Federal Register Vol. 82, No.72,

Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every five years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79(e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of South Carolina are assigned to this State agency.

All export port locations in the State of South Carolina, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of South Carolina. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

All comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Montana is assigned to this official agency.

The entire State of Montana.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Montana is for the period beginning July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Montana official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every five years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79 (e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of Alabama are assigned to this State agency.

In Alabama

All export port locations in the State of Alabama, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of Alabama. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

All comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Georgia is assigned to this official agency.

The entire State, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Georgia is for the period beginning July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.

We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Georgia official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

In the December 12, 2016, Federal Register (81 FR 89428), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic area presently serviced by Northeast Indiana. Applications were due by January 11, 2017.

The current official agency, Northeast Indiana, was the only applicant for designation to provide official services in this area. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Northeast Indiana is qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the Federal Register on December 12, 2016. This designation to provide official services in the specified area of Northeast Indiana is effective January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021.

Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:

Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). All applications and comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau conducts the annual Company Organization Survey (COS) to update and maintain a central, multipurpose Business Register (BR) database. In particular, the COS supplies critical information on the composition, organizational structure, and operating characteristics of multi-location companies.

The BR serves two fundamental purposes:

The 2017-2019 COS collection strategy will focus on electronic reporting as the standard collection option. The Census Bureau will conduct the 2017 COS in conjunction with the 2017 Economic Census and will coordinate these collections to minimize response burden. The consolidated COS/census mail canvass will direct inquiries to the entire universe of multi-location enterprises that comprises roughly 164,000 parent companies and more than 1.6 million establishments. Additional COS inquiries will apply to the 15,000 multi-unit establishments classified in industries that are out-of-scope of the economic census.

The 2018-2019 COS will request company-level information from a selection of multi-establishment enterprises, which comprise roughly 42,000 parent companies and more than 1.4 million establishments. Additionally, the panel will include approximately 5,000 large single-location companies that may have added locations during the year.

Electronic reporting will be available to all 2017-2019 COS respondents. Companies will receive and return responses by secure Internet transmission. The instrument will include inquiries on ownership or control by domestic or foreign parent, ownership of foreign affiliates, leased employment and cooperative organization. Further, the instrument will list an inventory of establishments belonging to the company and its subsidiaries, and request updates to these inventories, including additions, deletions and changes to information on EIN, name and address, industrial classification, end-of-year operating status, mid-March employment, first quarter payroll and annual payroll. Beginning with the 2017 collection, a new question regarding cooperative organization status will be included in the instrument but respondents will no longer receive inquiries pertaining to the Enterprise Statistics Program as the program has been suspended.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0444.

Form Number(s): NC-99001 (for multi-establishment enterprises during 2017-2019) and NC-99007 (for single-location companies during 2018-2019).

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 164,000 for 2017 and 47,000 per year for 2018-2019.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.44 hours for 2017 and 3.4 hours for 2018-2019.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 72,160 hours for 2017 and

159,800 hours for 2018-2019.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 131 and 182.

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

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

Background

On October 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 For the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 These final results cover 50 companies.3 The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, can be found in Appendix I to this notice. 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 is available 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/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the Preliminary Results. For SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the Department: (1) Reallocated SeAH's hot-rolled coil (HRC) costs based on the common HRC grade; (2) adjusted SeAH's reported HRC costs to reflect the particular market situation; (3) adjusted SeAH's reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the arm's-length prices for affiliated services; (4) included the net losses associated with damaged pipes in the reported further manufacturing costs; and (5) applied Pusan Pipe America Inc. (PPA)'s general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to the total cost of further manufactured products, that is, the further manufacturing cost plus the cost of production of the imported OCTG, because the denominator of the G&A ratio included these costs. Also, the Department allocated PPA's G&A expense to the cost of all non-further manufactured subject products resold by PPA.

For NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), the Department: (1) Adjusted NEXTEEL's reported HRC costs to reflect the particular market situation; (2) updated the constructed value information used for NEXTEEL to reflect SeAH's information after adjustments for the final results; (3) revised the payment dates for certain sales subject to a lawsuit, and recalculated credit expenses based on those dates; (4) redefined the universe of sales to base the margin calculation on sales which entered the United States during the POR; (5) corrected a clerical error (i.e., we revised the margin program to use the correct quantity variable); and (6) revised the calculation of certain U.S. freight and storage expenses and the universe of sales to which we applied these expenses.

For a full discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation had no shipments during the POR.4 Following publication of the Preliminary Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding these companies. As a result, and because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we continue to find that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation made no shipments during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with the Department's practice, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by these six companies, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.5

The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for SeAH and NEXTEEL that are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, the Department assigned to the companies not individually examined (see Appendix II for a full list of these companies) a margin of 13.84 percent, which is the simple average 6 of SeAH's and NEXTEEL's calculated weighted-average dumping margins.

The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 18, 2014 through August 31, 2015:

The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register.

Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).8 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.9 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.10 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.11

For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in the “Rates for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.

Consistent with the Department's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by SeAH, NEXTEEL, or the non-examined companies for which the producer did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.12

As noted in the “Final Determination of No Shipments” section, above, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,13 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Background

On February 8, 2017, the Department published the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV in the investigation of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. We received no comments from interested parties.

The product covered by this investigation is finished carbon steel flanges from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

Because the mandatory respondent in this investigation did not provide the information requested, the Department did not conduct verification.

As noted above, we received no comments pertaining to the Preliminary Determination. For the purposes of the final determination, the Department has made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

As stated in the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory respondent in this investigation, ULMA Forja, S.Coop (ULMA), did not cooperate to the best of its ability and, accordingly, we determined it appropriate to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference, in accordance with section 776(a)-(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 For the purposes of the final determination, the Department has made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, the Department based the selection of the “all-others” rate on the simple average of the two dumping margins calculated for subject merchandise from Spain provided in the Petition (as recalculated by the Department for initiation purposes),3 in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, and determined a rate of 18.81 percent. We made no changes to the “all-others” rate for this final determination.4

The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) For ULMA, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 18.81 percent, as discussed in the “All-Others Rate” section, above.

The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the mandatory respondent in this investigation in the Preliminary Determination was based on adverse facts available and the Department described the method it used to determine the adverse facts available rate in the Preliminary Determination. As we made no changes to this margin since the Preliminary Determination, no additional disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

To assist Commerce and USTR in preparing the Report, commenters should submit information related to one or more of the assessments called for in the Executive Order:

For each identified trading partner with which the United States had a significant trade deficit in goods in 2016, the Report shall:

(a) Assess the major causes of the trade deficit including, as applicable, differential tariffs, non-tariff barriers, injurious dumping, injurious government subsidization, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, denial of worker rights and labor standards, and any other form of discrimination against the commerce of the United States or other factors contributing to the deficit;

(b) assess whether the trading partner is, directly or indirectly, imposing unequal burdens on, or unfairly discriminating in fact against, the commerce of the United States by law, regulation, or practice and thereby placing the commerce of the United States at an unfair disadvantage;

(c) assess the effects of the trade relationship on the production capacity and strength of the manufacturing and defense industrial bases of the United States;

(d) assess the effects of the trade relationship on employment and wage growth in the United States; and

(e) identify imports and trade practices that may be impairing the national security of the United States.

Commenters may also address the following questions which are relevant for the assessment:

(a) Which bilateral trade deficits are structural or cyclical rather than mercantilist-driven?

(b) To what extent are non-market economies operating within a market-based system create trade imbalances?

(c) To what extent does chronic industrial overcapacity resulting from government subsidies affect the U.S. trade deficit?

(d) Have free trade agreements contributed to bilateral trade deficits and how?

(e) To what extent have weak enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms inadequately addressed trade issues that result in trade deficits?

(f) Are there any other factors related to trade deficits that the report should consider?

With regard to manufacturing and the defense industrial base (with specific focus on electronics, aerospace, avionics, materials, machinery, and equipment), comments may address how the following requirements or practices of trading partners have affected opportunities for increased U.S. exports, profitability, and employment:

(a) Mandated coproduction and licensed production;

(b) mandated subcontracting; counter trade;

(c) required technology transfer;

(d) required collaborative research and development;

(e) mandated joint ventures and intellectual property transfer; and

(f) required capital investments.

Commerce and USTR seek public comments with respect to the above stated issues and questions. To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in section C below.

Commerce and USTR will also convene a public hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 18, 2017. Persons wishing to appear at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention and a summary of the proposed testimony by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in section C below.

Indicate in the “Type Comment” field if you are submitting a request to appear at the hearing, and include the name, address and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony. A summary of the testimony should be attached by using the “Upload File” field. The file name should include who will be presenting the testimony. Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the panel.

Persons submitting a notification of intent to testify or written comments must do so in English and must identify (on the reference line of the first page of the submission) “Comments Regarding Causes of Significant Trade Deficits for 2016.” In addition, if the submission covers the causes of significant trade deficits in more than one country, commenters should, whenever possible, provide a separate submission for each country. If identifying specific sectors, commenters should identify the relevant Harmonized System (HS) category(ies) for that sector. To ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, Commerce and USTR strongly encourage commenters to make on-line submissions, using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.

All submissions must be in English and must be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov, using docket number DOC-2017-0003. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted.

To submit comments via www.regulations.gov enter docket number DOC 2017-0003 on the home page and click “search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page).

The www.regulations.gov Web site allows users to provide comments by filling in a “Type Comment” field, or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. Commerce and USTR prefer that comments be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, please identify the name of the country to which the submission pertains in the “Type Comment” field. For example: “See attached comments with respect to (name of country)”. Commerce and USTR prefer submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission is in an application other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the “Type Comment” field. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information must also submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as part of the submission itself rather than in separate files.

As noted, Commerce and USTR strongly urge submitters to file comments through www.regulations.gov if at all possible. Any alternative arrangements must be made with Patrick Kirwan in advance of transmitting a comment. Patrick Kirwan can be reached at (202) 482-5455 or [email protected]. General information concerning Commerce is available at www.commerce.gov and USTR at www.ustr.gov.

Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except confidential business information. Comments may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site by entering the relevant docket number in the search field on the home page.

On January 30, 2014, the Department issued the Final Results. 1 Three parties contested the Department's findings in the Final Results. All three plaintiffs (i.e., Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch) are Chinese producers/exporters of chloro isos. Kangtai and Jiheng were mandatory respondents in the underlying administrative review; Arch was an unexamined respondent that demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status.

In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 59.12 percent and 47.17 percent to Kangtai and Jiheng, respectively.2 As a separate rate company, Arch received the margin of 53.15 percent, which is the simple average of the margins calculated for individually examined respondents.3

On August 21, 2015, the CIT remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department. In particular, the Court instructed the Department to do the following: (1) Determine whether or not the selling, general, and administrative expenses contain certain labor items and explain how the methodology used by the Department in the Final Results is supported by substantial evidence on the record; (2) select the best surrogate value (SV) rate for chlorine; (3) select the best SV for ammonium chloride; (4) select the best source of SV data for electricity; (5) reexamine the record evidence regarding the SV for ammonium sulfate; (6) explain and support the Department's change in by-product methodology; and (7) consider all arguments from interested parties concerning the deduction of irrecoverable value added tax from U.S. price.4

Pursuant to Kangtai I, the Department issued its Final Redetermination, which addressed the Court's holdings and revised the weighted-average dumping margins for Kangtai and Jiheng to 48.72 percent and 27.99 percent, respectively, and the simple average dumping margin for Arch to 38.36 percent.5 On January 19, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Redetermination in full.6 Thus, the Court affirmed the following dumping margins as calculated by the Department in the Final Redetermination: 48.72 for Kangtai, 27.99 for Jiheng, and 38.36 for Arch.

In its decision in Timken, 7 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 8 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's January 19, 2016, final judgment sustaining the Final Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch. Based on the Final Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT in Kangtai II, the revised dumping margins for Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch from June 1, 2011, through May 31, 2012, are as follows:

In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, are upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above.

Since the Final Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for Kangtai and Jiheng.9 Therefore, this amended final determination does not change the later-established cash deposit rates for Kangtai and Jiheng. Arch does not have a superseding cash deposit rate and, therefore, the Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP, adjusting the cash deposit rate for Arch to 38.36 percent, effective January 29, 2017.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 3, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”).1

As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.2

On March 15, 2017, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the existing AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:

(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);

(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).

“Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.

Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.

Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.4

As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order on pure magnesium would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results on November 14, 2016.1 For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Department's final Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 On February 28, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 30 days.3 The deadline for the final results is April 13, 2017.

The merchandise that is subject to the Order 4 is steel wire garment hangers. The products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) subheadings 7326.20.0020, 7323.99.9060, and 7323.99.9080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.6 A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made certain revisions to the margin calculation for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.7 The Issues and Decision Memorandum 8 and Surrogate Values Memo 9 contain further explanations and descriptions of our changes to the surrogate values selected for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.'s factors of production.

Regarding the administrative review, the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015 is as follows:

Because no party requested a review of the PRC (People's Republic of China)-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,11 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 187.25 percent) 12 is not subject to change as a result of this review.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above the de minimis threshold (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).13 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.14 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.15 Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, 16 where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.17

The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.18

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct a two-year lobster abundance survey with modified lobster gear that Federal regulations would otherwise restrict. The purpose of this lobster study is to provide fishery-independent data on lobster abundance in Massachusetts state waters of statistical area 514, from Ipswich Bay south to Cape Cod Bay; and state and Federal waters of Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and nearshore portions of Rhode Island Sound, in statistical areas 537 and 538. Currently, lobster abundance and distribution studies are primarily conducted through fishery-independent, random-stratified bottom-trawl surveys. MA DMF has stated that trawl surveys lack the capability to efficiently target areas with rocky bottom where lobsters also reside, and is seeking an EFP to use fixed lobster gear to sample such areas.

The EFP would authorize commercial lobster vessels to set, haul, and retain on board lobster traps without escape vents during sampling activity. Following a soak time ranging from 3 to 5 days, these lobster traps would be hauled twice per month on dedicated sampling trips, with at least one scientist from MA DMF on board during sampling activity. During sampling trips, no catch will be retained for sale.

MA DMF requests exemption from lobster gear regulations to allow for traps without escape vents in order to catch lobsters of all sizes. MA DMF is also requesting exemption from lobster trap limits. This would allow participating vessels to retain on-board survey lobster traps that may cause vessels to exceed their permitted allocation for Lobster Management Area (LMA) 1 (800 trap limit) or LMA 2 (historical qualification up to 800 trap limit). Federal lobster regulations require each active lobster trap to have a commercial trap tag permanently affixed. MA DMF is requesting exemption from this requirement because survey traps will be tagged with “MA DMF Research Trap.”

MA DMF is also requesting exemption from the management area designation requirement to allow one Federal lobster permit holder to fish experimental traps in LMA 2 while having an LMA 3 designation on his Federal permit. This exemption would allow the vessel to set survey traps in an area not designated on his permit. This exemption would not allow him to commercially fish and/or land lobsters caught with traps in LMA 2.

Site selection would be based on a random stratified sampling design, consistent with standardized methodology used to perform lobster surveys. All catch during dedicated research trips would be retained on-board for a short period of time to allow MA DMF staff to record the following information: Number of lobsters caught; number of traps hauled; set-over days; trap and bait type; lobster carapace length; sex; shell hardness; culls and other shell damage; external gross pathology including symptoms of shell disease; mortality; and ovigerous status. MA DMF is requesting exemption from management measures of LMA 1 and 2 for lobster size restrictions, v-notch possession, and egg-bearing lobster possession. MA DMF plans on retaining a small amount of lobsters for growth and maturity research purposes.

If approved, MA DMF may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

The BS FEP agenda will include an overview of Council feedback, a discussion of goals and objectives, a joint session with the Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands LLC, discussion of the outreach plan, breakout work sessions on developing the core FEP chapters, and synthesis and next steps. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process, including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Webinar, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect data from users of the resource.

Regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(g) require observer service providers to comply with specific requirements in order to operate as an approved provider in the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery. Observer service providers must comply with the following requirements: Submit applications for approval as an observer service provider; formally request observer training by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP); submit observer deployment reports and biological samples; give notification of whether a vessel must carry an observer within 24 hours of the vessel owner's notification of a prospective trip; maintain an updated contact list of all observers that includes the observer identification number; observer's name mailing address, email address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip types assigned, and whether or not the observer is “in service.” The regulations also require observer service providers submit any outreach materials, such as informational pamphlets, payment notification, and descriptions of observer duties as well as all contracts between the service provider and entities requiring observer services for review to NMFS/NEFOP. Observer service providers also have the option to respond to application denials, and submit a rebuttal in response to a pending removal from the list of approved observer providers. These requirements allow NMFS/NEFOP to effectively administer the scallop observer program.

The approved observer service providers submit information to NMFS/NEFOP via email, fax, or postal service.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0546.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organization.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 515.

Estimated Time per Response: Application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; applicant response to denial of application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; observer service provider request for observer training, 30 minutes; observer deployment report, 10 minutes; observer availability report, 10 minutes; safety refusal report, 30 minutes; submission of raw observer data, 5 minutes; observer debriefing, 2 hours; biological samples, 5 minutes; rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved observer service providers, 8 hours; vessel request to observer service provider for procurement of a certified observer, 25 minutes; vessel request for waiver of observer coverage requirement, 5 minutes; observer contact list updates, 5 minutes; observer availability updates, 1 minute; service provider material submissions, 30 minutes; service provider contracts, 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,675.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $46,600.

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

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

Agenda Tuesday, May 2, 2017, Through Friday, May 5, 2017

The agenda will include: (a) Final assessments for Western Aleutian Island Red King Crab, Pribilof Island Golden King Crab, and Aleutian Island Golden King Crab, (b) research priorities, (c) model scenarios for fall crab assessments, and (d) review BOF Tanner Crab harvest strategy and proposals.

Meeting materials will be made available on the Council Web site (www.npfmc.org) prior to the meeting.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix., as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The TRAC will obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the TRAC's mission to provide advice on technology security, countering weapons of mass destruction (CWMD), counterterrorism, and counter-proliferation.

Agenda: All discussions for the two-day meeting will be classified at the SECRET level or higher. On May 4, 2017, Alternate Designated Federal Officer Stephen Polchek will make his remarks, and then the TRAC Chair, Ambassador Ronald Lehman, will open the meeting with comments that outline the topics to be covered in the two-day meeting. Following the opening remarks, there will be a classified intelligence briefing covering CWMD issues related to North Korea, Russia and emerging chemical threats from state and non-state actors. The TRAC will receive a classified briefing from United States Special Operations Command on reachback and CWMD capabilities. The TRAC will hold a working lunch to hear from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological (NCB) Defense Programs, Dr. Arthur Hopkins on updates from the NCB Program and the implications for DoD's CWMD mission. The TRAC will hold classified discussions regarding feedback received on the Russia study from senior DoD leadership. The TRAC will hear from Honorable Benkert and Dr. Choi on the status of the China study. Next, the TRAC will discuss new studies proposed by the TRAC's sponsor, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) including the Unified Command Plan CWMD mission change.

The TRAC will continue the meeting on May 5, 2017. The group will first review observations and discuss next steps for the TRAC in calendar years 2017-2018 based on the sponsor's guidance and direction. The TRAC will then receive a classified brief from COL McAlpine, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, on the nuclear posture review and the implications for the TRAC's work on Russia, China and North Korea. The TRAC will hear from Dr. Hassell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense Program, on the chemical and biological program. The TRAC will then hear from USSOCOM on the implementation of the CWMD mission. This discussion will continue through lunch. The TRAC members will then transition to the Pentagon where they will provide Mr. MacStravic, Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of Defense, AT&L with a brief on the North Korea, and China studies from the previous day's meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair will adjourn the 40th Plenary.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that all sessions of this meeting are required to be closed to the public because the discussions will contain classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret-level or higher material.

Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, J2/5, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected]. Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the TRAC at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the TRAC's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in this notice, or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database: http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the TRAC may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.

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 ED assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand ED'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. ED is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper function of ED; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ED enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ED 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 the Collection: 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0001.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 39,226,771.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 25,826,753.

Abstract: Section 483, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance . . .”.

The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.

Federal Student Aid (FSA), an office of the U.S. Department of Education, subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission and processing of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the processed data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).

ED and FSA seek OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions, and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.

This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM) measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and, in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:

• The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;

• How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (e.g., by paper or electronically via FOTW®);

• How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates (e.g., the paper SAR or electronically via FOTW Corrections);

• The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);

• The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and

• The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.

The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2018-2019 is based upon two factors—estimating the growth rate of the total enrollment into post-secondary education and applying the growth rate to the FAFSA submissions. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. ED accounts for each application component based on Web trending tools, survey information and other ED data sources.

For 2018-2019, ED is reporting a net burden increase of 5,790,741 hours.

The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), the State Licensing Agency (SLA) designated to administer the Randolph-Sheppard program in Maryland. Under 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

The complainant, MSDE, filed a grievance against the respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), challenging the award of a contract for cafeteria service. The Panel decided the case on motions for summary judgment. The chair and one member sustained the grievance, and one member dissented.

The issue before the Panel was whether GSA violated the Act when it awarded the contract for operation of cafeteria services to a bidder other than the SLA and, if so, what was the appropriate remedy.

MSDE argued that GSA violated the Act by awarding a contract for cafeteria service at the Social Security Administration's cafeteria in Baltimore, Maryland, to a private entity without establishing a competitive range to carry out the Act's requirement that priority be given to blind vendors. The SLA had submitted a proposal in partnership with a blind vendor.

GSA took the position that it was not required to establish a competitive range and that the SLA had confused the requirements of the solicitation, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Act. Specifically, GSA argued that, while the FAR requires a competitive range only if discussions are held, the solicitation provided that GSA could make an award without discussion. GSA further argued that when there is a single offer that clearly exceeds all others and merits direct award, it can make an award to that offeror without creating a competitive range.

At the MSDE's request, the Panel was convened on June 11, 2015. The Panel concluded that GSA violated the Act by failing to establish a competitive range. The Panel recognized that Congress established the Act's priority requirement to enhance economic opportunity for the blind. When a Federal agency solicits services, it is required to invite the SLA to bid on the contract. If the SLA's proposal falls within the competitive range and has been ranked among those with a reasonable chance of being selected, a Federal agency must give priority to the SLA's proposal.

GSA acknowledged that a competitive range was not established and that it awarded the contract based on its determination that the private company's proposal merited a direct award, but the failure to create a competitive range constituted a violation of the Act. (Southfork Sys. v. United States, 141 F. 3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Kentucky v. United States, 2014 WL 7375566 (W.D. Ky. Dec.29, 2014).

Having found that GSA violated the Act, the Panel next considered the issue of remedy. The Panel recognized that, while it had no authority to impose a specific remedy, the Act requires the head of the agency, subject to appeal, to take such action as may be necessary to carry out the Panel's decision.

The Panel recommended that GSA give (1) notice of the Panel's decision to the current contractor and (2) notice that the contract would terminate within a specified period. The Panel also recommended that GSA enter into direct negotiations with the SLA. If the GSA declined to enter into such negotiations, the Panel recommended that GSA issue a new solicitation, with a competitive range.

The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

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

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

The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after receiving a complaint from the complainant, Bernard Werwie, Jr., a licensed blind operator of a vending facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

The complainant, Bernard Werwie, Jr., was a licensed blind operator of a vending facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. His dispute with the respondent, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (PA OVR), arose out of the termination of his participation in the Business Enterprises Program by the PA OVR effective December 31, 2006.

Pursuant to the Act, Mr. Werwie sought a hearing of his claims against the PA OVR. On July 7, 2008, a hearing officer dismissed his appeal and denied his request for damages and attorney's fees. The PA OVR adopted the hearing officer's decision as its final agency action.

Mr. Werwie then requested the convening of the Panel. The Panel chair moved to schedule a hearing for that summer. There were no acceptable hearing dates available in the summer, so the Panel chair circulated a list of proposed dates in late 2009.

The hearing was not held in 2009 because, in July, Mr. Werwie discharged the attorneys he had engaged to handle the case. The Panel granted him until January 2010 to find new counsel.

Despite being granted an extension to name a new representative by January of 2010, Mr. Werwie did not respond until February 25. In his response, he indicated that he was still looking for new counsel and asked that the case be held in abeyance until September 2010 or until further notice. The PA OVR objected to this request for delay, and, on March 29, 2010, the Panel gave Mr. Werwie until May 3, 2010, to find new counsel.

Mr. Werwie never responded with the name of a new representative as requested by that deadline. Accordingly, the Panel chair informed him that, if he intended to proceed with his case against the PA OVR, he had to respond by June 10, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, the PA OVR filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Werwie's claims for failure to prosecute. Counsel for the PA OVR served Mr. Werwie a copy of this motion and supporting brief by sending them by First Class Mail to his Fredericksburg, Virginia, address.

On July 18, 2010, the RSA informed the Panel chair of an email received from Mr. Werwie asking about the status of his case. In it, he alleged that he had heard nothing about the case since early March. This message was from email and postal mail addresses different from those he had used in his prior correspondence. The New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, address that he listed in his July 18 communication was identified as his father's address.

The Panel responded to Mr. Werwie on August 9, 2010. It asked him for confirmation that he was ready to proceed with the case and instructed him to inform it of the name and contact information of his new counsel on or before August 29, 2010. The Panel indicated that, if it could not schedule a hearing, it would then proceed with the PA OVR's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 18, Mr. Werwie notified the Panel that his representatives were the same attorneys whom he fired on July 22, 2009. The Panel then asked the attorneys to confirm that they represented Mr. Werwie and proposed a conference call to be held on September 2, 2010.

On August 30, one of the attorneys, Mr. Leiterman, responded by email that Mr. Werwie asked him and his colleague to represent him in this case. Mr. Leiterman continued that they had “agreed in principle,” and they expected the letter of representation to be signed in the next week. However, in the two weeks that followed, the Panel did not hear from either attorney.

On September 17, 2010, the Panel sent Mr. Werwie a letter indicating that it would grant the PA OVR's motion to dismiss if Mr. Werwie did not respond by November 1, 2010. Neither Mr. Werwie nor his attorneys responded to the motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2011, the Panel granted the PA OVR's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

The Panel reviewed the statutory language of the Act and the RSA's implementing regulations, policies, and procedures. The Panel concluded that it has the authority to grant a motion to dismiss in this case without first conducting a hearing. It also concluded that there were unusual circumstances present in this case, notably delays in the process due to the change of Mr. Werwie's lawyers. The Panel repeatedly warned Mr. Werwie that his failure to move the case forward could result in dismissal and noted that he chose not to file a response at all although he was given ample time to do so. Because of these circumstances, the Panel decided that granting the PA OVR's motion to dismiss for Mr. Werwie's failure to prosecute was an appropriate exercise of its discretion.

The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

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

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

The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Business Enterprise Program. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

This is an arbitration between the Colorado Department of Human Services and the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, pursuant to the Act.

From October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2011, Don Hudson, a blind vendor licensed by the complainant, the Colorado Department of Human Services (CO DHS), Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Business Enterprise Program, operated the High Country Inn, a food service operation located at the United States Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, Colorado. In 2010, the respondent, the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force (Air Force), published a competitive bidding announcement for the operation of the High Country Inn. The Air Force included in its solicitation for this contract a requirement that only those offerors whose price was within 5 percent of the lowest offeror's price would be considered for award of the contract.

The CO DHS's bid was in excess of this 5 percent competitive range and, accordingly, the CO DHS was eliminated from competition for the contract. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.

The CO DHS filed a complaint with the United States Secretary of Education pursuant to the Act and its regulations. The CO DHS claimed that the 5 percent competitive range was set at such a low figure that it eliminated the priority to be afforded to blind vendors under the Act and its regulations. It also asserted that the Air Force misled it into thinking it had the lowest bid and, therefore, the CO DHS did not reduce its price when it had the opportunity to revise its bid in response to an amendment to the solicitation. In addition, it claimed that the Air Force should have conducted direct negotiations with the blind vendor rather than using a competitive process.

The CO DHS also claimed that the Air Force violated 34 CFR 395.20(b) because the 5 percent competitive range was a limitation that the Air Force did not justify in writing to the Secretary of Education. Finally, the CO DHS asserted that the 5 percent competitive range was unlawful because it was based on the August 29, 2006, Joint Report to Congress, which required the setting of this competitive range but had not yet been implemented.

The Panel held, with one member dissenting, that the CO DHS had waived its claim that the 5 percent competitive range on its face violated the Act because the CO DHS failed to protest the competitive range at the time the Air Force issued the solicitation. The Air Force had the discretion to set a competitive range at this level.

The Panel also held that the CO DHS waived its claim that the 5 percent limitation was a limitation on the operation of a vending facility because it failed to raise it at the time the Air Force issued the solicitation.

The Panel further held that the Joint Report was not effective because regulations implementing that report had never been promulgated and the 5 percent competitive range set by the Air Force was not based on the Joint Report. The Panel held that, instead, the competitive range was the product of the Air Force's need to keep down its costs and emphasize the importance of price to bidders.

In addition, the Panel held that the Air Force was not required to conduct discussions with the CO DHS because the Act permits, but does not require, such discussions. In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does not require discussions with bidders. The Panel held that, even if the FAR did require discussions, a violation of the FAR cannot be the subject of arbitration under the Act.

The Panel held that such a claim did not involve an alleged violation of the Act and, therefore, could not be brought in arbitration. The Panel also determined that the claim that the Air Force misled the CO DHS into thinking it had the lowest bid did not involve an alleged violation of the Act and, therefore, could not be brought in arbitration. Under the facts of this case, the Panel determined that the CO DHS could not reasonably claim prejudice because of an allegedly misleading statement by the Air Force.

The Panel concluded, with one member dissenting, that the Air Force violated the Act's regulations when it failed to consult with the Secretary of Education during this solicitation. Even though the Air Force determined that the CO DHS's bid was not within the 5 percent competitive range, the Panel held that 34 CFR 395.33(a) required the Air Force to consult with the Secretary of Education in order to determine whether the blind vendor was entitled to a priority in the solicitation pursuant to that regulatory provision. The Panel directed that, if the Secretary of Education determines after consultation with the Air Force that the CO DHS should be afforded a priority pursuant to 34 CFR 395.33(a), the Air Force will be required to initiate a new acquisition in compliance with 34 CFR 395.33.

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

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

The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after receiving a complaint from Rutherford Beard, a licensed blind operator of a vending facility at the Joint Forces Training Center. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

The complainant, Rutherford Beard, is a food vendor in the respondent's, the Michigan Commission for the Blind's (Commission), business enterprise program (BEP). On May 1, 2008, Mr. Beard signed a vending facility agreement to operate a cafeteria at the Joint Forces Training Center. He was provided with initial inventory and equipment, and the cafeteria began to sell food. This facility was projected to generate $150,000 in annual sales with an 11 percent profit. The facility did not generate the expected sales and ultimately Mr. Beard had to lay off two employees. As a result, his staff was reduced to himself and a part-time employee.

Because the facility was not generating any profit, Mr. Beard asked for a profit percentage exception after six months. He explained that, if a vendor does not meet the expected profit margin and does not get an exception, he is not eligible to bid on a different facility. Mr. Beard testified that he “tried everything,” including opening on some weekends and opening for breakfast, but he did not generate a profit. After Mr. Beard attempted to transfer to another location, the Commission informed him that he had to remain for at least a year according to the BEP rules. The cafeteria was then closed.

In his appeal, Mr. Beard claimed that he did not get sufficient help from the BEP and was not allowed to transfer out after six months. He also asserted that there were vending machines in different buildings on the same grounds that could have been awarded to him to lessen the adverse financial effect of the lack of business. That solution was also denied. Mr. Beard also contended that because the initial projection for sales at this cafeteria was miscalculated, and because he was not allowed to transfer after six months, the Commission should reimburse him for his losses.

In response, the Commission asserted that, under its rules, there is no guarantee that a vendor will make a profit. It also pointed out that Mr. Beard did not exercise the procedural rights granted by the Act and the Commission's rules.

At Mr. Beard's request, the Panel was convened on October 7, 2012. The Panel concluded that the Commission did not have the authority to grant Mr. Beard's requested relief. One Panel member asserted that section 107b(3) of the Act authorizes the Commission to provide licensed vendors with a fair minimum return when circumstances warrant it. Another Panel member indicated that this section is not mandatory language and that the Commission's rules do not provide for remuneration. The Panel chair stated that the Commission ought to adopt a rule to provide some remuneration for situations like this. However, absent any rule in place, the Panel decided that there was insufficient justification for any remuneration and, therefore, remuneration was not appropriate in this case.

The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

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

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

I. Award Information

Type of Award: Formula grant.

Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide, on an annualized basis, $87,752,864 for this program. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: $0-$60,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 4,300.

The FY 2017 SRSA grant awards will be made under the statutory authority in title V, part B, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. Law 114-95).

For FY 2017, an LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if it meets one of the following criteria:

(a)(1) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600; or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

(2) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

(b) The LEA is a member of an educational service agency (ESA) that does not receive SRSA funds, and the LEA meets the eligibility requirements described in (a)(1) and (2) above.

(c) The LEA meets the requirements for a hold harmless award as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. These are LEAs that are no longer eligible for the SRSA program because of amendments made under the ESSA to the locale code designations referenced in section 5211(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. However, these LEAs may receive a FY 2017 award at a reduced rate as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible party that submits an application.

Beginning in FY 2017, all LEAs eligible to receive an SRSA award are required to submit an SRSA application annually in order to receive SRSA funds, regardless of whether the LEA received an award in prior years. This new annual application will require only minimal time of grantees but will help the Department improve SRSA program operations, by informing grantees earlier in the year of their eligibility for the SRSA program, confirming an LEA's intent to make use of SRSA funding, maintaining updated and accurate grantee contact information, and ensuring grantees are able to draw down grant funds immediately upon receipt of their grant award. All eligible LEAs must submit an annual application, including LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2017 award under the hold harmless provision, dual-eligible LEAs that choose to participate in the SRSA program instead of the RLIS program, and SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of ESAs that do not receive SRSA funds. In the case of SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of SRSA-eligible ESAs, the respective LEAs and ESAs must coordinate directly with each other to determine which entity will submit an SRSA application, as both entities may not apply for or receive SRSA funds. Additionally, we note that dual-eligible LEAs that apply for SRSA funds in accordance with these application submission procedures will not be considered for an RLIS award.

We intend to provide, by April 14, 2017 a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA grant funds on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html. All LEAs on this list will need to submit an electronic application via Grants.gov in order to receive an FY 2017 SRSA grant award. The list will identify those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the SRSA program, those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the RLIS program, those LEAs that are dual eligible, and those LEAs that are eligible to receive an SRSA award pursuant to the hold harmless provision.

If an LEA on the Department's list of LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2017 SRSA award is no longer in existence as of the 2016-17 school year or will close prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the LEA is no longer eligible to receive an FY 2017 SRSA award and should not apply.

An LEA eligible to receive FY 2017 SRSA funds that fails to submit an FY 2017 SRSA application or fails to submit an application in accordance with the application submission procedures is at risk of not receiving an FY 2017 SRSA award. Such LEAs may receive an award only to the extent funds become available after awards are made to all eligible LEAs that complied with the application procedures.

The Department has revised the application LEAs must submit to receive FY 2017 SRSA funds. In addition, the Department has changed which system LEAs must use for submitting SRSA applications. LEAs should review closely the next section titled Application and Submission Information for specific information about how to apply for SRSA FY 2017 funds.

To do business with the Department of Education, you must:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Electronic Submission of Applications Using Grants.gov:

All LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA grant funds are required to submit an electronic application using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov by June 30, 2017 by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. SRSA applications must be submitted electronically using Grants.gov unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement, in accordance with the instructions in this section.

Through the Grants.gov Web site, you will be able to download a copy of the SRSA application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

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

Please note the following:

• Applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will be posted using Adobe forms. Therefore, applicants will need to download a compatible version of Adobe Reader software to complete the electronic SRSA application using Grants.gov. For your convenience, a compatible version of Adobe Reader is available for free download at www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility.html.

• When you search for the downloadable electronic application package for the SRSA grant program in Grants.gov, you must search for the package by the CFDA number (84.358). Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.358, not 84.358A).

• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June, 30, 2017. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June 30, 2017. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June 30, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application by the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

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

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

• You do not have access to the internet; or

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

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

If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail your statement to: Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, Room 3E-210, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202.

Or email your statement to: [email protected].

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

b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail:

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) A private metered postmark.

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

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

c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery:

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

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

Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

Program Authority: Sections 5211-12 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitative Services. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

The complainant, the Illinois Department of Human Services (IL DHS) Division of Rehabilitative Services, alleged that the respondent, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), violated the Act when it rescinded a permit authorizing the Business Enterprise Program for the Blind (BEPB) to operate vending machines at the FAA facility in Elgin, Illinois. The BEPB is responsible for administering the Act in the State.

Specifically, on January 4, 2006, the FAA negotiated and signed a permit authorizing BEPB to operate vending machines at the Elgin facility. Both parties agreed the facility was a satisfactory site for a vending facility under applicable regulations. On July 31, 2006, BEPB wrote the FAA asking when vending services would be implemented. On December 20, 2006, the FAA responded that there had been a change in the requirements for service and that it had awarded a contract to another vendor.

Communication between BEPB and the FAA ceased from December 20, 2006, until September 2, 2008, when the BEPB program administrator, Raven Pulliam, wrote to Lois Flick at the FAA concerning the permit and requesting a date for installation of vending equipment. Hearing nothing, Pulliam wrote to the administrator of the FAA's regional office on September 21, 2010. On October 27, 2010, a representative from the regional office responded that the FAA was going to terminate the permit, specifying that the FAA's requirements for food service had changed. On November 18, 2010, the IL DHS filed a complaint and a request for a Federal arbitration with the Secretary of Education.

IL DHS alleged that the FAA unlawfully: (1) Voided and withdrew an irrevocable agreement; (2) identified the Elgin facility as a “satisfactory site” for a vending facility but did not offer priority to blind vendors to operate such services; and (3) continued to violate the permit by refusing to allow a blind vendor to operate at the Elgin facility since January 2006.

IL DHS requested that the Panel grant the following relief: (1) 50 percent of all income from vending machines currently in operation at the Elgin facility; and (2) prejudgment interest and interest from the date of award until paid.

The FAA raised the affirmative defense that that the Act was not applicable because the Elgin facility did not meet the minimum requirements of a “satisfactory site.” The FAA also argued that: (1) The operation of a blind vending facility would adversely affect the interests of the United States; (2) the permit was not an agreement or a contract but an authorization of the provision of vending services that could be terminated with 30-days' notice; and (3) BEPB did not raise issues or contest the termination when it was notified of the FAA's intention to contract for services in December 2006 (the laches defense).

In response, IL DHS stated that BEPB entered into a contractual agreement with the FAA, which could not be unilaterally revoked. It also argued there was no Secretarial determination that the placement or operation of the vending facility under the permit would be adverse to the interest of the United States and that, by signing the permit, both parties agreed that the Elgin facility met the minimum criteria identified as a “satisfactory site” for a vending facility. IL DHS contended that the laches defense is not applicable and that the applicable State statute of limitations for bringing a contract action is 10 years.

The FAA claimed the laches defense should still apply, stating that an opportunity to exercise one of the Act's exemptions would have been made possible if it had been aware of the BEPB's position earlier.

The Panel convened a status conference by telephone on November 11, 2011, and the chair issued a pretrial order requiring both parties to submit stipulated facts and exhibits by November 30, 2011. The Panel concluded that an evidentiary hearing would not be necessary. A hearing was held by telephone conference on January 11, 2012.

The Panel unanimously determined that, when the FAA and the BEPB came to a contractual agreement for the operation of vending machines at the Elgin facility, the FAA obligated itself under the Act. Furthermore, the Panel determined that the FAA forfeited any statutory exemptions given that its signature on the permit removed any claim of insufficient space, minimum level of vending machine income, or the configuration of the facility's space. Therefore, the Panel determined that the FAA was liable to the IL DHS.

Although the Panel determined that laches did not apply, it also found that the BEPB would be unjustly enriched were the Panel to award the BEPB damages for the 20-month gap in which it failed to contact the FAA. On this basis, the Panel awarded the BEPB a total of $4,320.00 as the amount of the FAA's liability through March 2012. The computation was based upon a reasonable estimate of 50 percent of net income from vending machine operations, or $80 per month, multiplied by 54 months. The Panel also determined that BEPB was not entitled to pre-judgment interest.

The Panel found that the permit should remain in place and stated that it hoped that the parties would negotiate, without any more delay, on establishing a vending facility on the Elgin facility. The Panel also retained jurisdiction in this matter to ensure that its decision would be adhered to.

The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

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

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

Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

Owner: Carroll County Energy, LLC.

Capacity: 672 megawatts (MW).

Plant Location: Carrollton, OH 44616.

In-Service Date: December 1, 2017.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Commercial and Public Safety Interference Complaint Intake Form, FCC-5624.

Form Number: FCC-5624.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, federal government, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 155, and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of Rules.

Needs and Uses: Commercial spectrum licensees, spectrum licensees with public safety or safety of life missions, and federal agencies will have a single portal through which to submit complaints of radio frequency (RF) interference, FCC-5624. This online RF interference intake portal will enhance the Commission's ability to efficiently triage and assign RF interference complaints to field agents for further investigation, mitigation, and/or enforcement action, as appropriate.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0056.

Title: Part 68, Connection of Terminal Equipment to the Telephone Network.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 58,310 respondents; 64,177 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours-40 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205 and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 22,559 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,130,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Part 68 rules do not require respondents to provide proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information to the Commission. If the FCC requests that respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to Section 0.459 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of 47 CFR part 68 is to protect the telephone network from certain types of harm and prevent interference to subscribers. To (1) demonstrate that terminal equipment complies with criteria for protecting the network and (2) ensure that consumers, providers of telecommunications, the Commission and others are able to trace products to the party responsible for ensuring compliance with these criteria; it is essential to require manufacturers or other responsible parties to provide the information required by Part 68. In addition, incumbent local exchange carriers must provide the information in Part 68 to warn their subscribers of impending disconnection of service when subscriber terminal equipment is causing telephone network harm, and to inform subscribers of a change in network facilities that requires modification or alteration of subscribers' terminal equipment.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0823.

Title: Part 64, Pay Telephone Reclassification.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 16,820 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.66 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and monthly reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 218, 226 and 276.

Total Annual Burden: 44,700 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $740,000.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality concerns are not relevant to these types of disclosures. The Commission is not requesting carriers or providers to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests that carriers or providers submit information which they believe is confidential, the carriers or providers may request confidential treatment of their information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission established a plan to ensure that payphone service providers (PSPs) were compensated for certain non-coin calls originated from their payphones. As part of this plan, the Commission required that by October 7, 1997, local exchange carriers were to provide payphone-specific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs were to provide those digits from their payphones to interexchange carriers. The provision of payphone-specific coding digits was a prerequisite to payphone per-call compensation payments by IXCs to PSPs for subscriber 800 and access code calls. The Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau subsequently provided a waiver until March 9, 1998, for those payphones for which the necessary coding digits were not provided to identify calls. The Bureau also on that date clarified the requirements established in the Payphone Orders for the provision of payphone-specific coding digits and for tariffs that LECs must file pursuant to the Payphone Orders.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0971.

Title: Section 52.15, Request for “For Cause” Audits and State Commission's Access to Numbering Resource Application Information.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,105 respondents; 63,005 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.166 hours to 3 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-209, 218, 225-227, 251-252, 271 and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 10,473 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Carrier numbering resource applications and audits of carrier compliance will be treated as confidential and will be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Needs and Uses: There are two Paperwork Reduction Act related obligations under this OMB Control Number:

1. The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the Pooling Administrator, or a state commission may draft a request to the auditor stating the reason for the request, such as misleading or inaccurate data, and attach supporting documentation; and

2. Requests for copies of carriers' applications for numbering resources may be made directly to carriers.

The information collected will be used by the FCC, state commissions, the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator to verify the validity and accuracy of such data and to assist state commissions in carrying out their numbering responsibilities, such as area code relief.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0987.

Title: 911 Callback Capability; Non-initialized Handsets (47 CFR Sections 20.18 (l)(1)(i-iii), 20.18 (l)(2)(i-iii)).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 968 respondents; 225,968 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.01258143 hour (range of 30 seconds for labeling each handset to one hour for each respondent's public education effort).

Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 2,843 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: In 2003, the Commission modified 47 CFR Section 20.18(l) to further improve the ability of public safety answering points (PSAPs) to respond quickly and efficiently to calls for emergency assistance made from non-service initialized wireless mobile handsets. Non-service-initialized wireless mobile handsets (non-initialized handsets) are not registered for service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licensee. A non-initialized handset lacks a dialable number, but is programmed to make outgoing 911 calls. The Commission addressed issues arising from the inability of a PSAP operator to call back a 911 caller who becomes disconnected when using a non-service-initialized wireless handset. These requirements also apply to manufacturers of 911-only handsets that are manufactured after May 3, 2004.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0204.

Title: Special Eligibility Showings for Authorizations in the Public Safety Pool (47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v) and 90.20(a)(2)(xi)).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or household and business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 220 respondents; 220 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.704 hours (range of 15 minutes to 45 minutes).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for the collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

Total Annual Burden: 155 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The information collection in 47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v) affects individuals, and there is a system of records that covers it (FCC/WTB-1, Wireless Services Licensing Records).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Requests to withhold information submitted to the Commission from public inspection will be treated in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission collects this information to ensure that certain non-governmental applicants applying for the use of frequencies in the Public Safety Pool meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Commission's rules.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0506.

Title: Application for FM Broadcast Station License, Form 302-FM.

Form Number: FCC Form 302-FM.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 925 respondents; 925 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 3,135 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $601,500.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

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

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 302-FM is required to be filed by licensees and permittees of FM broadcast stations to request and obtain a new or modified station license and/or to notify the Commission of certain changes in the licensed facilities of these stations. Data is used by FCC staff to confirm that the station is built to the terms specified in the outstanding construction permit and to ensure that any changes made to the station will not have any impact on other stations and the public. Data is extracted from FCC Form 302-FM for inclusion in the license to operate the station.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0110.

Title: Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 303-S; Section 73.3555(d), Daily Newspaper Cross-Ownership.

Form Number: FCC Form 303-S.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondent and Responses: 4,023 respondents, 4,023 responses.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits—Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25-12 hours.

Frequency of Response: Every eight year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 10,797 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $5,073,271.

Nature of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the collection is contained Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

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

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 303-S is used in applying for renewal of license for commercial or noncommercial AM, FM, TV, FM translator, TV translator, Class A TV, or Low Power TV, and Low Power FM broadcast station licenses. Licensees of broadcast stations must apply for renewal of their licenses every eight years. The Commission is revising this collection to reflect the adoption of a Report and Order (“R&O”) in MB Docket No. 16-161, FCC 17-3, In the Matter of Revisions to Public Inspection File Requirements—Broadcaster Correspondence File and Cable Principal Headend Location, adopted and released on January 31, 2017. The R&O eliminated the requirement that commercial TV stations retain in their public inspection file copies of letters and emails from the public. As the Commission noted in the R&O, because commercial TV licensees will no longer be required to maintain correspondence under our rules, under the terms of 47 U.S.C. Section 308(d) they also will not be required to file a summary of correspondence received regarding violent programming with their renewal application (FCC Form 303-S). Consistent with this decision, we are revising Form 303-S to remove the references in the form to this requirement.

We are making the following specific changes to FCC Form 303-S:

On page 5 of the form, we are removing item 4 (Violent Programming).

On page 25 of the instructions, we are removing the paragraph titled “Item 4: Violent Programming.”

Background: Section 503A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353a) describes the conditions that must be satisfied for human drug products compounded by a licensed pharmacist in a State licensed pharmacy or a Federal facility, or licensed physician, to be exempt from the following three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 501(a)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)); (2) section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); and (3) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)).

The Drug Quality and Security Act added a new section 503B to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b), which created a new category of compounders termed “outsourcing facilities.” Under section 503B of the FD&C Act, outsourcing facilities are defined, in part, as facilities that meet certain conditions described in section 503B, including registration with FDA as an outsourcing facility. If these conditions are satisfied, a drug product compounded for human use by or under the direct supervision of a licensed pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 502(f)(1) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); (2) section 505 (concerning the approval of human drug products under NDAs or ANDAs); and (3) section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning the drug supply chain security requirements). Outsourcing facilities are not exempt from CGMP requirements in section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act.

One of the conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act is that a bulk drug substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient) used in a compounded drug product must meet one of the following criteria: (1) Complies with the standards of an applicable United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) or National Formulary monograph, if a monograph exists, and the USP chapter on pharmacy compounding; (2) if an applicable monograph does not exist, is a component of a drug approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary); or (3) if such a monograph does not exist and the drug substance is not a component of a drug approved by the Secretary, appears on a list developed by the Secretary through regulations issued by the Secretary (the “503A Bulks List”) (see section 503A(b)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act).

Another condition that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act is that the compounded drug product is not a drug product identified by the Secretary by regulation as a drug product that presents demonstrable difficulties for compounding that reasonably demonstrate an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of that drug product (see section 503A(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act).

A condition that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions in section 503B of the FD&C Act is that the compounded drug is not identified (directly or as part of a category of drugs) on a list, published by the Secretary by regulation after consulting with the PCAC, of drugs or categories of drugs that present demonstrable difficulties for compounding that are reasonably likely to lead to an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of the drug or category of drugs, taking into account the risks and benefits to patients, or the drug is compounded in accordance with all applicable conditions identified on the list as conditions that are necessary to prevent the drug or category of drugs from presenting such demonstrable difficulties (see section 503B(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the FD&C Act).

FDA intends to discuss with the committee bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List and drug products nominated for inclusion on the list of drug products that present demonstrable difficulties for compounding under sections 503A and 503B (“Difficult to Compound List”).

Agenda: The committee will receive updates on certain issues to follow up on discussions from previous meetings, including quality standards and conditions at certain compounding facilities. In addition, the committee intends to discuss six bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion on the section 503A Bulks List. FDA will discuss the following nominated bulk drug substances: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide disodium reduced, nettle (Urtica dioica) whole plant, ubiquinol, vanadyl sulfate, and artemisinin. The chart below describes which use(s) FDA reviewed for each of the six bulk drug substances being discussed at this advisory committee meeting. The nominators of these substances will be invited to make a short presentation supporting the nomination.

The committee also intends to discuss oral solid modified release drug products that employ coated systems, which were nominated for the Difficult to Compound List. The nominators will be invited to make a short presentation supporting the nomination.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see the Addresses section) on or before April 24, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 10:15 a.m. and 10:25 a.m., 11:35 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., 1:45 p.m. and 1:55 p.m., 2:50 p.m. and 3 p.m., and 4:10 p.m. and 4:20 p.m. on May 8, 2017, and between approximately 10 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. and 11:35 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. on May 9, 2017. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 14, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 17, 2017.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.

During the June 2017 NVAC meeting, sessions will include an update on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services' report on vaccine innovation to Congress in response to the 21st Century Cures Act; presentations on immunization information systems and inter-jurisdictional data exchange; and an update on vaccine confidence-related projects. Please note that agenda items will be related to the charge of the Committee and are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend in person and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office ([email protected]) at least five business days prior to the meeting.

Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.

In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.

The first day of the public meeting, May 3, 2017, will be dedicated to the topic of Infection Prevention and Control for Animal Health. The three working groups on Incentives for Diagnostics, Therapeutics/Anti-Infectives, and Vaccines, will report their preliminary findings to the full Advisory Council for deliberation on the second day of the public meeting, May 4, 2017; no vote will be held. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Advisory Council Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ when it has been finalized. All agenda items are tentative and subject to change.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Advisory Council at the address/telephone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the Advisory Council meeting by emailing [email protected]. Public comments should be sent in by midnight April 25, 2017, and should be limited to no more than one page. All public comments received prior to April 25, 2017, will be provided to Advisory Council members; comments are limited to two minutes per speaker.

I. Background

Under Section 564 of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing (1) the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent or agents; (2) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act 1 sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad; (3) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent or agents; or (4) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.2

Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the FDA Commissioner may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requested that the FDA issue an EUA for use of an injectable treatment for nerve agent and certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning to support preparedness and response to potential public health threats posed by these agents and compounds. At this time, FDA-approved injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning are not available to replenish the Department's Strategic National Stockpile 3 inventory when the products in the current inventory expire. Pending the availability of such products, an EUA will facilitate ensuring that the products are available in the event of a public health emergency involving nerve agent or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate). The determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enables the FDA Commissioner to issue an EUA for certain injectable treatments for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

On April 11, 2017, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, I determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves nerve agents or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate).1

On April 11, 2017, on the basis of my determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves nerve agents or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate), I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.

Notice of any EUAs issued by the FDA Commissioner pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly in the Federal Register as required under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act as amended (Pub. L. 104-134), the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR parts 900-904) and DHS regulations (6 CFR 11); the Administrator of FEMA is: (1) Required to attempt collection of all debts owed to the United States arising out of activities of FEMA; and (2) for debts not exceeding $100,000, authorized to compromise such debts or terminate collection action completely where it appears that that the person liable for such debt does not have the present or prospective financial ability to pay a significant sum, or that the cost of collecting such debt is likely to exceed the amount of recovery (31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2)). FEMA is revising this collection by requesting additional information on FEMA Form 127-0-1 including the debtor's phone number and detailed information concerning the debtor's dependents, including age, relationship, and contribution to the household income, if any. Additionally, FEMA has incorporated Household Expense Listing form questions such as other monthly gross income, monthly housing & utility expenses, monthly transportation expenses, etc.

Title: Debt Collection Financial Statement.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0011.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 127-0-1, Debt Collection Financial Statement.

Abstract: FEMA may request debtors to provide personal financial information on FEMA Form 127-0-1 concerning their current financial position. FEMA uses this information to determine whether to compromise, suspend, or completely terminate collection efforts on respondents' debts. This information is also used to locate debtor's assets if the debts are sent for judicial enforcement.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Number of Responses: 300.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 225 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $7,632.00. There are no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $62,644.00.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2017 at 82 FR 9071 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received one request for a copy of the proposed information collection by the public. The Agency responded to this comment and provided the most up-to-date copy of the proposed information collection to the requester. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG).

Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0126.

Form Titles and Numbers: None.

Abstract: The Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program assists State and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. The EMPG Work Plan narrative must demonstrate how proposed projects address gaps, deficiencies, and capabilities in current programs and the ability to provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the program and guidance provided by FEMA. FEMA uses the information to provide details, timelines, and milestones on proposed projects.

Affected Public: State, Local, Territorial, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 58.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 174 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $9,008.26. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $415,206.

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), accompanying incidental take permit (ITP) application, and environmental assessment (EA) related to an application from Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (applicant), a unit of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), for a permit associated with construction of the Suncoast Parkway 2, a limited-access toll facility (project) in Hernando and Citrus Counties, Florida. We invite the public to comment on these documents.

The applicant's proposed HCP describes the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the impacts resulting from take of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon courais cooperi) and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), the covered species, incidental to the project. Per the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), the EA analyzes the take of the covered species and the environment. The applicant requests a 10-year ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the project, including the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative and the proposed action alternative. The proposed action alternative is issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant. The applicant anticipates direct impacts to approximately 700 acres of indigo snake and gopher tortoise suitable habitat incidental to project construction.

The minimization and mitigation measures proposed in the HCP include an extensive network of wildlife fencing and crossings to improve habitat connectivity and minimize wildlife mortality associated with the roadway; multiple safety features to support implementation of the Florida Forest Service (FFS) Resource Management Plan; various avoidance and minimization measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts to the covered species; a monetary contribution to the Friends of the Florida State Forests, Inc. for land management activities; and the purchase of high-quality, regionally significant mitigation parcels approved by the FFS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) prior to the completion of the project. Upon acquisition, each mitigation parcel would be transferred to the State of Florida for management by FFS or FWC. In accordance with FWC permitting guidelines, gopher tortoises within the approximately 1,300-acre proposed project area will be relocated prior to construction activities, and therefore are not expected to be subject to take via injury, mortality, or harassment during project construction.

We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on our proposed Federal action, including but not limited to identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP per 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.

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

Indigo snakes and gopher tortoises historically occurred in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) sandhill habitats found throughout the proposed project area. The area encompassed by the HCP and ITP application consists of public, private, and applicant-owned lands currently occupied by the species or suitable for occupancy by restoration as indigo snake and gopher tortoise habitat.

We will evaluate the ITP application, including the HCP, and any comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also conduct an intra-Service section 7 consultation to evaluate whether to issue the requested section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP for the incidental take of the eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise.

We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

We are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for eight animal species listed as endangered: Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki), Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii [=Dendroica kirtlandii]), Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishop), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta).

Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our factsheet.

A 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:

(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

(D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

New information will be considered in the 5-year review and ongoing recovery programs for the species.

This notice announces our active 5-year status reviews of the species in the following table.

To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific information. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

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

Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.

Each year satellite systems must submit royalty payments to the Register of Copyrights as required by the statutory license set forth in section 119 of the Copyright Act for the retransmission to satellite subscribers of over-the-air television broadcast signals. See 17 U.S.C. 119(b). The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) oversee distribution of royalties to copyright owners whose works were included in a qualifying transmission and who timely filed a claim for royalties.

Allocation of the royalties collected occurs in one of two ways. In the first instance, the Judges may authorize distribution in accordance with a negotiated settlement among all claiming parties. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(A), 801(b)(3)(A). If all claimants do not reach an agreement with respect to the royalties, the Judges must conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of any royalties that remain in controversy. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(B), 801(b)(3)(B). Alternatively, the Judges may, on motion of claimants and on notice to all interested parties, authorize a partial distribution of royalties, reserving on deposit sufficient funds to resolve identified disputes. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(C), 801(b)(3)(C).

On February 17, 2017, representatives of all the Allocation Phase claimant categories (formerly “Phase I”) 1 filed with the Judges a motion requesting a partial distribution amounting to 60% of the 2015 satellite royalty funds pursuant to section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C). That section requires that, before ruling on the motion, the Judges publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking responses to the motion for partial distribution to ascertain whether any claimant entitled to receive the subject royalties has a reasonable objection to the requested distribution. Accordingly, this notice seeks comments from interested claimants on whether any reasonable objection exists that would preclude the distribution of 60% of the 2015 satellite royalty funds to the Allocation Phase Claimants. Parties objecting to the proposed partial distribution must advise the Judges of the existence and extent of all their objections by the end of the comment period. The Judges will not consider any objections with respect to the partial distribution motion that come to their attention after the close of the comment period.

The Motion of the Allocation Phase Claimants is posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.loc.gov/crb.

Overview: This notice is issued by the National Coordination Office for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program. Agencies of the NITRD Program are holding a workshop of experts from government, private industry, and academia to provide a forum for information exchange on spectrum sharing radio receiver systems and identify relevant research and development opportunities. Further information about the NITRD may be found at: https://www.nitrd.gov.

Background: Principles of co-existence and interference tolerance are often overlooked and under-exploited in today's radio receiver systems. For example, a receiver's ability to accept wanted signals or reject unwanted signals impacts the quality of the information transmitted. The workshop will address various signal reception topics including technology advances for receivers, transmitters, filters, antenna design, signal processing techniques, and policy issues. While focus has been on the transmitter side of the radio system in the past, focusing on the receiver systems early in the next generation technology development process has been identified as an important step in assuring interference tolerance.

Workshop Goals:

• Outline the wireless spectrum sharing receiver needs, scenarios and issues for the short-term and long-term.

• Discuss the technology and regulatory frameworks that can deliver appropriate receiver solutions, including those needed for emerging IoT scenarios.

• Identify innovative tools, techniques, experimentation, and recommendations for additional research.

Workshop Objectives: The objectives of the workshop are to establish the current state-of-the-art, define characteristics that are needed in the radio receiver system to better facilitate spectrum sharing, identify the opportunities and challenges in current receiver technologies, and examine the implementation and adoption issues that exist.

Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on April 12, 2017.