreases in uranium prices. E.g., Comment of Kingsville Area Industrial Development Foundation, at 1.

ERI reports that five new production centers began operation since 2009. ERI explains that U.S. producers that have recently begun production have done so using fixed price long-term contracts, signed when long term prices were in the $55-70/pound U3O8, to support the start-up of their operations. 2017 ERI Report, 67. However, ERI explains that two of the new operations (Willow Creek and Palangana) have ceased development of new wellfields and two companies, Ur-Energy and Uranerz, have announced they would limit production expansion at new ISL facilities. 2017 ERI Report, 68. As a result of falling prices, in April 2016, Cameco announced that it was deferring well-field development at the company's Wyoming and Nebraska operations and cutting 85 jobs at these sites. Comment of Cameco, at 1, 9-16. Fluor BWXT Portsmouth (FBP) opines that U.S. production has fallen not “due to DOE transfers, but due to the decisions made by producers to expand their lower-cost assets in Canada and Kazakhstan.” Comment of FBP, at 13.

EIA reports that U.S. uranium production expenditures were $119 million in 2015, down by 14% from the 2014 level. EIA reports that uranium exploration expenditures were $5 million and decreased 56% from the 2014 level. EIA, 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report, 2 (2016). ERI looked at the average production cost plus development drilling costs, to show that ongoing costs have declined from $49/pound in 2012 to $37/pound in 2015. Production plus development costs for U.S. facilities are expected by ERI to average about $35/pound in 2016. 2017 ERI Report, 76. ERI noted that exploration employment was correlated to spot price. 2017 ERI Report, 65. The lower expenditures for exploration in 2015 are consistent with the lower spot prices observed in that year.

Market capitalization is representative of a company's ability to raise funds needed to move a project through licensing, which can take many years, as well as through initial project development. ERI observed that the market capitalization of the smaller mining companies is more sensitive to changes in the spot market price compared to the larger companies. 2017 ERI Report, 70.

ERI also presents its future expectations regarding demand for uranium. ERI's most recent Reference Nuclear Power Growth forecasts project global requirements to grow to approximately 190 million pounds annually by 2025. ERI attributes this increase in global requirements to an expansion of nuclear generation in China, India and South Korea, as well as new nuclear power entrants. While global demand for uranium is expected to increase, projected U.S. requirements will remain generally steady. 2017 ERI report, 18-19.

There are a number of important market factors that have influenced the relationship between supply and demand (hence price) since DOE inventory transfers began. These other factors include: demand losses due to the Japanese reactor shutdowns following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, demand losses due to changes in German energy policy, increased uranium production in Kazakhstan, increased secondary supply created using excess enrichment capacity (both underfeeding and upgrade of Russian enrichment tails), the planned ramp-up of Russian uranium under the Suspension Agreement, and the end of the U.S. Russian HEU Agreement in 2013. Not all of these factors affects each market. The effect of DOE inventory can be considered in the broader context of other market factors. ERI notes that DOE inventory was equivalent to about 6% of all the uranium market factors (including DOE) in 2012, rising to 9% in 2013-2014 before declining back to 7% in 2016. ERI predicts that the total of all the non-DOE uranium market factors is expected to remain fairly constant over the next decade as the slow increase in Japanese reactor restarts is offset by additional retirements in Germany. The Base Scenario DOE share remains in the 7%-8% range with the exception of 2020 and 2021 when it drops to 5% and 1%, respectively. If Scenario 1 DOE inventory is assumed, the DOE share declines to just 1% over the next decade. Scenario 2 averages 6% while Scenario 3 averages 8% in 2017-2026. 2017 ERI Report 100-101.

The TradeTech Report in the UPA comments cites many of the same market factors which ERI has accounted for, including persistent oversupply in the uranium market and reduced demand as a result of premature plant closures, as well as the DOE supplied uranium.

Several commenters in response to the July 2016 RFI predict a recovery in either spot or term uranium prices. Cameco, in its comment, states that while “the long-term future of the uranium industry is strong, the market remains oversupplied due in part to the slow pace at which Japanese reactors have come back on line since the Fukushima accident and the closure of a number of U.S. reactors.” Comment of Cameco, at 1. ConverDyn stated that uncertainty related to DOE uranium transfers adds to the difficult conditions currently facing the industry. Comment of ConverDyn, Enclosure 1, at 2. Energy Fuels Resources (Energy Fuels), in its comment, hypothesizes that the value of domestic uranium mines and projects has diminished due to declining uranium prices since 2011 and an oversupplied market. Comment of Energy Fuels, at 2. Energy Fuels notes that “persistent oversupply from price insensitive sources and limited uncommitted demand.” Comment of Energy Fuels, at 3. This view is reiterated in comments by the New Mexico Mining Association, noting that “DOE's material effectively consumes any available uncommitted demand available to (potential New Mexico) producers.” Comment of New Mexico Mining Association, at 1.

Energy Fuels also remarks, “[a]s more reactors go offline and higher priced long-term pre-Fukushima legacy contracts expire, along with DOE material continuing to enter the market, conditions will continue to deteriorate for the production industry.” Comment of Energy Fuels, at 5. Additional commenters shared this view. FBP commented that U.S. producers are “far less competitive than available non-U.S. supply” and that non-U.S. producers are better poised to meet any increase in demand because they can provide material at production costs that are below those of U.S. producers. Comment of FBP, at 5.

The Wyoming Mining Association suggests that the Department consider drilling as a “harbinger metric for the uranium recover industry's maintenance and growth.” Comment of Wyoming Mining Association, at 2. EIA reports that the number of holes drilled for exploration and development in the U.S. in 2015 was 1,218, down from 11,082 in 2012 and 5,244 in 2013, declines of 86% and 71%, respectively. Similarly, EIA reports 878 thousand feet drilled in 2015, down from 7,156 thousand feet in 2012 and 3, 845 thousand feet drilled in 2013, declines of 88% and 77%, respectively. EIA, 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report (2016), at 3.

A number of commenters have pointed out that excess inventory needs to be absorbed before a market recovery can occur. Commenters point to EIA data showing an increase in U.S. utility inventory. Energy Fuels and the Uranium Producers of America state that, “the excess supply is absorbed primarily by the trading community that then finances the material for forward sales. As a result, this delays the prospects for a price recovery by “stealing” future uncommitted demand that would otherwise be available in upcoming years.” Comment of Energy Fuels, at 5; Comment of UPA, at 7.

Regarding supply, FBP notes the increase in global production since 2007, despite falling prices and reduced reactor demand. Comment of FBP, at 5. “The failure of primary supply to reduce production to match needs is encouraged by long-term contracts at higher than current spot market prices and the significant supply controlled by Sovereign governments.” Citing the NAC International Fuel-Trac data base, FBP notes that “it is estimated that around 60% of the 2016 production was controlled by Governments,” and suggests that, “[d]ue to the large excess worldwide production increases, neither spot market prices, nor U.S. production competitiveness are expected to improve appreciably in the near term.” Comment of FBP, at 8. FBP also suggests that exchange rates have affected competitiveness resulting in lower effective production costs for non-U.S. suppliers. Comment of FBP, at 10.

In the TradeTech report submitted by the Uranium Producers of America, TradeTech opines, “[i]f DOE were to completely cease material transfers, then producers would see improvement in the market,” but does not provide additional analysis to support this assertion. Comment of UPA, TradeTech Report, at 8. As they concluded in the 2015 report, ERI states in the 2017 ERI Report, “[i]t does not appear that removing the DOE inventory from the market and adding back the $5 per pound cumulative price effect attributed to the DOE inventory material . . . would necessarily increase current prices enough to change the situation regarding the viability of new production centers in the U.S.” 2017 ERI Report, 77.

Finally, DOE recognizes that predictability of transfers over time is important for long-term planning by the domestic uranium industry. Commenters have noted the uncertainty in the market regarding the quantity and price at which DOE will transfer uranium, which they believe is attributed to the Secretarial Determination process. (e.g., Comment of UPA, at 1).

ERI projects that U.S. requirements for conversion services will remain essentially unchanged from 2016 through 2035, averaging 17 million kgU per year. 2017 ERI Report, 13. ERI notes that globally, its forecasted requirements for 2017 and 2018 have declined by 21% since ERI's 2011 forecast. 2017 ERI Report, 78.

In its analysis, ERI estimates the effect of DOE transfers on the market prices for conversion services. To estimate this effect, ERI employed a market clearing price model very similar to what is described above for the uranium market. As with uranium concentrates, ERI constructed individual supply and demand curves for conversion services and estimated the clearing price with and without DOE transfers. A summary of ERI's estimates of the effect of DOE transfers on the conversion price appears in Table 3. As with uranium concentrates, this is not a prediction that prices will drop by the specified amount once DOE begins transfers.

ERI does not provide a specific estimate of the change in ConverDyn's realized price due to DOE transfers (ConverDyn being the only domestic uranium conversion facility). However, ERI does note that ConverDyn's realized price is believed to have increased over the past decade, although ERI says unit costs have increased as well due to reductions in production volume. ERI bases its sales revenue assumptions on a sale price of $14 per kgU. This estimate appears to be based predominately on claims by the company that it is operating at a loss. 2017 ERI Report, 88; 2015 ERI Report, 70.15

No commenter provides specific information about the current realized prices achieved in the conversion industry, and no commenter directly estimates the effect of DOE's transfers on realized prices. DOE understands that the conversion market generally relies on mid- and long-term contracts. UxC Conversion Market Outlook—December 2016, 30-31.

There is only one existing conversion facility in the United States, the Metropolis Works facility (MTW) in Metropolis, Illinois, operated by Honeywell International. ConverDyn is the exclusive marketing agent for conversion services from this facility. Comment of ConverDyn, at 1; 2015 ERI Report, 64. The nominal capacity of the Metropolis Works facility is 15 million kgU as UF6. However, the facility generally operates below that level. 2015 ERI Report, 65. Based on statements from ConverDyn, ERI estimates that production at this facility was approximately 11 million kgU as UF6 per year prior to the loss of sales associated with Fukushima. Based on information presented by ConverDyn in support of litigation against DOE and in ERI's proprietary analysis, ERI is able to estimate that ConverDyn's production volume in 2015 was approximately 10 million kgU. 2017 ERI Report, 81.

In estimating the effect of DOE transfers on ConverDyn's sales volume, ERI assumes that 50% of the material EM transfers in exchange for cleanup services and 100% of all other DOE material enters the U.S. market. 2017 ERI Report, 84. Based on statements from ConverDyn, ERI assumes that ConverDyn's current share of the U.S. market for conversion services is 25% and that its share of the international market is 24%. 2017 ERI Report, 86. ERI calculates estimates of volumes lost to DOE using estimates of production (10 kgU) and market share. ERI also assumes that 80% of ConverDyn's production costs are fixed, while 20% are variable.

A summary of ERI's estimates of the effect of DOE transfers on ConverDyn's sales volume appears in Table 4. Applying ConverDyn's U.S. market share of 25% and the remaining world market share of 24% to the volume of DOE inventory expected to be introduced into the market in 2018, results in a volume effect of 0.4 million kgU in the U.S. market and 0.2 million kgU effect in the remaining world market for a total of 0.6 million kgU, under the Base Scenario, for an increase in production costs of 5%.

In Scenario 1, in which UF6 associated with prior releases of DUF6 to ENW enter the market, the introduction of DOE inventory results in a decreased volume of 0.6 million kgU and increased production costs of 1%. The introduction of DOE inventory into the conversion market results in a decreased volume of 0.5 million kgU and increased production costs of 4% in Scenario 2 and a decreased volume of 0.7 million kgU and increased production costs of 5% in Scenario 3. 2017 ERI Report, 85-89. As with ERI's price estimates discussed above, these estimates do not suggest that were DOE to transfer uranium in accordance with the Base Scenario, ConverDyn would lose the predicted volume of sales. DOE has been transferring at or above the rate of Scenario 1 for nearly three years.

ERI assumes that ConverDyn's production cost would be $15 per kgU if DOE material was not being introduced into the market. As noted earlier, ERI assumes that if 80% of Metropolis Works' costs are fixed, DOE transfers would affect 20% of total production costs. Specifically, ERI estimates that DOE transfers under consideration at the level under the Base Scenario reduce sales volume by 0.6 kgU and increase production costs by $0.7 per kgU as UF6, about 5% higher than without DOE transfers. Transfers at the level under Scenario 2 would result in increased production costs of $0.6/kgU or a 4% increase. Under Scenario 3, a reduction in sales volume would result in increased production costs of $0.8/kgU or a 5% increase. 2017 ERI Report, 89.

ConverDyn's comment in response to the RFI includes an enclosure disclosing the domestic cost of production for conversion services. This document was submitted with a request that it be treated as containing proprietary information. DOE may consider this document in its deliberations.

In addition to the above, ConverDyn's comment states that it does not foresee any changes to the domestic conversion market that would significantly lessen the effects of DOE's transfers on the domestic conversion industry. Comment of ConverDyn, at 5.

ERI assumes, as it did in 2015, that Metropolis Works staffing remains at 270 employees, with an annual production rate of 10 million kgU. In the 2015 Report, ERI noted that Metropolis Works restarted after an extended shutdown in summer 2013 with approximately 270 employees, which was a decrease from the previous employment of 334 people. 2015 ERI Report, 72-73; 2014 ERI Report, 71. Information on the Honeywell/Metropolis Works Web site 16 indicates that the plant employs 250 full-time employees. In January 2017, Honeywell announced a workforce reduction: “Due to the significant challenges of the nuclear industry globally and the oversupply of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), Honeywell plans to reduce the production capacity of the Metropolis plant to better align with the demands of nuclear fuel customers. Because of this, the company intends to reduce its full-time workforce by 22 positions, as well as a portion of the plant's contractor team. We are taking this action to better position the plant moving forward.” 17 ERI makes estimates regarding the impact of DOE uranium transfers on employment using the assumption that staffing is proportional to production value but noting the limitations of such estimates. It is clear that other factors, in addition to production volumes will affect employment levels.

Neither ERI nor any of the commenters provide an estimate of the effect of DOE transfers on new facility development or capital improvement plans. However, there are limited development projects currently planned or underway outside the United States. ERI notes that while AREVA's Comurhex II can be expanded further, AREVA does not plan any additional expansion unless warranted by market conditions. ERI also notes that expansion of Chinese conversion capacity is expected to meet indigenous requirements. Finally ERI notes that Rosatom's Siberian Chemical Combine center is expected to add new capacity to come on line in 2019. 2017 ERI Report, 13. DOE is not aware of any such plans in the United States.

ConverDyn has not stated in its Comment in response to the RFI whether they have any intentions to make updates and capital improvements to the Metropolis facility. The Honeywell/Metropolis Web site notes that Honeywell has spent over $177 million in capital improvements over the last 10 years, including $50 million for safety upgrades required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a message from the Metropolis Works Plant manager,18 the company notes that it intends to invest $10 million per year on projects that directly support health, safety and the environment.

ERI's most recent Reference Nuclear Power Growth forecasts project global requirements lower than those used in the 2015 ERI Report. ERI forecasts that global secondary supply and supply from primary converters will continue to exceed global demand until at least 2035. 2017 ERI Report, 13. ERI observes that the high levels of secondary supply have resulted in lower spot prices, which is reflected in lower contracted volumes under flexibilities in higher-priced contracts. Further, ERI notes that in 2009 through 2012, contracting represented 85% of the world's requirements, while contracting in 2012 through 2016 represented only 35% of the world's requirements in that period. Thus, convertors have been unable to maintain contract backlog with new contracts less than annual deliveries. 2017 ERI Report, 79-80.

No other commenter provided specific projections about future conversion requirements, demand, or prices.

Finally, as with uranium concentrates, and acknowledging commenters' suggestions, DOE recognizes that the predictability of transfers from its excess uranium inventory over time is important to the long-term viability and health of the uranium conversion industry.

The uranium enrichment market is also characterized by an oversupply situation. ERI notes that “total expected world enrichment supply significantly exceeds projected requirements for enrichment by a significant margin over the long-term.” 2017 ERI Report, 17. Global enrichment requirements are expected to grow from the current level of 45.4 million separative work units (SWU—a measure of enrichment services) per year to 64 million SWU per year by 2026, but U.S. requirements are expected to remain essentially flat at 15 million SWU per year. 2017 ERI Report, 14.

In its analysis, ERI also estimated the effect of DOE transfers on the market prices for enrichment services. To estimate this effect, ERI employed a market clearing price model similar to what is described above for the uranium market. As with uranium concentrates and conversion, ERI constructed individual supply and demand curves for enrichment services and estimated the clearing price with and without DOE transfers. 2017 ERI Report, 44.

With NNSA's transfers of LEU assumed to be constant across the four scenarios, the average estimated price effect is the same in each scenario. Using the cumulative market clearing methodology, the average estimated price effect of DOE transfers is $8.2 per SWU over the period 2017 through 2026 but is higher in the near-term as noted below. The price effects attributed to DOE inventory are already built into the current market prices. 2017 ERI Report, 54.

There is an important relationship between the excess enrichment capacity and the uranium and conversion markets. Due to technological limitations, it is currently difficult to match changes in production volumes to changes in requirements. Excess enrichment capacity is utilized to re-enrich tails or is operated in a manner that uses additional separative work capacity in lieu of uranium feed to produce enriched uranium of a given enrichment level or assay. This type of operation is called “underfeeding.” Additional UF6, which can be sold on the market, results from both tails re-enrichment and underfeeding. ERI estimates that over 50% of the secondary supply in the uranium market is the result of excess enrichment capacity (re-enrichment of tails by Russia (26%); Russian underfeeding (13%); and Western enrichment underfeeding (18%)), 2017 ERI Report, 10. Thus, to the extent that URENCO utilizes or resells the natural uranium hexafluoride that results from underfeeding, the market prices for uranium and conversion could be relevant to its business decisions.

No commenter provides information about the realized price achieved by URENCO or the effect of DOE transfers on that price. ERI estimates that more than 95% of enrichment requirements are covered under long-term contracts. 2015 ERI Report, 74.

There is only one currently operating enrichment facility in the United States, the URENCO USA (UUSA) gas centrifuge facility in New Mexico. ERI reports that URENCO USA capacity increased to 4.6 million SWU by the end of 2015, with plans to slowly increase to 5.7 million SWU by 2022. ERI also reports that, in 2016, URENCO reduced its production capacity at the Capenhurst site when it mothballed two production halls (out of 15). URENCO has also made small capacity reductions by not replacing aging centrifuges at its European sites when centrifuges go out of service. 2017 ERI Report, 16.

ERI does not provide an estimate of the change in employment due to DOE transfers in the enrichment industry. No commenter references changes in employment in the enrichment industry.

ERI states that major supply expansion at several sites has now been completed. AREVA increased Georges Besse II (GB II) capacity to 7.4 million SWU. As noted above, ERI reports that URENCO USA capacity increased to 4.6 million SWU by the end of 2015, with plans to slowly increase to 5.7 million SWU by 2022. 2017 ERI Report, 16.

Another planned enrichment facility was announced by Global Laser Enrichment, a venture of GE-Hitachi and Cameco. The proposed facility will use laser enrichment technology developed by Silex Systems to enrich depleted uranium tails to the level of natural uranium, at a proposed location near Paducah, KY.19

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted two additional licenses for centrifuge enrichment plants that are not currently being developed. Centrus holds a license for the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, while AREVA Enrichment Services holds a license for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, planned for Bonneville County, Idaho. NRC also issued a license to GE-Hitachi for a laser enrichment facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. Development of that facility is also on-hold and GE-Hitachi has announced its plans to sell its shares and exit that venture.

ERI's most recent Reference Nuclear Power Growth forecasts project global requirements to grow to approximately 52 million SWU per year between 2018 and 2020, 58 million SWU per year between 2021 and 2025, 64 million SWU per year between 2026 and 2030, and 71 million SWU per year between 2031 and 2035. U.S. requirements are projected to be essentially flat, averaging almost 15 million SWU per year between 2016 and 2035. 2017 ERI Report, 16. ERI presents a graph comparing global requirements, demand, and supply from 2015-2035. That graph shows that global supply will continue to significantly exceed global demand over the long term. 2017 ERI Report, 17. URENCO's internal estimates suggest that global SWU inventories represent nearly two-year's worth of 2016 global SWU requirements. Comment of URENCO, at 3. URENCO also notes very limited uncommitted demand in the next few years and notes that DOE inventories compete for these very limited pools of demand. Further, URENCO opines that the combination of low demand and excess supply is placing downward pressure on prices for uranium enrichment services, pointing out that prices have fallen considerably from the $79/90 spot/term prices at the time of the May 2015 Secretarial Determination. URENCO's 2015 Annual Results state that “Urenco anticipates continued short to medium term pricing pressures until worldwide fuel inventories are reduced which may impact future profit margins.” The 2015 Annual Results also note that the company is confident that global nuclear industry will continue to grow.20 Finally, these financial results note that URENCO is benefitting by the strength of the U.S. dollar in that two-thirds of its revenue is in U.S. dollars.

Finally, as with uranium concentrates and conversion services, DOE recognizes that the predictability of transfers from its excess uranium inventory over time is important to the long-term viability and health of the uranium enrichment industries.

Using the information discussed here, DOE is beginning the decision-making process regarding a potential new Secretarial Determination, pursuant to Section 3112(d) of the USEC Privatization Act, for potential transfers of uranium for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. DOE requests comments for consideration in the Secretarial Determination.

To enable the Secretary to make a determination as expeditiously as possible, DOE is setting a deadline of April 10, 2017, for all comments to be received. DOE invites all interested parties to submit, in writing, comments and information for consideration. DOE intends to make all comments received publicly available. Any information that may be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should be submitted as described below.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

Information received about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:

A. Acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0).

B. D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt. (CASRN 6381-77-7).

Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's completion of its quality assurance review, the information received will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any available EPA review.

EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA.

A. Acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0).

1. Chemical Uses: Acetaldehyde is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of many products, including pyridines, acetate esters, pentaerythritol, peracetic acid, 1,3-butylene glycol (1,3-Butanediol), and acetic acid.

2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087.

3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.

4. Information Received: EPA received the following information: Request for exemption from testing requirements.

B. D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt. (CASRN 6381-77-7).

1. Chemical Uses: D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt is used as an antioxidant in food applications for which the vitamin activity of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not required. Specifically, the compound is most frequently used to develop and retain the coloring and taste in meat products. It is also used for seafood products, fruit, and vegetable preservation, in beverages, and as a developing agent in photographic applications.

2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087.

3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.

4. Information Received: EPA received the following information: Request for exemption from testing requirements.

In 2009, NIOSH published Current Intelligence Bulletin 61—A Strategy for assigning New NIOSH Skin Notations [NIOSH 2009-147; http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-147/pdfs/2009-147.pdf]. The CIB presents a strategic framework that is a form of hazard identification that ensures that the assigned skin notations reflect the contemporary state of scientific knowledge, provides transparency behind the assignment process, communicates the hazards of chemical exposures of the skin, and meets the needs of health professionals, employers, and others interested in protecting workers from chemical contact with the skin. Published Skin Notation Profile documents are available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/skin-notation_profiles.html.

Contents

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

Under the 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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospital Facility Cost Report; Use: Providers of services participating in the Medicare program are required under §§ 1815(a), 1833(e), and 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g) to submit annual information to determine costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, regulations at 42 CFR 413.20, 413.24 and 418.310 require adequate cost data and cost reports from providers on an annual basis. The Form CMS-1984-14 cost report is needed to determine a provider's reasonable costs incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. The data is used by CMS to calculate: Market basket weight and the labor related shares, Rate setting and payment refinement, and Medicare and total facility margins for Medicare-covered services by type of service. Form Number: CMS-1984-14 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0758); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 3,545; Total Annual Responses: 3,545; Total Annual Hours: 666,460. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Yaakov Feinstein at 410-786-3137.)

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier 0990-New-30D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Domestic Violence Housing First Demonstration Evaluation.

Abstract: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in partnership with the Office for Victims of Crimes within the U.S. Department of Justice, is seeking approval by OMB for a new information collection request entitled, “Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) Demonstration Evaluation.” The Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV) is overseeing and coordinating an evaluation of the DVHF Demonstration project through a contract with ASPE. This quasi-experimental research study involves longitudinally examining the program effects of DVHF on domestic violence survivors' safety and housing stability. The findings will be of interest to the general public, to policy-makers, and to organizations working with domestic violence survivors.

Data collection will include in-depth, private interviews with 320 domestic violence survivors conducted by trained professional staff. At Time 1 study enrollment, they will be interviewed about their backgrounds, housing and safety obstacles, and services desired. There will be three follow-up interviews with them every six months after the Time 1 Interview (i.e., 6, 12, and 18 months) to examine the match between needs and services, as well as their safety and housing stability. Study enrollment will take place over 15 months, so the annualized burden for the Time 1 and follow-up surveys is based on 12/15 (256) of the expected sample (320).

The primary service providers working with the domestic violence survivors will complete self-administered online questionnaires to provide more detailed program implementation data. Service providers will complete a survey about their work history and demographics and a survey about the services provided for each domestic violence survivor in their caseload that is a participant in the study (approximately 16 survivors per provider). This latter data collection will occur six months after a domestic violence survivor enrolls in the study over 15 months to correspond to the study enrollment period. Finally, the study will also include monthly data collection for 19 months from an agency point of contact (POC) in order to verify agency information (e.g., the number of advocates working in the agency, advocate caseloads, dates of study participants' receipt of services).

Likely Respondents: The respondents are domestic violence survivors, primary service providers, and community agency points of contact who work with their agency data systems.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0416-30D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Pregnancy Assistance Fund (PAF) Performance Measures Collection.

OMB No.: 0990-0416.

Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting an extension of a currently approved information collection request by OMB. The purpose of the renewal is to extend the period of collection through March 31, 2018 to complete the collection of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund (PAF) Performance Measures from grantees funded in August 2013, and to allow for data collection from 3 new PAF grantees funded in July 2015, increasing the number of respondents from 17 to 20. There are no changes to the data to be collected.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: OAH will use the performance data to inform planning and resource allocation decisions; identify technical assistance needs; and provide Congress, OMB, and the general public with information about the individuals who participate in PAF-funded activities and the services they receive.

Likely Respondents: 20 PAF grantees (States and Tribes).

The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Proposed Collection Title: Application Process for Clinical Research Training and Medical Education at the NIH Clinical Center, Revision OMB #0925-0698, Expiration date May 31, 2017, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Need and Use of Information Collection: The primary objective of the application process is to allow the Office of Clinical Research Training and Medical Education (OCRTME) at the NIH Clinical Center to evaluate applicants' qualifications to determine applicants' eligibility for courses and training programs managed by the Office. Applicants must provide the required information requested in the respective applications to be considered a candidate for participation. Information submitted by candidates for training programs is reviewed initially by OCRTME administrative staff to establish eligibility for participation. Eligible candidates are then referred to the designated training program director/administrator or training program selection committee for review and decisions regarding acceptance for participation. A secondary objective of the application process is to track enrollment in courses and training programs over time.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. There are capital, operating, and/or maintenance costs of $64,448. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4149.

Comments

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0068 in the search box. 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 consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) 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;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for permission to reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-212, USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-212 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether an alien is eligible for and should be granted the benefit of consent to reapply for admission into the United States. Furthermore, Form I212 form standardizes requests for consent to reapply and its data collection requirements ensure that, when filing the application, the alien provides the basic information that is required to assess eligibility for consent to reapply.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-212 is 4,183; the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours. The estimated total number of responses for the biometric collection is 100, and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,483 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $528,226.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0012 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) 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;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement of Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-612; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection is necessary and may be submitted only by an alien who believes that compliance with foreign residence requirements would impose exceptional hardship on his or her spouse or child who is a citizen of the United States, or a lawful permanent resident; or that returning to the country of his or her nationality or last permanent residence would subject him or her to persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion. Certain aliens admitted to the United States as exchange visitors are subject to the foreign residence requirements of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). Section 212(e) of the Act also provides for a waiver of the foreign residence requirements in certain instances.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-612 is 736 and the estimated hour burden per response is .333 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 245 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $90,160.

Background.—On September 6, 2016, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 35052, June 1, 2016) was adequate. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission also found that other circumstances warranted conducting full reviews. Accordingly, a full review is being scheduled pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

Participation in the review and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 2, 2017, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before June 13, 2017. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on June 16, 2017, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is June 13, 2017. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 3, 2017. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before July 3, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before July 31, 2017, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).

The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1002 on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Complainant United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“U.S. Steel”), alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. See 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; and (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. Id. The notice of investigation identified forty (40) respondents that are Chinese steel manufacturers or distributors, as well as some of their Hong Kong and United States affiliates. Id. In addition, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party in this investigation. Id.

On August 26, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. Steel's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21. On September 6, 2016, U.S. Steel filed a response in opposition to Respondents' motion to terminate. On September 9, 2016, the Commission Investigative Attorney (“IA”) filed a response in opposition to Respondents' motion to terminate. On November 14, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Respondents' motion to terminate Complainant's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18. On November 23, 2016, Complainant and the IA filed petitions for review of the ID. Complainant also requested oral argument before the Commission. On December 1, 2016, Respondents filed a response to the petitions for review. Also on December 1, 2016, Complainant filed a response to the IA's petition for review.

On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review the ID (Order No. 38). See 81 FR 94416-17 (Dec. 23, 2016). In the Notice, the Commission requested written submissions from “[t]he parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, and interested government agencies” in connection with its review and set a date of March 14, 2017, for possible oral argument. Id.

On February 24, 2017, the Commission issued a notice indicating that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.45 (19 CFR 210.45), an oral argument would be held on March 14, 2017, in connection with the Commission's review of Order No. 38.

The Commission has determined to issue today's request for written submissions from any member of the public (not including the parties to this investigation) and any interested government agencies with respect to questions 1-4 of the December 19, 2016, Notice (see 81 FR 94416-17), as reproduced below:

1. Please explain the policies that underlie the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), including an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please also explain how the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii) is different from, or relates to, the injury requirement that applies under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i).

2. Please explain what Complainant must prove to satisfy the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii), where the alleged unfair act in violation of Section 337 is based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes (“antitrust claim”). Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority.

3. Please explain how “antitrust injury” standing, as required for private litigants in federal district courts asserting antitrust claims, see, e.g., Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 335 (1990), compares to, or differs from, the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A). Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority. In discussing this question, please explain the chronology of the adoption of the “antitrust injury” standing requirement in relation to the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A).

4. Please explain whether “antitrust injury” standing is, or should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes as a matter of law and/or policy. Please include an analysis of any relevant statutory language, legislative history, Commission determinations, case law, or other authority.

The parties to this investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, may file submissions in response to any written submission(s) that are submitted by the public or any interested government agencies. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Written Submissions: Written submissions from entities other than the parties and/or government agencies shall include a Statement of Interest including: (1) A concise statement of the identity of the entity filing the written submission, its interest in the case, and the reasons why the written submission is relevant to the disposition of the issues in dispute; and (2) a statement indicating whether: (i) A party's counsel authored the written submission in whole or in part; (ii) a party or party's counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the written submission; and (iii) a person—other than the entity, its members, or its counsel—contributed money that was specifically intended to fund preparing or submitting the written submission and, if so, each such person shall be identified. Written submissions from individuals shall also include a curriculum vitae (“CV”). Written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on March 27, 2017, may not exceed 20 pages in length, exclusive of any exhibits, Statement of Interest, and CV, and shall be double-spaced. Responsive submissions from the parties must be filed no later than the close of business on April 3, 2017, may not exceed 20 pages in length, exclusive of any exhibits, and shall be double-spaced. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (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 investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1002”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). 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 information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

Commission Oral Argument: The Commission has also determined to reschedule the oral argument to April 20, 2017, in order to provide sufficient time for the Commission to receive and review any written submissions and any responses thereto. The Commission will hold the public oral argument in the Commission's Main Hearing Room (Room 101), 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 9:30 a.m. While any member of the public may attend the oral argument, only counsel for the parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, and representatives of interested government agencies may participate and/or argue at the oral argument.

At the oral argument, counsel for each party and representatives of interested government agencies will be given an opportunity to comment in opening remarks for no more than 10 minutes, and the Commissioners may ask questions of those appearing. Details as to the format of the hearing will be provided at a later date. This is a public proceeding; confidential business information (“CBI”) shall not be discussed. A party, however, can draw the Commission's attention to CBI, if necessary, by pointing to where in the record the information can be found.

The oral argument will be limited in scope to the issues identified in the ID (Order No. 38); the Commission's December 19, 2016, Notice; the present Notice; and any related petition, written submissions, and responses thereto.

After the conclusion of the oral argument, no additional written submissions or arguments will be permitted.

Notice of Appearance: Counsel for the parties to the investigation or any representatives of interested government agencies who wish to participate in the oral argument must file a written request to appear at the Commission oral argument by April 6, 2017 and must provide their email addresses as part of their contact information.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 11, 2016, Myoderm, 48 East Main Street, Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form for clinical trials, research, and analytical purposes.

The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances will be granted only for analytical testing, research, and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial sale.

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 29, 2016, Meridian Medical Technologies, 2555 Hermelin Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri 63144 applied to be registered as an importer of morphine (9300), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.

The company manufactures a product containing morphine in the United States. The company exports this product to customers around the world. The company has been asked to ensure that its product, which is sold to European customers, meets the standards established by the European Pharmacopeia, administered by the Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). In order to ensure that its product will meet European specifications, the company seeks to import morphine supplied by EDQM for use as reference standards.

This is the sole purpose for which the company will be authorized by the DEA to import morphine.

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 14, 2016, Mallinckrodt, LLC, 3600 North Second Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63147 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix of subpart R.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 5, 2016, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 705 Eldorado Street, Decatur, Illinois 62523 applied to be registered as an importer of nabilone (7379), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.

The company plans to import the FDA approved drug product in finished dosage form for distribution to its customers. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).

Agenda: The Commission will receive subcommittee status updates and briefings. A final agenda will be posted to the Commission's Web site in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for April 10, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and April 11, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Office of Justice Programs is open to the public and webcast. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register in advance.

Written Comments: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the stated agenda and meeting material. Meeting material, including work products, will be made available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs.

Oral Comments: In addition to written statements, members of the public may present oral comments at 4:45 p.m. on April 10, 2017 and at 3:15 p.m. on April 11, 2017. Those individuals interested in making oral comments should indicate their intent through the on-line registration form and time will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Time allotted for an individual's comment period will be limited to no more than 3 minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment periods, written comments can be submitted through www.regulations.gov in lieu of oral comments.

Registration: Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public meeting are strongly encouraged to pre-register for the meeting on-line by clicking the registration link found at: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/term-2-meetings-8-15#s13. Online registration for the meeting must be completed on or before 5:00 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, April 4, 2017.

Additional Information: The Department of Justice welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations, please indicate your requirements on the online registration form.

I. Background and Authority

Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49l-2, as amended by section 308 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Public Law 113-128 requires the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to establish the WIAC.

The statute, as amended, requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, to formally consult at least twice annually with the WIAC to address: (1) Evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system established by the Wagner-Peyser Act, and of the statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems. The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and in consultation with the WIAC and appropriate Federal agencies, must also develop a 2-year plan for management of the system, with subsequent updates every two years thereafter. The statute generally prescribes how the plan is to be developed and implemented, outlines the contents of the plan, and requires the Secretary to submit the plan to the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

By law, the Secretary must “solicit, receive, and evaluate” recommendations from the WIAC, and respond to the recommendations in writing to the WIAC. The WIAC must make written recommendations to the Secretary on the evaluation and improvement of the workforce and labor market information system, including recommendations for the 2-year plan. The 2-year plan, in turn, must describe WIAC recommendations and the extent to which the plan incorporates them.

The Department anticipates that the WIAC will accomplish its objectives by, for example: (1) Studying workforce and labor market information issues; (2) seeking and sharing information on innovative approaches, new technologies, and data to inform employment, skills training, and workforce and economic development decision making and policy; and (3) advising the Secretary on how the workforce and labor market information system can best support workforce development, planning, and program development.

The Wagner-Peyser Act at section 15(d)(2)(B), requires the WIAC to have 14 representative members, appointed by the Secretary, consisting of:

(i) Four members who are representatives of lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities, or State agencies described in Wagner-Peyser Act Section 4 (agency designated or authorized by Governor to cooperate with the Secretary), who have been nominated by such agencies or by a national organization that represents such agencies;

(ii) Four members who are representatives of the State workforce and labor market information directors affiliated with the State agencies responsible for the management and oversight of the workforce and labor market information system as described in Wagner-Peyser Act Section 15(e)(2), who have been nominated by the directors;

(iii) One member who is a representative of providers of training services under WIOA section 122 (Identification of Eligible Providers of Training Services);

(iv) One member who is a representative of economic development entities;

(v) One member who is a representative of businesses, who has been nominated by national business organizations or trade associations;

(vi) One member who is a representative of labor organizations, who has been nominated by a national labor federation;

(vii) One member who is a representative of local workforce development boards, who has been nominated by a national organization representing such boards; and

(viii) One member who is a representative of research entities that use workforce and labor market information.

The Secretary must ensure that the membership of the WIAC is geographically diverse, and that no two members appointed under clauses (i), (ii), and (vii), above, represent the same State. Each member will be appointed for a term of three years, except that the initial terms for members may be one, two, or three years in order to establish a rotation in which one-third of the members are selected each year. The Secretary will not appoint a member for any more than two consecutive terms. Any member whom the Secretary appoints to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the predecessor's term will be appointed only for the remainder of that term. Members of the WIAC will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend WIAC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations.

To fill the vacancy for the state LMI director category, which is type (ii) listed in the section above, section 15(d)(2)(B) requires nominations may only be received from State workforce and labor market information directors.

If you would like to nominate a state LMI director for appointment to the WIAC, please submit, to one of the addresses listed below, the following information:

• A copy of the nominee's biographical information and resume;

• A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual, the constituency area that they represent (as outlined above in the WIAC membership identification discussion), and their particular expertise for contributing to the national policy discussion on: (1) The evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system and statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems, including programs that produce employment-related statistics and State and local workforce and labor market information; and

• Contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, business phone, fax number, and business email address).

In addition, the cover letter must state that the nomination is being made in response to this Federal Register Notice and that the nominee (if nominating someone other than oneself) has agreed to be nominated and is willing to serve on the WIAC until March 25, 2019.

Nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC must be submitted (postmarked, if sending by mail; submitted electronically; or received, if hand delivered) by April 10, 2017.

The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.

Under Executive Orders 12073 and 10582, and 20 CFR parts 651 and 654, the Secretary of Labor is required to classify LSAs and disseminate this information for the use of all Federal agencies. This information is used by Federal agencies for various purposes including procurement decisions, food stamp waiver decisions, certain small business loan decisions, as well as other purposes determined by the agencies. The LSA list is issued annually, effective October 1 of each year, utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Areas meeting the criteria are classified as LSAs.

Department regulations specify that the Department can add other areas to the annual LSA listing under the exceptional circumstance criteria. Such additions are based on information contained in petitions submitted by the state workforce agencies (SWAs) to ETA's national office. These petitions contain specific economic information about an area to provide ample justification for adding the area to the LSA listing under the exceptional circumstances criteria. The petitions submitted by the SWAs concern various aspects of unemployment and the economic condition for a specific area in order to provide justification for adding the area to the LSA list under the exceptional circumstances criteria. Under these criteria, an area may be determined eligible for classification as a LSA if it is experiencing a high rate of unemployment which is not temporary or seasonal and which was not adequately reflected in the unemployment data for the two-year reference period. Instructions designed to assist SWAs in the preparation of such petitions are currently contained on the ETA Web site: http://www.doleta.gov/programs/lsa.cfm.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1205-0207.

Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.

The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Type of Review: Extension without changes.

Title of Collection: Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas.

Form: Not applicable.

OMB Control Number: 1205-0207.

Affected Public: State Workforce Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

Frequency: Annually.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 3.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Application for Waiver of Surface Sanitary Facilities Requirements (Pertaining to Coal Mines) information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 71.403, 71.404, 75.1712-4, and 75.1712-5. MSHA regulations require a covered coal mine operator to provide bathing facilities, clothing change rooms, and sanitary flush toilet facilities in a location that is convenient for use of the miners. See CFR 71.400 through 71.402 and 75.1712-1 through .1712-3. The regulations allow an operator that is unable to meet any or all of the requirements to apply for a waiver. See 30 CFR 71.403, 71.404, 75.1712-4, and 75.1712-5. The coal mine operator files the application with the MSHA District Manager for the district in which the mine is located. The application must contain the name and address of the mine operator, name and location of the mine, and a detailed statement of the grounds on which the waiver is requested. At the same time the application is sent to the MSHA District Manager, the operator must forward a copy to the appropriate Regional Program Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and a post copy showing the addresses of the appropriate District Manager and Regional Program Director for at least thirty (30) days on the mine bulletin board. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) authorize this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 801(a) and 813(h).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0024.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85643).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0024. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Application for Waiver of Surface Sanitary Facilities Requirements (Pertaining to Coal Mines).

OMB Control Number: 1219-0024.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 731.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 731.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 301 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $3,655.

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The collections of information contained in the Logging Operations Standard are necessary to reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by requiring employers to assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available on machines or in the area where the machine is operated. For vehicles, employers must assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available for each vehicle.

Under paragraph (f)(1)(iii) and (g)(3) of the Standard, employers must assure that operating and maintenance instructions are available on machines or in the area where the machine is being operated, and in vehicles. For those machines with no operating instructions in the cab, the employer will be required to obtain and retain a manual within the immediate work area for each machine. Since the Logging Operations final rule has been in effect since 1995, OSHA assumes that all employers are in compliance with the provision to have operating and maintenance instructions available on machines or in the area where the machines are being operated.

Paragraph (i)(10)(i) requires employers to certify in writing that a worker/supervisor received the training the Standard requires. Under paragraph (i)(10)(ii), employers need only maintain the most recent certification for training that a worker/supervisor has received.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply, for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Logging Operations Standard (29 CFR 1910.266). OSHA is proposing to decrease the burden hours in its currently approved information collection request from 1,622 burden hours to 1,606 burden hours (a total decrease of 16 hours). This decrease is due to updated data showing a decrease in the number of establishments affected by the Standard as well as the removal of burden hours associated with the requirement that employers provide training to workers. Upon further analysis, this provision is not considered to be a collection of information under PRA-95. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Logging Operations Standard (29 CFR 1910.266).

OMB Control Number: 1218-0198.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 7,908.

Number of Responses: 50,440.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,603 hours.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $3,469.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0041). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g.,copyrighted material) is not publically available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link.

Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that TUV SUD America Inc. (TUVAM) is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. TUVAM requests the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites to its scope of NRTL recognition.

OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL, including TUVAM, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.

TUVAM currently has four facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: TUV SUD America, Inc., 10 Technology Drive, Peabody, MA 01960. A complete list of TUVAM's scope of recognition (including sites) recognized by OSHA is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuvam.html.

TUVAM submitted an application, dated May 19, 2015 (OSHA-2007-0043-0020), to expand its recognition to include the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites located at: TUV SUD, Ridlerstrasse 65, D-80339, Munich, Germany; and TUV SUD, Daimlerstrasse 11, D-85748, Garching, Germany. OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUVAM's testing facilities at TUV SUD Munich on June 6, 2016, and at TUV SUD Garching on June 7, 2016, in which the assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVAM addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.

TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and its detailed on-site assessments indicate that TUVAM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of two sites for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVAM's application.

OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3508, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043.

OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant TUVAM's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the Federal Register.

Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

On December 27, 2016, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13756 (81 FR 97099), which implemented the January 2017 pay adjustments. The Executive order provides an overall average pay increase of 2.1 percent for the statutory pay systems. This is consistent with the President's alternative pay plan issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) on August 31, 2016, and the President's alternative pay plan issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304a on December 8, 2016.

The publication of this notice satisfies the requirement in Section 5(b) of E.O. 13756 that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publish appropriate notice of the 2017 locality payments in the Federal Register.

Schedule 1 of E.O. 13756 provides the rates for the 2017 General Schedule (GS) and reflects a 1 percent increase from 2016. Executive Order 13756 also includes the percentage amounts of the 2017 locality payments. (See Section 5 and Schedule 9 of Executive Order 13756.)

All GS employees receive locality payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304. Locality payments apply in the United States (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5921(4)) and its territories and possessions. In 2017, locality payments ranging from 15.06 percent to 38.17 percent apply to GS employees in the 47 locality pay areas. The 2017 locality pay area definitions can be found at: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2017/locality-pay-area-definitions/.

The 2017 locality pay percentages became effective on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2017 (January 8, 2017). An employee's locality rate of pay is computed by increasing his or her scheduled annual rate of pay (as defined in 5 CFR 531.602) by the applicable locality pay percentage. (See 5 CFR 531.604 and 531.609.)

Executive Order 13756 establishes the new Executive Schedule which incorporates a 1 percent increase required under 5 U.S.C. 5318 (rounded to the nearest $100). By law, Executive Schedule officials are not authorized to receive locality payments.

Executive Order 13756 establishes the 2017 range of rates of basic pay for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) under 5 U.S.C. 5382. The minimum rate of basic pay for the SES is $124,406 in 2017. The maximum rate of the SES rate range is $187,000 (level II of the Executive Schedule) for SES members who are covered by a certified SES performance appraisal system and $172,100 (level III of the Executive Schedule) for SES members who are not covered by a certified SES performance appraisal system.

The minimum rate of basic pay for the senior-level (SL) and scientific and professional (ST) rate range was increased by 1 percent ($124,406 in 2017), which is the amount of the across-the-board GS increase. The applicable maximum rate of the SL/ST rate range is $187,000 (level II of the Executive Schedule) for SL or ST employees who are covered by a certified SL/ST performance appraisal system and $172,100 (level III of the Executive Schedule) for SL or ST employees who are not covered by a certified SL/ST performance appraisal system. Agencies with certified performance appraisal systems for SES members and employees in SL and ST positions must also apply a higher aggregate limitation on pay—up to the Vice President's salary ($240,100 in 2017.)

Note that Section 101 of the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 114-254, December 10, 2016) provides continuing appropriations to Federal agencies through April 28, 2017, or the date of enactment of specified appropriations legislation. Under this continuing resolution, the authority and conditions provided in FY 2016 appropriations laws continue to apply. This language means that the freeze on the payable pay rates for certain senior political appointees at 2013 levels—as provided in section 738 of division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, December 18, 2015—continues into calendar year 2017. On January 10, 2017, OPM issued a memorandum (CPM 2017-02) on the pay freeze for certain senior political officials. (See https://www.chcoc.gov/content/pay-freeze-certain-senior-political-officials.)

Executive Order 13756 provides that the rates of basic pay for administrative law judges (ALJs) under 5 U.S.C. 5372 are increased by 1 percent, rounded to the nearest $100 in 2017. The rate of basic pay for AL-1 is $161,900 (equivalent to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule). The rate of basic pay for AL-2 is $157,900. The rates of basic pay for AL-3/A through 3/F range from $108,100 to $149,600.

The rates of basic pay for members of Contract Appeals Boards are calculated as a percentage of the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule. (See 5 U.S.C. 5372a.) Therefore, these rates of basic pay are increased by 1 percent in 2017.

On November 17, 2016, OPM issued a memorandum on behalf of the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and OPM) that continues GS locality payments for ALJs and certain other non-GS employee categories in 2017. By law, EX officials, SES members, employees in SL/ST positions, and employees in certain other equivalent pay systems are not authorized to receive locality payments. (Note: An exception applies to certain grandfathered SES, SL, and ST employees stationed in a nonforeign area on January 2, 2010. See CPM 2009-27 at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/nonforeign-area-retirement-equity-assurance-act.) The memo is available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/continuation-of-locality-payments-for-non-general-schedule-employees-november-17-2016.pdf.

On December 27, 2016, OPM issued a memorandum (CPM 2016-20) on the January 2017 pay adjustments. (See https://www.chcoc.gov/content/january-2017-pay-adjustments.) The memorandum transmitted Executive Order 13756 and provided the 2017 salary tables, locality pay areas and percentages, and information on general pay administration matters and other related information. The “2017 Salary Tables” posted on OPM's Web site at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/ are the official rates of pay for affected employees and are hereby incorporated as part of this notice.

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-93 and CP2017-128; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 295 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: March 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: March 13, 2017.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-94 and CP2017-129; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 296 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: March 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: March 13, 2017.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 295 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-93, CP2017-128.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 296 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-94, CP2017-129.