Federal Register Vol. 82, No.74,

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be released into the environment. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has previously issued Cornell University a permit (APHIS Permit Number 12-227-102m) authorizing the importation of GE diamondback moths (DBM, Plutella xylostella) strains OX4319L-Pxy, OX4319N-Pxy, and OX4767A-Pxy from the United Kingdom to the university's New York State Agricultural Experiment Station (NYSAES) in Geneva, NY. The GE DBM were genetically engineered to exhibit red fluorescence (DsRed2) as a marker and repressible female lethality, also known as female autocide. The GE DBMs are considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because the recipient organism is a plant pest.

On October 24, 2013, APHIS received a permit application from Cornell University (APHIS Permit Number 13-297-102r) seeking the permitted field release of the three imported strains of GE DBM. Permits were issued and caged releases occurred in 2015. However, all permits relative to the October 2013 application have since been withdrawn.

On March 16, 2016, APHIS received a permit application from Cornell University (APHIS Permit Number 16-076-101r) seeking the permitted field release of a single strain of GE DBM, designated as OX4319L-Pxy, in both open and caged releases.

The purpose of the requested field release is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of GE DBM strain OX4319L-Pxy in reducing pest populations of DBM. According to the applicant, these GE DBM may serve as an insecticide-free means of controlling field populations of DBM in a species-specific manner.

The proposed release would be at the NYSAES and would not exceed 2 years in length. The release would be limited to an experimental field, up to 10 acres in size, within which there would be a single point at which the open air release would occur. The release site is surrounded by other agricultural fields within NYSAES' 870 total acres where DBMs occur naturally. The applicant would release up to 10,000 male GE DBMs per release (up to 30,000 males per week). Post-experiment monitoring of DBM with traps would continue until no GE DBMs are captured for 2 consecutive months.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of the GE DBM, an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). APHIS will accept written comments on our EA regarding the proposed release of the GE DBM from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Copies of the EA are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.

Title: Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection.

OMB Number: 0583-0156.

Expiration Date of Approval: 9/30/2017.

Type of Request: Renewal of an approved information collection.

Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as specified in the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.). This statute provides that FSIS is to protect the public by verifying that poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

FSIS is requesting a renewal of the approved information collection regarding poultry slaughter inspection. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2017. There are no changes to the existing information collection.

FSIS requires that all official poultry slaughter establishments, other than establishments that slaughter ratites, maintain as part of their HACCP plan, sanitation SOP, or other prerequisite program, written procedures addressing (1) the prevention throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation, of contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens (e.g., Salmonella and Campylobacter) and by fecal material, including microbial test results, and (2) the prevention of carcasses and parts contaminated by visible fecal material from entering the chiller. This information was previously collected under the FSIS information collection for Sanitation SOPs and Pathogen Reduction/HACCP (0583-0103). Each establishment operating under the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) is required to collect and maintain additional information concerning poultry slaughter:

• As part of the HACCP system, written procedures to prevent carcasses afflicted with septicemia and toxemia from entering the chiller; and

• records that document that the products resulting from slaughter operations meet the definition of ready-to-cook poultry.

Additionally, each establishment operating under the NPIS also needs to submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that it maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related conditions of establishment workers.

FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:

Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of .125 hours to record results and maintain necessary documentation.

Respondents: Official poultry establishments.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 289.

Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 5,291.3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 19,204 hours.

Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

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

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau plans to conduct the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 2018 Panel in 4 waves beginning in February 2018. Wave 1 of the SIPP 2018 Panel will be conducted from February to May of 2018. Wave 2 is scheduled to be conducted from February to May of 2019. Wave 3 is scheduled to be conducted from February to May of 2020. Wave 4 is scheduled to be conducted from February to May of 2021. The SIPP is a household-based survey designed as a continuous series of national panels. The SIPP represents a primary source of information about annual and sub-annual dynamics of income, family and household content, movement into and out of government programs, and interactions of these topics in a single, unified database allowing for in-depth, informed analyses. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received either directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on that distribution. They also rely on data that provides improved and expanded information on the dynamics of income and the general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population, in the context of the household situation, which the SIPP has provided on a continuing basis since 1983. The SIPP has measured levels of economic well-being and permitted measurement of changes in these levels over time.

A portion of the 2018 SIPP Panel will use an Event History Calendar (EHC) that facilitates the collection of dates of events and spells of coverage. The EHC is a tool to assist the respondent's ability to recall events accurately over the one year reference period and provide increased data quality and inter-topic consistency for dates reported by respondents. The EHC is intended to help respondents recall information in a more natural “autobiographical” manner by using life events as triggers to recall other economic events. The EHC was previously used in the 2014 Panel. The content of the 2018 SIPP Panel will match that of the 2014 SIPP Panel very closely. As with the 2014 Panel, the 2018 Panel SIPP design does not contain freestanding topical modules; however, a portion of traditional SIPP topical module content is integrated into the 2018 SIPP Panel interview. Examples of this content include questions on medical expenses, child care, retirement and pension plan coverage, marital history, and adult and child well-being.

The 2018 SIPP Panel begins with a new “Wave 1” sample of survey respondents who were not interviewed in the previous 2014 SIPP Panel. The 2018 SIPP Panel Wave 1 will interview respondents about the previous calendar year, 2017, as the reference period and will proceed with annual interviewing going forward. The 2018 SIPP Panel will use the same interviewing method structure as in the 2014 Panel, in which adults (age 15 years and older) who move from the prior wave household will be followed. Consequently, future waves will incorporate dependent data, which is information collected from the prior wave interview brought forward to the current interview as a way to reduce respondent burden and improve data quality.

The Census Bureau plans to continue to use Computer Audio-Recorded Interview (CARI) technology for all of the respondents during the 2018 SIPP Panel. CARI is a tool available during data collection to capture audio along with response data. With the respondent's consent, a portion of each interview is recorded unobtrusively and both the sound file and screen images are returned with the response data to Census Headquarters for evaluation. Census staff may review the recorded portions of the interview to improve questionnaire design and for quality assurance purposes.

Approximately 20,000 households are expected to be interviewed for the 2018 SIPP Panel. We estimate that each household contains 2.1 people age 15 and above, yielding approximately 42,000 person-level interviews per wave in this panel. Completing the SIPP interview will take approximately 60 minutes per adult on average, consequently the total annual burden for 2018 SIPP interviews will be 42,000 hours per year in FY 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.

The 2018 SIPP Panel will use the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) method of data collection. The instrument will consist of one interview per person per wave (year) resulting in four total interviews over the life of the panel. Each interview will reference the previous calendar year depending on the wave. A field representative will conduct the interview in person with all household members 15 years old or over using regular proxy-respondent rules. In the instances where the residence is not accessible or the respondent makes a request, the field representative will conduct the interview by telephone.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0977.

Form Number: SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 42,000 people per wave.

Estimated Time per Response: 60 minutes per person on average.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 42,000 hours per wave.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 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

The regulations governing the Department's scope determinations are found at 19 CFR 351.225. In past scope determinations,1 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), the Department has relied on the description of the merchandise contained in the petitions, the initial investigations, prior scope determinations, and rulings by the ITC to determine that two-layer MLWF products are outside the scope of the Orders.2

Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) in combination with a core. The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a final assembled product. Multilayered wood flooring is often referred to by other terms, e.g., “engineered wood flooring” or “plywood flooring.” Regardless of the particular terminology, all products that meet the description set forth herein are intended for inclusion within the definition of subject merchandise.

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

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

Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively, may be in the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products are included within this definition regardless of the actual or nominal dimensions or form of the product. Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either flooring are made from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of HDF, and a stabilizing bottom layer.

Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.0620; 4412.31.0640; 4412.31.0660; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.2610; 4412.31.2620; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.4140; 4412.31.4160; 4412.31.4175; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.5225; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.0640; 4412.32.0665; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.2610; 4412.32.2625; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.3225; 4412.32.5600; 4412.32.5700; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; 4418.74.2000; 4418.74.9000; 4418.75.4000; 4418.75.7000; 4418.79.0100; and 9801.00.2500.

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

The Department intends to clarify the scope language by specifying that MLWF products covered by the scope of the Orders are products composed of a minimum of three layers. We intend to revise the first paragraph of the scope of the order as follows:

We intend to notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection of this scope clarification.

Interested parties wishing to comment on this scope clarification should file comments within ten days of the publication date of this notice. All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m., Eastern Time on the date comments due. Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 51.303(f)(1)(i),4 a copy must be served on every party on the Department's scope service list by personal service or first class mail. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available on ACCESS.

On December 15, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an antidumping duty investigation of certain softwood lumber products from Canada.1 Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) state that the Department will make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. Accordingly, the preliminary determination of this antidumping duty investigation is currently due no later than May 4, 2017.

On March 30, 2017, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations (Petitioner) made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determination, to ensure that the Department has sufficient time to obtain and review all relevant information from the parties to this proceeding.2 Because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days.

For the reasons stated above, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated this investigation. Therefore, the new deadline for the preliminary determination is June 23, 2017. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

In accordance with section 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on March 1, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation of R134a from the PRC.1 On April 5, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of R134a from the PRC.2 In addition, in its final determination, the ITC did not make an affirmative critical circumstances finding with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the PRC that are subject to the Department's final affirmative critical circumstances finding.

The product covered by the scope is 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, R-134a, or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type, or purity level. The chemical formula for 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is CF3-CH2F, and the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number is CAS 811-97-2.3

Merchandise subject to the scope is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2903.39.2020. Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

On April 5, 2017, in accordance with sections 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that imports of R134a from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order.

Because the ITC determined that imports of R134a from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of R134a from the PRC. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of R134a entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 7, 2016, the date on which the Department published the Preliminary Determination, 5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below.

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

We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits at rates equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart below.6 Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit at the rates listed below.7 The rate for the PRC-wide entity applies to all exporters not specifically listed.

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., a mandatory respondent in this investigation, the Department extended the four-month period to six months.8 In the underlying investigation, the Department published the Preliminary Determination on October 7, 2017.9 Therefore, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination ended on April 4, 2017. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of R134a from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 4, 2017 the date the provisional measures expired, and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.10

The Department determines that the estimated final weighted-average dumping margins are as follow:

In its final determination, the ITC did not make an affirmative critical circumstances finding with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the PRC that were subject to the Department's final affirmative critical circumstances determination. Accordingly, the Department will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 9, 2016 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination), but before October 7, 2016, the publication date of the Preliminary Determination.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to R134a from the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/.

This order is issued and published in accordance with sections 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

The Petitions

On March 23, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions 1 concerning imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, filed in proper form on behalf of the National Biodiesel Board Fair Trade Coalition (the petitioner), which is an ad hoc association comprised of domestic producers of biodiesel, as well as one trade association.2 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions on biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia.3

On March 23, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions 1 concerning imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, filed in proper form on behalf of the National Biodiesel Board Fair Trade Coalition (the petitioner), which is an ad hoc association comprised of domestic producers of biodiesel, as well as one trade association.2 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions on biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia.3

On March 28 and 29, 2017, and April 3, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on March 31, 2017, and April 4, 2017.5 On April 7, 2017, in consultations the Department held with respect to the companion CVD petition, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) provided comments on industry support and requested the Department poll the industry to determine industry support.6 On April 10, 2017, Cámara Argentina de Biocombustibles (CARBIO) and certain individual Argentine exporters 7 submitted comments regarding industry support and requested the Department extend its initiation decision by 20 days to poll the industry.8 On April 10, 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the Petitions.9

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), the petitioner states that the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.10

Because the Petitions were filed on March 23, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

The product covered by these investigations is biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” at Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.11

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,12 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,13 all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 2, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include public factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 12, 2017, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

The Department requests comments from interested parties on the appropriate physical characteristics of biodiesel to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe biodiesel, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 2, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 12, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,15 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.16

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that biodiesel, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.17

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioner provided 2016 domestic like product production data for U.S. producers that are known to support the Petitions. To establish total production of the domestic like product in 2016, the petitioner provided data from the February 2017 Monthly Biodiesel Production report (which included total 2016 production of biodiesel in the United States) published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy). To establish industry support, the petitioner compared the production of companies supporting the Petitions to the total 2016 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.18 We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.19

On April 7, 2017, we received comments on industry support from the GOI.20 On April 10, 2017, we received comments from CARBIO and certain individual Argentine exporters.21 For further discussion of these comments, see the Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist and the Argentina AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, Petition Supplement, letter from the GOI, letter from CARBIO and certain individual Argentine exporters, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.22 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).23 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.24 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.25 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting that the Department initiate.26

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.27

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; negative impact on the domestic industry's operations and performance; and decline in financial performance.28 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.29

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For both Argentina and Indonesia, the petitioner based export price (EP) on average unit values (AUVs) calculated using publicly available import statistics from the ITC's Dataweb for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3826.00.1000, representing shipments of pure biodiesel (i.e., B100) from both respective countries to the United States during the POI.30 No adjustments were made to the calculated AUVs used for U.S. price.

For Argentina and Indonesia, the petitioner provided home market price information based on the prices set by each government during the POI.31 As the provided prices were the government-established sale prices, they reflect FOB prices. Accordingly, the petitioner made no adjustments for movement expenses.32 Based on these price data for both countries, the petitioner submitted information indicating that sales of biodiesel in the home markets of both Argentina and Indonesia were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, the petitioner also calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).33 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses, and profit. The petitioner calculated COM based on a U.S. producer of biodiesel's (U.S. surrogate's) experience, adjusted for known differences between producing in the United States and producing in the respective country (i.e., Argentina and Indonesia), during the proposed POI.34 Using publicly-available price data, where available, the petitioner multiplied the surrogate usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture biodiesel in each country.35 In those instances where the petitioner was not aware of any differences in input prices, it submitted values from the surrogate.36 For Argentina and Indonesia, labor and energy prices were derived from publicly-available sources multiplied by the U.S. surrogate's product-specific usage quantities.37 For Argentina and Indonesia, because the petitioner was not aware of any differences in factory overhead costs, it submitted values from the surrogate.38 Further, for both countries, to determine the SG&A and profit, the petitioner relied on the audited financial statements of companies that are producers of identical or comparable merchandise operating in the respective country.39

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV (based on CV) in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for biodiesel are as follows: (1) Argentina, 26.54 percent; 40 and (2) Indonesia, 28.11 percent.41

Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.42 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.43 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.44

The petitioner identified 16 companies in Argentina and five companies in Indonesia, as producers/exporters of biodiesel.45 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies subject to each investigation is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed with the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I, below, and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that data. We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO on the record within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of each respective investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Argentina and Indonesia via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of biodiesel from Argentina and/or Indonesia are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.46 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 47 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.48 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of Petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.49 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On October 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results in the Federal Register.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised for these final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to this order 3 is narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under the harmonized tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.4

In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Xiamen Yi He and Fujian Rongshu had no reviewable transactions during the POR. We received no comments from interested parties with respect to these preliminary results and we continue to determine that these companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR.5

The sole issue raised in the case brief is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed and the issue which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. 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 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 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.

We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews,6 because Roung Shu's weighted-average dumping margin is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties,7 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Roung Shu for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

For A-Madeus, we will base the assessment rate, which was assigned as an adverse facts available rate,8 for the corresponding entries on the margin listed above. Additionally, because the Department determined that Xiamen Yi He and Fujian Rongshu had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under their name will be liquidated at the all-others rate effective during the period of review.9

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Roung Shu and A-Madeus will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.37 percent, the all-others rate determined in the LTFV investigation.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice 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). Timely written notification of return/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 notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Sponsored by NIST, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a national network of locally based manufacturing extension centers working with small manufacturers to assist them improve their productivity, improve profitability and enhance their economic competitiveness. The information collected will provide the MEP with information regarding MEP Center performance regarding the delivery of technology, and business solutions to U.S.-based manufacturers. The collected information will assist in determining the performance of the MEP Centers at both local and national levels, provide information critical to monitoring and reporting on MEP programmatic performance, and assist management in policy decisions. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory per the regulations governing the operation of the MEP Program (15 CFR parts 290, 291, 292, and H.R. 1274—section 2). The information collected will include MEP Customer inputs regarding their sales, costs, investments, employment, and exports. Customers will take the survey online. Customers will only be surveyed once per year under this collection. Data collected in this survey is confidential.

Information will be collected electronically.

OMB Control Number: 0693-0021.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 0.

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

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

Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2) and (j)(1), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the Federal Register, whenever it determines that a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition.

NMFS has determined that South Atlantic golden tilefish is subject to overfishing. This determination is based on the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 25 Update), finalized in 2016, which supports a finding of subject to overfishing because estimates of fishing mortality (F) are above the maximum fishing mortality threshold, or MFMT. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been informed that they must take action to end overfishing immediately on this stock.

NMFS has determined that the Western and Central Pacific (WCP) stock of Pacific bigeye tuna is subject to overfishing. This determination is based on a 2014 stock assessment update conducted by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, and accepted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. NMFS has determined that section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) applies because (1) the overfishing of the WCP stock of Pacific bigeye tuna is due largely to excessive international fishing pressure, and (2) the applicable regional fishery management organizations have inadequate measures in place to correct the problem. NMFS has informed the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council of their obligations for international and domestic management under Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 304(i) and 304(i)(2) to address international and domestic impacts, respectively. The Councils must develop recommendations for domestic regulations to address the relative impact of the domestic fishing fleet on the stock, and develop recommendations to the Secretary of State and Congress for international actions to end overfishing on the WCP stock of bigeye tuna.

NMFS has determined that South Atlantic blueline tilefish is still subject to overfishing. A 2014 stock assessment determined that the stock was subject to overfishing (79 FR 28686, May 19, 2014). This stock was not assessed in 2016, so landings were compared to the overfishing level (OFL). Final landings in 2015 exceeded the OFL for this stock, which supports a determination of subject to overfishing. NMFS continues to work with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to end overfishing.

In addition, NMFS has determined that South Atlantic red snapper continues to be subject to overfishing and is in an overfished condition. A 2010 assessment determined that this stock was subject to overfishing and in an overfished condition. That assessment found that estimates of F were above the MFMT and the stock size was less than the minimum stock size threshold, or MSST. This latest determination is based on the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 41), finalized in 2016, which provides no basis to change the determination that the stock is subject to overfishing and is overfished. NMFS continues to work with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to end overfishing and rebuild this stock.

Finally, NMFS has determined that Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean continues to be subject to overfishing and is in an overfished condition. A 2014 assessment determined that this stock was subject to overfishing and in an overfished condition (80 FR 12621, March 10, 2015). This latest determination is based on a 2016 assessment conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, in conjunction with NOAA scientists.

NMFS has determined that section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies because (1) the overfishing and overfished condition of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is due largely to excessive international fishing pressure, and (2) there are no management measures (or efficiency measures) to end overfishing under an international agreement to which the United States is a party. NMFS has informed the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council of their obligations for international and domestic management under Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 304(i) and 304(i)(2) to address international and domestic impacts, respectively. The Councils must develop recommendations for domestic regulations to address the relative impact of the domestic fishing fleet on the stock, and develop recommendations to the Secretary of State and Congress for international actions to end overfishing and rebuild the Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean.

The Department convened the Panel under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Kentucky Office of the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA) designated to administer the Randolph-Sheppard program in Kentucky. 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 Department of the Army, Fort Campbell (Army) used contractors through the SLA for several years because most of the Army's cooks located at the base were deployed. Thus, the Army had to contract for cooks to provide food service to those located on the base. As the number of troops deployed decreased, the cooks from Fort Campbell returned to the base. Military personnel began to perform multiple tasks, including selecting the menus, preparing and cooking the food, ordering supplies, maintaining quality control of all food prepared and served, maintaining equipment, conducting headcount of soldiers served, and noting accountability of cash received. While these duties had been performed by the SLA, due to these changes, the Army no longer needed to have a contractor provide these services. However, the Army still had a need for a contractor to perform certain services because soldiers are precluded by Army Regulation 30-22 from performing dining facility attendant duties in a garrison environment.

The Performance Work Statement outlined the duties the contractor would now be required to perform. According to the Panel's decision:

Because of the Army Contracting Officer's decision, the SLA filed a request for arbitration with the Department contending the Army violated the Act and its applicable regulations, in 34 CFR part 395, when it issued this solicitation without applying the provisions of the Act to the Army's source selection process. The matter was then submitted to the Panel.

A similar issue had arisen at Fort Campbell in the late 1990s. In 2002, an arbitration panel concluded that the services described in that Performance Work Statement fell within the terms of the Act. The Panel was asked whether the 2002 decision was binding through the principle of res judicata, given the similarity of issues and parties. The Panel concluded unanimously that the 2002 decision was not binding on the Panel because there had been several judicial rulings and pronouncements by Congress since the earlier case was decided. The Panel decided, however, to give that case “respectful consideration.”

The Army argued that the Panel should give great deference to the decision of the Contracting Officer. The Panel majority disagreed with that argument. While there was no disagreement that the Army had full authority to have its own cooks handle food preparation and manage the dining facility, the issue was whether the Army's conclusion that the remaining work was not covered by the Act was correct. The Panel determined that resolution of the issues in this case involved statutory interpretation, and, because the Department is charged with interpreting the Act, by extension, so is the Panel.

The remaining question then was whether the Act was intended to apply to the discrete dining facility attendant services that were to be provided at the dining halls at Fort Campbell. The Panel majority noted that because interpretations had changed over the years, to understand what the Act, as it stands today, was intended to cover, it had to explore this history. As a result, the Panel reviewed and discussed the 1974 Amendments, various pronouncements from the Department and the Comptroller General's various court decisions, the relationship between the Act and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD), and the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (NDAA).

The majority ultimately concluded the Act applies to this solicitation at Fort Campbell. In reaching that conclusion, the Panel rejected the Army's assertion that Washington State Department of Services for the Blind v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 781 (2003), was binding on the Panel. The Panel determined that the Washington case was limited to just “busboy” services, whereas the Fort Campbell solicitation also involved food handling. The Panel also discussed the impact of the NDAA and the interplay between the services covered by the Act and JWOD. In determining that the NDAA defined food services to include mess attendant services, the Panel concluded that this “impliedly indicated those services are covered by the [Act].”

Finally, in rejecting the argument that the NDAA did not apply because the contract in effect at Fort Campbell was not awarded under the Act, the Panel concluded that the NDAA was still a “pronouncement by Congress as to the coverage of the [NDAA] and is, therefore, a significant factor here.” The Panel then concluded that had the Army complied with the earlier arbitration panel ruling in 2002, “the contract for [mess attendant] services in 2006 would have been issued under the [Act].”

For the reasons stated in the decision, the Panel found that the Army violated the Act when it issued the solicitation for Dining Facility Attendant Services at Fort Campbell without applying the provisions of the Act to the Army's source selection process. In terms of a remedy, the Panel recognized that the Act requires that, when a violation has been found, the Federal agency must “cause such acts or practices to be terminated promptly and shall take such other action as may be necessary to carry out the decision of the panel.” The Panel directed the Army to notify the current contractor that its contract would not be renewed at expiration and to begin negotiations with the SLA for services to commence upon the expiration of the current contract.

One panel member concurred in part and dissented in part.

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 following list identifies correspondence from the Department issued from July 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Under section 607(f) of the IDEA, the Secretary is required to publish this list quarterly in the Federal Register. The list includes those letters that contain interpretations of the requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as letters and other documents that the Department believes will assist the public in understanding the requirements of the law. The list identifies the date and topic of each letter and provides summary information, as appropriate. To protect the privacy interests of the individual or individuals involved, personally identifiable information has been redacted, as appropriate.

○ Dear Colleague Letter dated July 6, 2015, regarding the role of speech language pathologists and other professionals in determining appropriate services for infants, toddlers, and children with autism spectrum disorder.

○ Dear Colleague Letter dated November 16, 2015, clarifying that individualized education program (IEP) Teams must ensure that annual IEP goals are aligned with the State's academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled.

○ Letter dated November 23, 2015, to Alabama attorney Julie J. Weatherly, regarding requirements that govern the destruction of information collected, maintained, or used under Part B of the IDEA.

○ Letter dated July 6, 2015, to New York attorney Edward Sarzynski, regarding the requirements in Part B of the IDEA that apply when parents from other countries enroll their children with disabilities in private schools.

○ Letter dated November 23, 2015, to New Jersey attorney Michael I. Inzelbuch, clarifying whether a local educational agency (LEA) may use a portion of the funds it must spend to provide equitable services to children with disabilities placed by their parents in private schools to pay the costs of a settlement agreement.

○ Letter dated July 16, 2015, to Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc., Director of Public Policy Mark McWilliams, regarding the resolution of State complaints under Part B of the IDEA that allege that a public agency has not implemented a behavioral intervention plan.

○ Letter dated September 18, 2015, to education advocate Marcie Lipsett, clarifying an SEA's responsibility to issue a written decision on a State complaint under Part B of the IDEA even if the SEA accepts an LEA's proposed resolution of the complaint.

○ Letter dated November 23, 2015, to New Mexico Public Education Department, Director of Special Education Michael Lovato, regarding the exception to the LEA maintenance of effort requirement due to the voluntary or just cause departure of special education or related services personnel.

○ Dear Colleague Letter dated October 23, 2015, regarding evaluations, eligibility determinations, and IEPs for children with dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia.

○ Letter dated September 16, 2015, to Illinois attorney Matthew D. Cohen, regarding various issues arising in due process complaints, resolution sessions, and due process hearings, including whether an LEA can unilaterally amend a child's IEP during a resolution meeting on a due process complaint and present that IEP as evidence in a subsequent due process hearing on that complaint.

○ Letter dated December 9, 2015, to Lehigh University Professor of Education and Law Perry A. Zirkel, regarding the statute of limitations for filing a request for a due process hearing.

○ Letter dated December 13, 2015, to California attorney Colleen A. Snyder, regarding the application of the expedited due process hearing procedures.

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.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research.

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481)(d)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Early Childhood Systems Technical Assistance Center.

Background:

To improve outcomes for, and protect the rights of, infants, toddlers, and preschool children (young children) with disabilities and their families, States must have effective systems 1 for implementing IDEA and providing high-quality services under Part C and Part B, section 619. Effective systems must include implementation supports 2 that enable local programs and practitioners to implement, with fidelity, services and interventions 3 supported by evidence (as defined in this notice). The majority of States, however, have identified areas for improvement within their systems (Lucas et al., 2015), and local programs often lack necessary implementation supports.

States can use the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP),4 a comprehensive, multiyear plan that is focused on improving a State-identified measureable result (SIMR), to plan how to enhance their systems to better implement IDEA and interventions based on evidence. States reported in their SSIPs multiple challenges that affect States' abilities to successfully implement their SSIPs, including the high turnover of State administrators and limited collaboration across those agencies that are part of delivering high-quality inclusive programs.5

In order to increase high-quality inclusive opportunities for children with disabilities, State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators must be active collaborators with other early childhood systems (e.g., home visiting programs, Head Start programs, child care programs, public preschool programs) and engage in broader early childhood initiatives within the State. Further, IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators report that they are often not included as partners on State and local leadership teams that are developed to address broader early childhood initiatives, but that collaboration with their IDEA counterparts is necessary for developing and increasing access and meaningful participation in inclusive settings for young children with disabilities.

This priority will fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a national Early Childhood Systems Technical Assistance Center (Center). The Center will provide TA to States to enable them to maintain high-quality systems with implementation supports to implement IDEA consistent with its requirements and to provide high-quality IDEA services for young children with disabilities and their families. The Center will work with IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators to increase their competencies to lead systemic improvements and work collaboratively with other early childhood systems to increase access to, and participation in, high-quality inclusive programs for young children with disabilities.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate an Early Childhood Systems Technical Assistance Center to achieve, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Increased capacity of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to improve and sustain State systems (including governance, finance, personnel and workforce, data, accountability and quality improvement, and quality standards) to effectively implement IDEA regulations and deliver high-quality IDEA services to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families.

(b) Increased capacity of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to include implementation supports within their State systems to support local programs in delivering effective services and interventions for young children with disabilities and their families.

(c) Increased capacity of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to implement their SSIPs and make progress towards meeting their SIMRs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families.

(d) Improved State and local systems to increase access to, and participation in, high-quality, inclusive programs for young children with disabilities.

(e) Increased knowledge, skills, and competencies of IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators to lead systemic improvement efforts, actively engage in broader early childhood initiatives, use TA effectively, and build more effective and sustainable State systems that provide high-quality services and inclusive learning opportunities that improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address the current and emerging needs of States under IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to implement and sustain high-quality, effective, and efficient systems that have the implementation supports in place to support local programs in delivering effective services and the DEC Recommended Practices within inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national and State data demonstrating the needs of States to improve their systems to implement IDEA, deliver high-quality IDEA services for young children with disabilities and their families, implement DEC Recommended Practices, and increase opportunities to participate in inclusive programs;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current issues and ongoing challenges to implementing IDEA in a manner consistent with its statutory and regulatory provisions, implementing the SSIP to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families, increasing the capacity of Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators to effectively lead systemic improvement, and supporting collaborative relationships between early childhood and IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs;

(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of broader early childhood initiatives and how IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs and children with disabilities could be included within the initiatives; and

(iv) Present information about the current capacity of IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs and coordinators to support systemic change and implement the recommendations in the Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, 2015).

(2) Improve IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 systems to ensure implementation of IDEA, and build capacity to support local programs to implement, scale up, and sustain high-quality services and inclusive programs, and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment to members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that TA services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the effectiveness of systems change, capacity building, and inclusive practices that will inform the TA and related research-based improvement strategies;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science or improvement science that will inform the proposed products; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its TA products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on: How to implement components of an effective IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 system identified in the Early System Framework for Building High-Quality Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Programs (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2015); implementation supports within the system to support providers in delivering effective services and implementing DEC Recommended Practices; and indicators of high-quality inclusion and how States, districts, and early childhood programs are implementing high-quality inclusive programs;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,6 which must identify the intended recipients of the products and services under this approach and should include, at minimum—

(A) A plan for ensuring that IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 program staff, other early childhood providers, and relevant TA centers can easily access and use products and services developed by the proposed project;

(B) A plan for increasing awareness and recognition at the national level of how IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 services and young children with disabilities and their families can be intentionally included within broader early childhood initiatives; and

(C) A plan for years 3-5 that describes activities, including developing and strengthening existing resources, guidance, and tools focused on supporting all IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs in implementing IDEA requirements and supporting the programs in meeting their SIMRs.

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,7 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current systems, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;

(D) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with the proposed Early Childhood Personnel Center to develop the content of professional development for IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators to increase their knowledge, skills, and competencies; and

(E) The process by which the proposed project will increase its TA efforts to States in years 3-5 to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,8 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current systems, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to build training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the Part C and Part B, section 619 and early childhood systems (e.g., regional TA providers, early intervention service programs and providers, local educational agencies (LEAs), Head Start programs, child care programs, home visiting programs, public preschools) and families to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of research-based practices;

(E) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;

(F) The process by which the proposed project will ensure the use of effective TA practices and continuously evaluate the practices to improve the delivery of TA; and

(G) The process by which the proposed project will increase its TA efforts in years 3-5 to support all IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs in implementing IDEA requirements and meeting their SIMRs.

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

(d) Demonstrate in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Allocation of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, doctoral and post-doctoral scholars, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

(3) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(4) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Four trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(5) Include, in the budget, a line item for the following:

(i) An annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with and approved by the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(ii) An annual budget of a minimum of $500,000 to address the need to increase knowledge and implement high-quality inclusive practices across early childhood systems;

(iii) An annual budget of a minimum of $200,000 to address the needs in the finance systems for Part C; and

(iv) An annual budget of a minimum of $50,000 to collaborate with the proposed Early Childhood Personnel Center, if funded, to increase the knowledge, skills and competencies of IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators

(6) Engage doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows in the project to increase future leaders in the field who are knowledgeable on effective IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 systems, implementation supports, interventions to support inclusion in early childhood programs, and effective TA practices;

(7) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(8) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Definitions:

For the purposes of this priority:

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

Supported by evidence means supported by at least strong theory.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.

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

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The purposes of this program are to: (1) Help address State-identified needs for personnel preparation in special education, early intervention, related services, and regular education to work with children, including infants and toddlers, with disabilities; and (2) ensure that those personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined through scientifically based research and experience, to be successful in serving those children.

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 662 and 681 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Early Childhood Personnel Center.

Background:

All infants, toddlers, and preschool children (young children) with disabilities should have access to high-quality early childhood programs (U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, 2015). To achieve this, it is essential to have an early childhood workforce 1 that is able to provide to young children with disabilities and their families the specialized services and supports necessary for active participation and ongoing learning in early childhood programs. Research suggests, though, that much of the current early childhood workforce is not adequately prepared to do this (National Governor's Association, 2010), as does a survey of IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators (Bruder, 2010).

To address this challenge, IDEA Part C (section 635) requires the State lead agency to develop and support high-quality, coordinated comprehensive systems of personnel development (CSPD) 2 and IDEA Part B (section 612) requires the State educational agency (SEA) to ensure that personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 coordinators have indicated that their greatest technical assistance (TA) need is in implementing a high-quality, cross-sector CSPD (Lucas et al., 2015).

A critical piece of a State CSPD is the quality of preservice preparation, but many programs that prepare early childhood educators do not require courses, content, or practicum experiences in working with young children with disabilities and their families. Furthermore, many programs do not address relevant personnel standards from State or national professional organizations in their curricula.

This priority will fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a national Early Childhood Personnel Center (Center) to improve the quality of personnel who serve young children with disabilities and their families. The Center will provide TA to State Part C and Part B, section 619 programs on implementing a high-quality CSPD. The Center will also provide to the faculty of institutions of higher education (IHEs) TA on programs of study for providing high-quality services and inclusive programs for young children with disabilities and their families.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate an Early Childhood Personnel Center (Center) to achieve, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Increased capacity of State IDEA Part C, Part B, section 619 programs, and other early childhood service sectors (e.g., Head Start, Early Head Start, Child Care, State-funded pre-K) to implement, scale up, and sustain a coordinated CSPD to ensure local personnel have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families;

(b) Increased knowledge, skills, and competencies of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators to lead systemic improvement efforts, actively engage in broader early childhood initiatives, use TA effectively, and build more effective and sustainable State systems that can support a competent early childhood workforce that can improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families; and

(c) Increased knowledge, skills, and competencies of early childhood IHE faculty to align programs of study to State and national professional organization personnel standards, integrate Division of Early Childhood (DEC) recommended practices 3 throughout early childhood curricula, and design programs of study utilizing adult learning principles.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address the need for States to be able to implement, scale up, and sustain a coordinated CSPD with personnel who have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national and State data demonstrating the need to improve State CSPDs, including data and information about the need to improve specific components of State CSPDs (e.g., leadership, coordination, and sustainability; State personnel standards; preservice personnel development; in-service personnel development; recruitment and retention; or evaluation);

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives relating to increasing the quantity and the knowledge, skills, and competencies of early childhood personnel working with young children with disabilities and their families; and

(iii) Present information about the current level of States' implementation of CSPDs, including information on the implementation of specific components of the CSPDs, and the current capacity of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators to support systemic change;

(2) Present information on the current state of IHEs' abilities to effectively prepare early childhood personnel to have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national data demonstrating the need to improve preservice preparation at the certificate, associate, bachelor's, and master's degree levels to align programs of study with State and national professional organization personnel standards, coordinate with in-service professional development, and integrate DEC recommended practices throughout the curricula;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current issues and policy initiatives relating to the preparation and professional development of a high-quality and competent early childhood workforce, including leadership personnel; and

(iii) Present information about the current capacity of faculty to align programs of study to State and national professional organization personnel standards, integrate DEC recommended practices throughout the early childhood curricula, and design programs of study utilizing adult learning principles; and

(3) Improve the early childhood workforce to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs that lead to improved outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families, and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that TA services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) The logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence (as defined in this notice). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the assessment of CSPDs, capacity building, and the quality and effectiveness of various approaches to in-service and preservice preparation;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation or improvement science that will inform the proposed TA to States, IHEs, and early childhood personnel; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current practices supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on—

(A) Building and implementing components of an effective CSPD;

(B) Identifying specific strategies that State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators can use to support a competent early childhood workforce that can improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families; and

(C) Providing implementation supports (e.g., professional development and training, ongoing consultation and coaching, data to support decision making, and administrative supports) needed by faculty and professional development providers to effectively prepare early childhood personnel to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,4 which must identify the intended recipients of the products and services under this approach and should, at minimum, include activities focused on—

(A) Identifying and developing materials, resources, and tools to help State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs implement the components of a CSPD;

(B) Identifying and developing resources, materials, and tools for faculty who prepare early childhood personnel to align programs of study to State and national professional organization personnel standards, integrate DEC recommended practices throughout the early childhood curricula, and design programs of study utilizing adult learning principles; and

(C) Identifying and developing resources and materials to increase awareness and recognition at the State and national level of the various personnel standards and competencies needed for early childhood personnel to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,5 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with other federally funded TA centers, including OSEP-funded centers, to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State;

(D) The process by which the proposed project will lead the development and delivery of professional development for State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators to increase their knowledge, skills, and competencies and collaborate with other federally funded TA centers, including OSEP-funded centers, to develop content for this professional development; and

(E) The process by which the proposed project will work with OSEP-funded personnel development projects to align the program of study to State and national professional organization personnel standards and integrate DEC recommended practices throughout the early childhood curricula.

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,6 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators to build CSPDs that include State standards, certification, and licensure requirements aligned to national professional organization personnel standards, and that include professional development, including coaching, for implementing the DEC recommended practices;

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the early intervention and early childhood system (e.g., regional TA providers, early intervention service programs and providers, LEAs, Head Start, child care, home visiting, State preschool, and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of practices supported by evidence;

(E) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with other federally funded TA Centers, including OSEP-funded centers. Include the process the project will use to develop one TA plan when multiple OSEP-funded centers are involved in a State or a coordinated TA plan when centers from other agencies are involved in a State; and

(F) The process by which the proposed project will ensure the use of TA practices supported by evidence and continuously evaluate the practices to improve the delivery of TA.

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Allocation of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, future leaders, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

(3) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(4) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kickoff meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Three trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(5) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with and approved by the OSEP project officer.

(6) Engage doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows in the project to enhance doctoral training and deepen the knowledge, skills, and competencies future leaders in the field need to effectively implement, scale up, and sustain a CSPD and prepare personnel to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families; and

(7) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Definitions:

For the purposes of this priority:

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

Supported by evidence means supported by at least strong theory.

References:

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 304.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $83,700,000 for the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $2,000,000 for this competition. 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.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Maximum Awards: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $2,000,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies; local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

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

3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: SEAs; State lead agencies; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

4. Other General Requirements:

(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

1. Address To Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected].

If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.325B.

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

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

Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:

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

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

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger.

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

The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit, or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: April 19, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 5, 2017.

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

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

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

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 2, 2017.

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

5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

Applications for grants under the Early Childhood Personnel Center competition, CFDA number 84.325B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

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

You may access the electronic grant application for the Early Childhood Personnel Center competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.325, not 84.325B).

Please note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

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

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

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

• You do not have access to the internet; or

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

and

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

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

Address and mail or fax your statement to: Tracie Dickson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5181, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7590.

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 84.325B), 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 84.325B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

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

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

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

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

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210.

a. Significance (5 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project will address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities that have been identified; and

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

b. Quality of the project services (40 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed activities and the quality of that framework;

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

(iv) The extent to which the proposed products and services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to the outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project; and

(v) The extent to which the products and services to be developed and provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, collaboration with appropriate partners, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

c. Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide data and performance feedback for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies and the progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the project has met intended outcomes.

d. Adequacy of project resources (15 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources, including the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (i.e., project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors);

(ii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization and key partners; and

(iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

e. Quality of management plan (20 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project; and

(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

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

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

3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

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

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects provide high-quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational policy and practice, and the use of products and services, to improve educational policy and practice.

Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).

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

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

Accessible Format: 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) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

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 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.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

Tentative Agenda: Receive STEAB Task Force updates and objectives for FY 2017, discuss follow-up opportunities and engagement with EERE and other DOE staff as needed to keep Task Force work moving forward, continue engagement with DOE, EERE and EPSA staff regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and initiatives, and receive updates on member activities within their states.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Michael Li at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/steab/state-energy-advisory-board.

I. Background

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to passage of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act) (33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note), which dedicates 80 percent of all Clean Water Act administrative and civil penalties related to the oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The RESTORE Act also created the Council, an independent Federal entity comprised of the five Gulf Coast states and six Federal agencies. Among other responsibilities, the Council administers a portion of the Trust Fund known as the Council-Selected Restoration Component in order to “undertake projects and programs, using the best available science, that would restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf Coast.” Additional information on the Council can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov.

On December 9, 2015, the Council approved the FPL, which includes projects and programs approved for funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, along with other activities the Council identified as priorities for potential future funding. Activities approved for funding in the FPL are included in “Category 1;” the priorities for potential future funding are in “Category 2.” In the FPL the Council approved approximately $156.6 million in Category 1 restoration and planning activities, and prioritized twelve Category 2 activities for possible funding in the future, subject to environmental compliance and further Council and public review. The Council included planning activities for the TBEP project elements in Category 1 and implementation activities for the TBEP project elements in Category 2.

The Council reserved approximately $26.6 million for implementing priority activities in the future. These reserved funds may be used to support some, all or none of the activities included in Category 2 of the FPL and/or to support other activities not currently under consideration by the Council. As appropriate, the Council intends to review each activity in Category 2 in order to determine whether to: (1) Move the activity to Category 1 and approve it for funding, (2) remove it from Category 2 and any further consideration, or (3) continue to include it in Category 2. A Council decision to amend the FPL to move an activity from Category 2 into Category 1 must be approved by a Council vote after consideration of public and Tribal comments.

The total amount available for implementation of the TBEP project elements would be $1,544,960. These funds would be used to implement five coastal restoration elements within the TBEP's watershed boundary: (1) Ft De Soto Recirculation and Seagrass Recovery Project; (2) St. Petersburg Biosolids to Energy Project; (3) Robinson Preserve Expansion Project; (4) Hillsborough County Parks Coastal Invasive Plant Removal Project; and (5) Copeland Park Pond Restoration Project.

Pursuant to Section 511(c) of the Clean Water Act, certain EPA actions are statutorily exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EPA has provided the Council with documentation confirming that the five elements listed above fall within this NEPA exemption. This documentation also contains information demonstrating compliance with other applicable laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The EPA would be required to adhere to all applicable terms and conditions contained in this compliance documentation. The Council therefore proposes to rely on the EPA's statutory exemption in accordance with Section 4(h) of the Council's NEPA Procedures (80 FR 25680 (May 5, 2015)) (NEPA Procedures).

Prior to approving an activity for funding in FPL Category 1, the Council must comply with NEPA (unless the given activity is exempt from NEPA) and other applicable Federal environmental laws. At the time of approval of the FPL, the Council had not fully addressed the environmental laws applicable to implementation of the TBEP project elements. The Council did, however, recognize the potential ecological value of the TBEP project elements, based on a review conducted during the FPL process. For this reason, the Council approved $100,000 in planning funds for the TBEP, a portion of which would be used to complete any needed environmental compliance activities. As noted above, the Council placed the implementation portion of the TBEP project elements into FPL Category 2, pending the outcome of this environmental compliance work and further Council review.

The estimated cost of implementation activities for the TBEP was $2,000,000, including the five restoration elements listed above, as well as two other elements that are not included in this proposed approval of implementation funding (i.e., the Palm River Restoration Project Phase II, East McKay Bay and Coopers Point Water Quality Improvement). In a separate Federal Register notice, issued March 17, 2017, the Council proposed approving implementation funding for Palm River Restoration Project Phase II, East McKay Bay, with Florida as the sponsor. The EPA continues to work on design, engineering and environmental compliance for Coopers Point Water Quality Improvement project element, and anticipates seeking Council approval of implementation funding for it at a later date.

Section 4(h) of the Council's NEPA Procedures provides:

In accordance with the above provision, the Council is proposing to rely upon the EPA's statutory NEPA exemption in association with approval of implementation funding for the following five TBEP elements: (1) Ft De Soto Recirculation and Seagrass Recovery Project; (2) St. Petersburg Biosolids to Energy Project; (3) Robinson Preserve Expansion Project; (4) Hillsborough County Parks Coastal Invasive Plant Removal Project; and (5) Copeland Park Pond Restoration Project.

The EPA has provided the Council with documentation confirming that the five elements listed above fall within the EPA's statutory NEPA exemption. This documentation also contains information demonstrating compliance with other applicable laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The EPA would be required to adhere to all applicable terms and conditions contained in this documentation.

The Council's reliance upon the EPA's statutory NEPA exemption does not in any way alter the Council's or the EPA's obligation to comply with other applicable laws.

The Council has reviewed the environmental compliance documentation provided by the EPA and has found that it addresses the laws applicable to Council approval of funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component. Information on the NEPA statutory exemption and the associated documentation can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov/funded-priorities-list. (See: Tampa Bay Estuary Program—Implementation.)

If approved for funding, the five TBEP restoration elements are expected to result in the following environmental benefits: An estimated reduction of 5,147 tons/year greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the Biosolids to Energy element; 14.8 acres of coastal upland habitat created or restored at Robinson Preserve, including approximately 4.42 acres of live oak hammock; 4.64 acres of pine flatwoods; 2.9 acres of coastal shrub; and 2.81 acres of coastal hammock; Hillsborough County Parks Coastal Invasive Plant Removal Project: Invasive plants removed on approximately 650 acres near Cockroach Bay; Circulation modeling, monitoring, and an estimated 200 acres of seagrass habitat enhanced or created at Fort DeSoto Park; and Shoreline restoration, littoral shelf development, and open water habitat restoration on a 1.83 acre pond at Copeland Park.

If approved for implementation funding, the five TBEP restoration elements are expected to result in approximately 664 acres of coastal habitat restored or enhanced and 200 acres of seagrass enhanced or created. Habitat restoration activities include exotics removal; tidal exchange restoration; and sheet flow restoration. Additionally, an estimated 5,147 tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year would be reduced, providing added climate change resiliency. GHG emissions reductions result from switching from fuel to biogas for municipal vehicles. Habitat restored, enhanced or created include: 200 acres of seagrass, 650 acres of coastal wetlands, 14 acres of coastal uplands, and 1.8 acres of freshwater wetlands. Habitat restoration includes invasive removal, sediment contouring, and native plantings.

Additional information on the TBEP restoration elements, including metrics of success, response to science reviews and more is available in an activity-specific appendix to the FPL, which can be found at https://www.restorethegulf.gov. (Please see the table on page 25 of the FPL and click on: Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Implementation.)

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

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

National Disease Surveillance Program II Disease Summaries (OMB Control Number 0920-0004, Expiration Date 10/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC requests a three-year approval for the revision of the National Disease Surveillance Program II Disease Summaries information collection.

As with the previous approval, these data are essential for measuring trends in diseases, evaluating the effectiveness of current preventive strategies, and determining the need to modify current preventive measures. The following diseases in this surveillance program are Influenza Virus, Caliciviruses, Respiratory and Enteric Viruses, Foodborne Outbreaks, Waterborne Outbreaks and Enteroviruses. Proposed revisions include form consolidation, minor revised language and rewording to improve clarity and readability of the data collection forms and the discontinuation of multiple previously approved influenza collection instruments, and the National Respiratory & Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) Laboratory Assessment (CDC 55.83). CDC requests the use of a new form, Suspect Respiratory Virus Patient Form, to assist health departments and clinical sites when they submit specimens to the CDC lab for viral pathogen identification. The data will enable rapid detection and characterization of outbreaks of known pathogens, as well as potential newly emerging viral pathogens.

The total burden estimate for all collection instruments in this revision request is 24,804. The frequency of response for each form will depend on the disease and surveillance need. This represents a 7,117 burden hour reduction since last approval. This reduction in burden hours is attributed primarily to the discontinuation of previously approved forms and formatting changes to existing forms.

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

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

Zika Postpartum Emergency Response Survey (ZPER), Puerto Rico, 2017—New ICR—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In December 2015, the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDH) reported the first locally acquired (index) case of Zika virus disease in the United States. Since then, 38,733 cases have been confirmed in Puerto Rico, including 3,076 among pregnant women. Because the most common mosquito vector of Zika virus, Aedes aegypti, is present throughout Puerto Rico, Zika virus transmission is ongoing. The island has been designated at the highest level of risk according to a 3-tiered Zika virus infection risk scale developed by CDC's Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

While pregnant women do not differ from the general population in terms of susceptibility to Zika virus infection or severity of disease, they are at risk for adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy. After review of the available evidence, CDC concluded that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of microcephaly and other brain defects.

Given the adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy, it is more important than ever to understand the Zika-related concerns of pregnant women, interactions regarding Zika between pregnant women and their health care providers, sources of information that pregnant women consult regarding Zika virus, and use of recommended precautions by pregnant women to reduce the risk of exposure to Zika virus. This information was successfully collected for the first time in a hospital-based survey of women 24-48 hours after delivery by the Puerto Rico Department of Health in the fall of 2016 (Emergency OMB approval, control #0920-1127), and has been critical for informing clinical guidance, developing communication messages, and providing resources for pregnant women.

The currently proposed data collection includes three components. The first component is a telephone follow-back survey among a subset of the original cohort of participants. This component would be the first population-based sample of postpartum women who were pregnant during the early period of the Zika outbreak, and would provide information on the accessibility and utilization of postpartum and newborn services, and continued adherence to Zika prevention behaviors. The second component would repeat the hospital-based survey in a second cohort of pregnant women to assess the effectiveness of emergency response efforts from the first mosquito season and to determine where there is a need for further refinement of efforts and outstanding resource gaps. As with the first cohort of women who participated in hospital-based survey, a subset of women in this second cohort would be invited to subsequently participate in a telephone follow-up survey. The third and final component will be a separate hospital-based survey for fathers of the infants born to mothers in the second cohort of women completing the hospital-based survey. This component would assess father's concerns about Zika related birth defects and contribution to prevention efforts.

There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.

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

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

ZIRP Puerto Rico Study: Zika Virus RNA Persistence in Pregnant Women and Congenitally-Infected Infants in Puerto Rico—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Zika virus (ZIKV) infection is a mosquito-borne flavivirus transmitted by Aedes species mosquitoes, and also through sexual and mother-to-child transmission; laboratory-acquired infections have also been reported. Evidence of human ZIKV infection was observed sporadically in Africa and Asia prior to 2007 when an outbreak of ZIKV caused an estimated 5,000 infections in the State of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia.

In addition to mosquito-to-human transmission, ZIKV infections have been documented through sexual transmission, blood transfusion, laboratory exposure, intrauterine transmission resulting in congenital infection, and intrapartum transmission from a viremic mother to her newborn. Along with serum, ZIKV RNA has been detected in semen, urine, breast milk, and amniotic fluid. ZIKV IgM antibodies are generally first detectable at 4 to 8 days after onset of illness and likely persist for weeks to months; however, the duration of persistence of anti ZIKV IgM antibodies is unknown as well as the timing form infection to the development of IgG antibodies. The prevalence of ZIKV RNA in various body fluids among patients with acute ZIKV infection and the length of time that ZIKV RNA might persist in these body fluids is not well understood, nor the frequency with which it is infectious.

A few small studies have suggested that testing pregnant women for Zika virus (ZIKV) more than seven days from symptom onset might detect women with persistence of ZIKV RNA. Less is known about persistent ZIKV RNA in congenitally-infected infants.

The Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDH) reported the first case of autochthonous transmission of Zika Virus (ZIKV) in December 2015. As of December 16, 2016, 35,648 confirmed ZIKV cases had been reported in Puerto Rico, more than any other location in the U.S., and the number is expected to rise. Among the confirmed cases, 2,864 have been among pregnant women, and the first case of microcephaly in a fetus with confirmed ZIKV infection was announced by the PRDH on May 13, 2016. Currently, testing for ZIKV infection can be done by either using rRT-PCR to detect the presence of ZIKV RNA or by serologic testing to detect IgM and neutralizing antibodies. rRT-PCR testing has been the preferred and suggested method for diagnosing ZIKV infection, but has a shorter testing window.

ZIKV RNA typically only persists in serum for 3-7 days and is thought to be cleared by 10 days. Currently, CDC recommends that all pregnant women living in areas with active ZIKV transmission such as Puerto Rico be tested. Symptomatic pregnant women should have serum and urine tested for the presence of ZIKV RNA by rRT-PCR within two weeks of symptom onset. Symptomatic pregnant women being tested more than two weeks after symptom onset and symptomatic women with negative rRT-PCR test results should have serologic testing. Asymptomatic pregnant women are recommended to have serologic testing at the initiation of prenatal care and again during their first and second trimesters as a part of routine care; serum and urine rRT-PCR testing should be done after a positive or equivocal serological test result.

Limited data from human studies suggest that pregnant women have persistent detection of ZIKV RNA. In one case report, a pregnant woman became symptomatic at 11 weeks gestation and was rRT-PCR-positive at 16 weeks gestation. In another case report, a pregnant woman tested positive by rRT-PCR 107 days after symptom onset. A recent case series found persistent detection of ZIKV RNA in five pregnant women. Symptomatic women had detectable virus at 17, 23, 44, and 46 days post symptom onset and one asymptomatic woman was still rRT-PCR positive 53 days after returning from travel. This pattern has led to the hypothesis that persistent detection of ZIKV RNA in pregnant women may be a marker of fetal infection and thus potentially a marker of adverse fetal outcomes including microcephaly.

The ZIRP Puerto Rico study aims to determine the prevalence and duration of ZIKV RNA persistence in pregnant women and congenitally infected infants. This information will be essential for establishing guidance for testing and clinical management of pregnant women and congenitally infected infants with exposure to ZIKV. Moreover, this study is expected to provide critical scientific information to help the United States prepare for the unprecedented challenges posed by Zika and possible clinical guidelines related to ZIKV RNA testing.

CDC is requesting emergency OMB review for six months of clearance. However, because information collection is expected to take two years, CDC will submit a non-emergency information collection request to OMB for an additional two years of clearance.

Authorizing Legislation for this information collection comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241)

There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.

Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006), provided the Department with the authority to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities. On April 9, 2007, the Department issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR), implementing this statutory mandate at 72 FR 17688. In December of 2014, the President signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (the CFATS Act of 2014), Public Law 113-254, which authorized the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, Public Law 107-296.4

The CFATS regulation (available at 6 CFR part 27) govern the security at covered chemical facilities that have been determined by the Department to be at high risk for terrorist attack. See 6 CFR part 27. CFATS represents a national-level effort to minimize terrorism risk to such facilities. Its design and implementation balance maintaining economic vitality with securing facilities and their surrounding communities. The regulations were designed, in collaboration with the private sector and other stakeholders, to take advantage of protective measures already in place and to allow facilities to employ a wide range of tailored measures to satisfy the regulations' Risk-Based Performance Standards.

In 6 CFR 27.400, CFATS establishes the requirements that covered persons must follow to safeguard certain documents and other information developed under the regulations from unauthorized disclosure. This information is identified as “Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information” and, by law, receives protection from public disclosure and misuse. The instruments within this collection will be used to manage the CVI program in support of CFATS. The current information collection for the CVI program (IC 1670-0015) will expire on September 30, 2017.5

The Department proposes the following revisions from the previously approved collection:

• Removal of the following instruments: (1) “Determination of CVI”; (2) Determination of a “Need to Know” by a Public Official”; (3) “Disclosure of CVI Information; (4) Notification of Emergency or Exigent Circumstances”; and (5) “Tracking Log for CVI Received” from this collection. As required by 5 CFR 1320.5, the Department reevaluated the continued need for each instrument in this collection. This evaluation resulted in a finding these instruments have historically been used rarely.

The Department expects that in many instances when the Department may need or want to collect information regarding emergency and/or unauthorized disclosure of CVI, the collection would not be covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act because the information would be collected during the conduct of an investigation involving specific individuals or entities. See 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(2) and 5 CFR 1320.4(a). The Department now encourages State and local officials to gain information regarding chemical facilities in their jurisdictions from the Department rather than from the facilities. Accordingly, these officials are now generally directed to IP Gateway. The information that must be collected routinely in order for such officials to gain access to IP Gateway has been authorized under OMB Control No. 1670-0009.

• A reduction of the number of respondents for the CVI Authorization instrument from 30,000 to 20,000. This estimate is based on historical data and the anticipated impact of the Department's revision of its Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) and enhancement of its risk tiering methodology for the CFATS program. See 81 FR 47001 (Jul. 20, 2016).

The current information collection estimated that 30,000 respondents (rounded estimate) would submit a request for a CVI Authorization annually. Based on data collected between CY 2014-2016, 13,115 respondents on average submitted information to obtain CVI Authorization on an annual basis. Historical data also indicates that the peak number of respondents for this instrument was 18,727 in 2008. However, the Department expects that annual usage in the next three years may increase from the CY 2014-2016 average based on new users who must become CVI authorized to submit Top-Screens following the Department's revision of CSAT and enhancement of its risk tiering methodology. See 81 FR 47001 (Jul. 20, 2016). For these reasons, the Department has revised the estimated number of respondents to 20,000.

In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a CVI Authorization is one hour. Based on data collected between Calendar Year (CY) 2014-2016 by the CSAT system measuring time spent by users to complete this instrument, the average response time is 0.50 hours (30 minutes). Based upon this data, the Department proposes to reduce the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit this instrument to 0.50 hours (30 minutes).

The annual burden hours for the CVI Authorization is [0.50 hours × 20,000 respondents × 1 response per respondent], which equals 10,000 hours.

The Department provides access to CSAT free of charge and assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.

There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.

The Department assumes that the majority of individuals who will complete this instrument are Site Security Officers (SSOs), although a smaller number of other individuals may also complete this instrument (e.g., Federal, State, and local government employees and contractors). For the purpose of this notice, the Department maintains this assumption. Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, the Department multiplied the annual burden of 10,000 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs of $67.72 per hour. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the CVI Authorization instrument is $677,200 [10,000 total annual burden hours × $67.72 per hour].

Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division.

Title: CFATS Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information.

OMB Number: 1670-0015.

Instrument: Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information Authorization.

Frequency: “On occasion” and “Other”.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 20,000 respondents (rounded estimate).

Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.50 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 10,000 annual burden hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

Total Burden Cost: $677,200.

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

On August 26, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. Steel's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21. On November 14, 2016, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 38), granting Respondents' motion to terminate Complainant's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18.

On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review the ID (Order No. 38). See 81 FR 94416-7 (Dec. 23, 2016). In the December 19, 2016, Notice, the Commission requested written submissions from “[t]he parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, and interested government agencies,” and set a date of March 14, 2017, for possible oral argument. Id.

On March 3, 2017, the Commission issued another notice seeking further written submissions from the public and rescheduling the date and time for the oral argument to April 20, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. See 82 FR 13133-4 (Mar. 9, 2017).

On March 30, 2017, the Commission issued another notice setting the procedure for the oral argument. See 82 FR 16417-8 (Apr. 4, 2017).

The Commission has determined to reset the time for the beginning of the oral argument to 10 a.m. on April 20, 2017.

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

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Drug Questionnaire.

(3) Agency form number, if any and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is DEA-341. The sponsoring component is the Drug Enforcement Administration.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals. Other: None.

DEA is requesting an extension of a currently approved collection. This collection requires the drug history of any individual seeking employment with DEA. DEA policy states that a past history of illegal drug use may result in ineligibility for employment. The form asks job applicants specific questions about their personal history, if any, of illegal drug use.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 15,000 respondents will complete each form in approximately 5 minutes.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,250 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA) Pledge Update information collection. This request covers a previously approved update to the CIPSEA pledge the BLS provides to many individuals responding to BLS surveys. As per OMB instruction, a single ICR has updated the CIPSEA confidentiality pledges used in numerous BLS data collections; however, the request does not otherwise affect the content, scope, burden, or the current expiration dates of any of these collections. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes the underlying information collections. See 29 U.S.C. 1, 2.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0190.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2016 (81 FR 88270).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0190. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-BLS.

Title of Collection: Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 Pledge Update.

OMB Control Number: 1220-0190.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 0 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

LSC revised its subgrant rule, 45 CFR part 1627, effective April 1, 2017. The revised rule requires LSC to publish, on an annual basis, “notice of the requirements concerning the format and contents of the application annually in the Federal Register and on its Web site.” 45 CFR 1627.4(b). This Notice and the publication of the Subgrant Application Forms on LSC's Web site satisfies § 1627.4(b)'s notice requirement for the Basic Field Grant program. Only current or prospective LSC grantees may apply. Notices regarding the subgrant application processes for 2018 Pro Bono Innovation Fund grants, Technology Initiative Grants, and 2017 mid-year Basic Field subgrants will be forthcoming.

Applications will be available the week of April 10, 2017. Subgrant applications must be submitted through LSC Grants at https://lscgrants.lsc.gov. Applicants must submit their applications by 5:00 p.m. E.D.T. on the due date identified below.

Applications for subgrants of calendar year 2018 Basic Field Grant funds must be submitted with the applicant's application for 2018 funding. 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(1). The deadlines for application submissions are as follows:

• June 5, 2017 for applicants that have not had an LSC Program Quality Visit (PQV) since January 1, 2015 and for applicants who are not current LSC recipients;

• June 12, 2017 for applicants that have had a PQV since January 1, 2015, have received a final PQV report by April 28, 2017, and are the only applicant for the service area;

• August 7, 2017 for applicants that have had a PQV since January 1, 2015, have received a final PQV report during the period May 1, 2017 through July 3, 2017, and are the only applicant for the service area.

The deadlines for the submission of final and signed subgrant agreements are as follows:

• September 1, 2017 for applicants required to submit applications by June 5 and 12, 2017.

• October 9, 2017 for applicants required to submit applications by August 7, 2017.

Applicants may also find these deadlines on LSC's Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/our-grant-programs/basic-field-grant/basic-field-grant-key-dates.

Applicants may access the application under the “Subgrants” heading on their LSC Grants home page. Applicants may initiate an application by selecting “Initiate Subgrant Application.” Applicants must then provide the information requested in the LSC Grants data fields, located in the Subrecipient Profile, Subgrant Summary, and Subrecipient Budget screens, and upload the following documents:

• A draft Subgrant Agreement (with the required terms provided in Subgrant Application Form A);

• Subgrant Inquiry Form B (for new subgrants) or C (for renewal subgrants);

• The subrecipient's accounting manual (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's most recent audited financial statement (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's most recent Form 990 filed with the IRS (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's current fidelity bond coverage (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one);

• The subrecipient's conflict of interest policy (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one); and

• The subrecipient's whistleblower policy (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one).

Subgrant Application Forms A, B, and C are available on LSC's Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/grantee-guidance/how-apply-subgrant.

LSC encourages applicants to use LSC's Subgrant Agreement Form (Form A) as a model subgrant agreement. If the applicant does not use LSC's Subgrant Agreement Form, the proposed agreement must include, at a minimum, the substance of the provisions of that form. LSC recommends that applicants pay careful attention to the terms included in, and instructions on, the Subgrant Agreement Form. Several of the terms have been modified from previous years and new terms have been added. LSC subgrant agreements effective after June 1, 2017 must reflect those modifications.

Once submitted, LSC will evaluate the application and provide applicants with instructions on any needed modifications to the information, documents, or Draft Agreement provided with the application. The applicant must then upload a final and signed subgrant agreement through LSC Grants by the timeframes referenced above. This can be done by selecting “Upload Signed Agreement” to the right of the application “Status” under the “Subgrant” heading on an applicant's LSC Grants home page.

As required by 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(1)(ii), LSC will inform applicants of its decision to disapprove or approve the subgrant no later than the date LSC informs applicants of LSC's 2018 Basic Field Grant funding decisions.

LSC revised its subgrant rule, 45 CFR part 1627, effective April 1, 2017. The revised rule requires LSC to publish, on an annual basis, “notice of the requirements concerning the format and contents of the application annually in the Federal Register and on its Web site.” 45 CFR 1627.4(b). This Notice and the publication of the Subgrant Application Forms on LSC's Web site satisfies § 1627.4(b)'s notice requirement for the Basic Field Grant program. Only current or prospective LSC grantees may apply. Notices regarding the subgrant application processes for subgranting 2018 LSC funds will be forthcoming.

Applications for subgrants of 2017 Basic Field Grant funds with starting dates between June 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018, must be submitted at least 45 days in advance of the proposed effective date. 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(3).

Subgrant applications must be submitted through LSC Grants at https://lscgrants.lsc.gov. Applicants may access the application under the “Subgrants” heading on their LSC Grants home page. Applicants may initiate an application by selecting “Initiate Subgrant Application.” Applicants must then provide the information requested in the LSC Grants data fields, located in the Subrecipient Profile, Subgrant Summary, and Subrecipient Budget screens, and upload the following documents:

• A draft Subgrant Agreement (with the required terms provided in Subgrant Application Form A);

• Subgrant Inquiry Form B (for new subgrants) or C (for renewal subgrants);

• The subrecipient's accounting manual (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's most recent audited financial statement (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's most recent Form 990 filed with the IRS (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one and why);

• The subrecipient's current fidelity bond coverage (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one);

• The subrecipient's conflict of interest policy (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one); and

• The subrecipient's whistleblower policy (or letter indicating that the subrecipient does not have one).

Subgrant Application Forms A, B, and C are available on LSC's Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/grantee-guidance/how-apply-subgrant.

LSC encourages applicants to use LSC's Subgrant Agreement Form as a model subgrant agreement. If the applicant does not use LSC's Subgrant Agreement Form, the proposed agreement must include, at a minimum, the substance of the provisions in that form. LSC recommends that applicants pay careful attention to the terms included in, and instructions on, the Subgrant Agreement Form. Several of the terms have been modified from previous years and new terms have been added. LSC subgrant agreements effective after June 1, 2017 must reflect those modifications.

Once submitted, LSC will evaluate the application and provide applicants with instructions on any needed modifications to the information, documents, or Draft Agreement provided with the application. The applicant must then upload a final and signed subgrant agreement through LSC Grants. This can be done by selecting “Upload Signed Agreement” to the right of the application “Status” under the “Subgrant” heading on an applicant's LSC Grants home page.

As required by 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(3), LSC will inform applicants of its decision to disapprove, approve, or request modifications to the subgrant by no later than the subgrant's proposed effective date.

The text of the order is attached.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) No. NPF-42 for the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 (WCGS) authorized to possess, use, and operate WCGS. WCGS is located in Coffey County, Kansas.

Pursuant to Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.80, “Transfer of licenses,” WCNOC requested consent from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to the indirect transfer of control of Renewed FOL No. NPF-42 for the WCGS by application dated July 22, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16208A250).

WCNOC is the licensed operator of WCGS and Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCP&L), Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E), and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCO) are the three non-operating owner licensees. KCP&L and KG&E each hold a 47 percent undivided interest in WCGS and 47 percent of the stock of WCNOC and KEPCO holds the remaining 6 percent interest. KCP&L is a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy Incorporated (Great Plains) and KG&E is a subsidiary of Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar). The indirect transfer of control will result from the proposed merger of Great Plains and Westar with Westar becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains. KCP&L and KG&E will each continue to hold their respective 47 percent interests in WCNOC and WCGS. KCP&L and KG&E will continue to operate as separate electric utilities responsible for their pro rata shares of the costs of operating WCGS and entitled to their pro rata shares of the capacity, energy, and other energy products produced by WCGS. Great Plains will indirectly own a combined interest in WCGS of 94 percent. The remaining 6 percent ownership interest will continue to be held by KEPCO. WCNOC will continue to be the operator of WCGS with the same management team as in effect prior to the consummation of the proposed merger.

In response to the submission of the indirect license transfer application, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice entitled, “Wolf Creek Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” on November 17, 2016 (81 FR 81176). In a letter dated December 13, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17079A255), KEPCO submitted a public comment in response to this notice, which stated, in part, that:

The NRC staff reviewed KEPCO's letter as part of its review of the WCNOC request for consent to the proposed indirect license transfer. The staff notes that, in its application, WCNOC stated that:

The proposed merger will result in one entity, Great Plains, indirectly owning a combined interest in WCGS of 94 percent, as opposed to two entities, Great Plains and Westar, each indirectly owning a 47 percent interest in WCGS. This does not affect the fact that, in either case, KEPCO indirectly owns a 6 percent interest in WCGS. Whether, as provided by KEPCO, the proposed merger will decrease KEPCO's influence over the financial and strategic planning for WCGS is not relevant to the NRC's review of the proposed indirect license transfer application under AEA Section 184 and 10 CFR 50.80. The NRC's authority with respect to license transfer applications is limited to evaluating financial qualification, decommissioning funding assurance, management and technical support organization, operating organization, foreign ownership, control, or domination, and nuclear insurance and indemnity issues as they relate to the public health and safety and the common defense and security. The relevant NRC regulatory requirements do not apply to strategic business or other corporate decisions and considerations. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the concerns identified by KEPCO do not impact its conclusion regarding the proposed indirect license transfer application.

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that WCNOC is qualified to hold the license following the proposed merger of Great Plains and Westar with Westar becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed indirect license transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.

The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety evaluation dated April 7, 2017, and available under ADAMS Accession No. ML17037D120.

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect license transfer is approved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect license transfer, WCNOC shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt, and of the date of closing of the transfer, no later than 5 business days prior to the date of the closing of the indirect license transfer. Should the proposed indirect license transfer not be completed within 1 year of this Order's date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and for good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated July 22, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16208A250), and the NRC Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17037D120), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].