Federal Register Vol. 82, No.76,

Title: Citrus Canker; Interstate Movement of Regulated Nursery Stock and Fruit From Quarantined Areas.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0317.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests, such as citrus canker, that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

Citrus canker is a plant disease that affects plant and plant parts, including fresh fruit of citrus and citrus relatives (family Rutaceae). Citrus canker can cause defoliation and other serious damage to the leaves and twigs of susceptible plants. It can also cause lesions on the fruit of infected plants and cause infected fruit to drop from trees before reaching maturity. The aggressive A (Asiatic) strain of citrus canker can infect susceptible plants rapidly and lead to extensive economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulations to prevent the interstate spread of citrus canker are contained in “Subpart—Citrus Canker” (7 CFR 301.75-1 through 301.75-17). The regulations restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from and through areas quarantined because of citrus canker and provide, among other things, conditions under which regulated nursery stock and fruit may be moved interstate. The interstate movement of regulated nursery stock and fruit from quarantined areas involves information collection activities, including compliance agreements, package marking, certificates, and limited permits.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.19 hours per response.

Respondents: Citrus growers and packinghouses.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 400.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 36.

Estimated annual number of responses: 14,402.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 2,742 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All 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.

Title: Importation of Potatoes From Mexico.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0413.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-76).

Section 319.56-66 of the regulations provides the requirements for the importation of potatoes from Mexico into the United States. As a condition of entry, the potatoes have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach as described in the regulations. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, such as a bilateral workplan, grower registration, packinghouse registration, inspections with agricultural seals, surveys, and phytosanitary certificates.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.15 hours per response.

Respondents: Producers of potatoes in Mexico, importers, and the national plant protection organization of Mexico.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 19.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 11.

Estimated annual number of responses: 205.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 236 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All 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.

NACIE, established by Section 25(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3720(c)), and managed by EDA's Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), is a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that provides advice directly to the Secretary of Commerce. NACIE's advice focuses on transformational policies and programs that aim to accelerate innovation and increase the rate at which research is translated into companies and jobs, including through entrepreneurship and the development of an increasingly skilled, globally competitive workforce. Comprised of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, angel investors, venture capitalists, and leaders from the nonprofit and academic sectors, NACIE has presented to the Secretary recommendations from throughout the research-to-jobs continuum regarding topics including improving access to capital, growing and connecting entrepreneurial ecosystems, increasing small business-driven research and development, and understanding the workforce of the future. In its advisory capacity, NACIE also serves as a vehicle for ongoing dialogue with the innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development communities.

The final agenda for the meeting will be posted on the NACIE Web site at http://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/ prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning the NACIE's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the contact information below. Those unable to attend the meetings in person but wishing to listen to the proceedings can do so through a conference call line accessible via +1 650 479 3207 with passcode 395 802 029 on May 2, 2017, and +1 650 479 3207 with passcode 395 621 725 on May 3, 2017. Copies of the meeting minutes will be available by request within 90 days of the meeting date.

On October 14, 2016, the Department published its Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of OTR tires from the PRC.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. On December 22, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department extended the period for issuing the final results of this review by sixty-days, to April 12, 2017.2

We received case briefs from Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“Petitioners”), the mandatory respondents Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (“Xugong”) 3 and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (“GTC”),4 and separate rate applicants Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Aeolus”) and Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao FTZ”). We received rebuttal briefs from Petitioners, Xugong, GTC, and separate rate applicants Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited (“Zhongce”) and Qingdao Jinhaoyang International Co., Ltd. (“Jinhaoyang”). On February 15, 2017, the Department held a public hearing at the request of interested parties. For a further discussion of the events that occurred in this investigation subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment certification from Trelleborg Wheel Systems Hebei Co. (“TWS Hebei”).6 Consistent with its practice, the Department asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to conduct a query on potential shipments made by TWS Hebei during the POR. CBP did not provide any evidence contradicting TWS Hebei's no-shipment claim.7 No interested party provided comments on this issue. Thus, based on TWS Hebei's certification and our analysis of information received from CBP, we determine that TWS Hebei did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.

In the Preliminary Results, we determined that Shiyan Desizheng Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. (“Desizheng”), Sailun Jinyu Group Co., Ltd. (“Sailun”), Weifang Jintongda Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Jintongda”), Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (“TWS Xingtai”), Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (“Zhongwei”), Zhongce, Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. (“Qihang”), Jinhaoyang, and Qingdao FTZ are eligible for separate-rate status. We also preliminarily determined that Aeolus, Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Leviathan”), and GTC were not eligible for a separate rate, and are thus part of the PRC-wide entity.8 We made no changes to these determinations for the final results. For further discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be assigned to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.9 Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to determine the dumping margin for companies not individually examined by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.10 In this review, we have calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Xugong that is above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available. Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, we have assigned to Desizheng, Jinhaoyang, Jintongda, Sailun, Qingdao FTZ, Qihang, TWS Xingtai, Zhongwei, and Zhongce the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Xugong as the separate rate for this review.

Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain calculation changes and revisions to the valuation of certain factors of production since the Preliminary Results with respect to Xugong's margin calculation, and have updated Xugong's margin accordingly. For further details on the changes made since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.11

In light of changes made since the Preliminary Results which altered Xugong's margin, we have updated the separate rate that was preliminarily assigned to Desizheng, Jinhaoyang, Jintongda, Sailun, Qingdao FTZ, Qihang, TWS Xingtai, Zhongwei, and Zhongce to reflect Xugong's margin for the final results.

As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015:

Additionally, as in the Preliminary Results, the Department determines that Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Corporation, Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd., are part of the PRC-wide entity.

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

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).12 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of administrative review.

For Xugong, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For customers or importers of Xugong for which we do not have entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.13 For customers or importers of Xugong for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates.14 Where an importer- or (customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.15 For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 33.08 percent. For those entities that are subject to this review that the Department has determined are part of the PRC-wide entity (i.e., GTC and GTCIE, Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd.), we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent.16 Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy (“NME”) practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.17 In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Final Results” section of this notice, above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

NASCTN provides a neutral forum for addressing spectrum-sharing challenges to accelerate the deployment of wireless technologies among commercial and federal users. NASCTN was created in 2015 and is a joint effort among NIST, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the United States Department of Defense. NASCTN's mission is to provide robust test processes and validated measurement data necessary to develop, evaluate and deploy spectrum sharing technologies that can increase access to the spectrum by both Federal agencies and non-federal spectrum users. NASCTN conducts projects with private sector entities via Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA).1 NASCTN has completed the “Impacts of LTE Signals on GPS Receivers” project and released the NASCTN report “LTE Impacts on GPS” on February 15, 2017. The report describes the project, the test methodology and the test results and is available at: http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1952.pdf.

The focus of this NASCTN project, proposed by Ligado Networks in 2016 and conducted under a CRADA between NIST and Ligado Networks, was the development of a test methodology to: (1) Investigate the impact of LTE signals on GPS devices that operate in the GPS L1 frequency band; and (2) perform radiated radio-frequency measurements on a representative set of GPS devices to validate the test methodology.

At the start of the project, NASCTN convened a panel of technical experts to develop a test plan with the following objectives: Develop a test plan that is transparent, reproducible, and well-calibrated; develop sound, statistically-valid data retrieval and processing techniques; provide a clear path from measurement setup, to data collection, to processed results; and provide data to inform discussions between different interested parties on proper measurement requirements. The goal was to make reproducible measurements under clearly-defined test conditions to isolate impacts of radiated LTE signals on GPS receivers, and to allow others to make comparable measurements if desired. To accomplish this, the approach aimed to measure the response of selected GPS devices given well-controlled GPS and LTE power levels under fixed, stable thermal noise conditions, while limiting the number of other extraneous variables.

In May of 2016, the NASCTN team completed the draft test plan and distributed it to a cross-section of GPS manufacturers, Federal agencies, and spectrum regulators and released it publicly for comments to obtain technical feedback on the proposed method. Over a two-month period, NASCTN received 159 comments from 10 different organizations. The NASCTN test team reviewed the comments and developed a revised test plan in July of 2016 that addressed the technical issues raised in the comments. The draft test plan, the revised test plan, and the adjudicated comments from the review process are all publicly available on the NASCTN Web site at: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/impact-lte-signals-gps-receivers.

Over a three-month period, from August through October 2016, NASCTN performed the radiated measurements associated with this project at two facilities—a semi-anechoic chamber at National Technical Systems in Longmont, Colorado and at a fully-anechoic chamber at the NIST Broadband Interoperability Testbed facility in Boulder, Colorado, using the revised test plan.

NASCTN relied on technical staff from NIST and the U.S. Army's Electronic Proving Grounds to perform and validate the measurements and collect the data. The team was multi-disciplinary, including expertise in GPS devices and simulation, radiated radio-frequency measurements, timing measurements, microwave metrology, statistical analysis and data processing.

In total, NASCTN performed 1,476 hours of testing and collected over 19,000 data files for a variety of measurands, including carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0), 3D position error, timing error, number of satellites in view, time to first fix, and time to first reacquisition, that were collected from a number of GPS devices at a baseline condition (no LTE signals present) and over a large range of LTE signal power levels. Subsequent data processing yielded a set of 3,859 anonymized data files (780 MB) that may be requested here: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/02/15/impact_of_lte_on_gps_-_measurement_data_request_form.pdf. More information on this NASTCN project, including the document library and the archived draft test plan, the revised test plan, adjudicated comments, and supplemental information, is available at: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/impact-lte-signals-gps-receivers.

Due to significant interest in these measurements by regulators for assessing LTE signals on performance of GPS devices, Federal agencies, and the GPS community, NASCTN is hosting a public meeting to provide an overview of the project, the test methodology and the test results. NASCTN will also answer questions on the project, the testing methodology and the test results. The final agenda for the public meeting will be posted on the NASCTN Web page, available at: https://www.nist.gov/communications-technology-laboratory-ctl/nasctn.

Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend the NASCTN “LTE Impact on GPS Devices” public meeting must register by email to [email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May, 2 2017. Please provide your first and last name, email address, phone number, and company affiliation in the registration email.

Seating at the public meeting may be limited, and attendance will be “first-come, first-served,” on a space-available basis.

The public meeting will also be accessible via WebEx for those who are unable to participate in person. If you wish to have access to the WebEx, you must register in advance of the meeting by sending an email with your first and last name, email address, phone number, and company affiliation provided in the message to Dr. Sheryl Genco at [email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 3, 2017. Instructions for accessing the WebEx will be provided by email to individuals who register.

The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible).

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

The items of discussion during the post-Data Workshop webinar are as follows:

Panelists will present finalized data for review and recommendation.

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

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved national estuarine research reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

Specific information on the periodic evaluation of reserves that are the subject of this notice are detailed below as follows:

You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:

Written comments must be received on or before June 21, 2017.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to film killer whales at various locations outside of Seward, Alaska, over six days in May, and in Juneau, AK over six days at the end of July. In Seward, a maximum of 300 killer whales will be intentionally filmed while 100 Dall's porpoise, and 400 Pacific white-sided dolphins may be incidentally harassed and approached for filming. In Juneau, a maximum of 100 killer whales would be intentionally filmed. Filming would occur from cameras on board a vessel or by helicopter. Hydrophones would be used to record vocalizations. Footage would be used for an Alaska Live television series to showcase the gathering of wildlife in Alaska that occurs around the salmon runs. The permit would be valid through August 31, 2017.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The charge of this AP is to provide recommendations to the Council on private recreational red snapper management measures which would (1) provide more quality access to the resource in federal waters, (2) reduce discards, and (3) improve fisheries data collection.

The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private Recreational AP on May 8-9, 2017 at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/752478651748328450.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private Rec AP meeting-2017-05”.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

I. Background and Authority

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and charged it with ensuring the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network, based on a single, national network architecture.1 FirstNet is responsible for, at a minimum, ensuring nationwide standards for use and access of the network; issuing open, transparent, and competitive requests for proposals (RFPs) to build, operate, and maintain the network; encouraging these RFPs to leverage, to the maximum extent economically desirable, existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network; and managing and overseeing contracts with non-federal entities to build, operate, and maintain the network.2 FirstNet holds the single public safety license granted for wireless public safety broadband deployment. The FirstNet Board is responsible for providing overall policy direction and oversight of FirstNet to ensure the success of the nationwide network.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed action.

The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 2/10/2017 (82 FR 10337-10338), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

On 2/24/2017 (82 FR 11562), 3/10/2017 (82 FR 13312-13313) and 3/17/2017 (82 FR 14208), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The Committee plans to submit a request to OMB to approve a collection of information concerning the qualifications of nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind or who have other significant disabilities to participate in the AbilityOne Program. The Committee is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the current collections of information are 3037-0001 and 3037-0002. The OMB control number for the revised collection of information is 3037-0013.

The JWOD Act of 1971 (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) is the authorizing legislation for the AbilityOne Program. The AbilityOne Program creates employment and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other significant disabilities. Its primary means of doing so is by requiring Government agencies to purchase certain products and services from nonprofit agencies (NPA) employing such individuals. The AbilityOne Program is administered by the Committee. Two national, independent NPAs designated by the Committee, National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and SourceAmerica, help State and private nonprofit agencies participate in the AbilityOne Program.

The implementing regulations for the JWOD Act, which are located at 41 CFR Chapter 51, provide the requirements, procedures, and standards for the AbilityOne Program. Section 51-4.3 of the regulations sets forth the standards that a nonprofit agency must meet to maintain qualification for participation in the AbilityOne Program. Under this section of the regulations, a nonprofit agency that wants to continue to participate in the AbilityOne Program must submit a completed copy of the appropriate (Annual Representations and Certifications for AbilityOne Qualified Nonprofit Agency (OMB number 3037-0013). This documentation helps the Committee determine whether the nonprofit agency is meeting the requirements of the AbilityOne Program.

This information collection request seeks approval for the Committee to collect the information required under 41 CFR 51-4.3 of the regulations as part of its process to evaluate nonprofit agency qualifications under 41 CFR 51-2,4(a)(2). Whenever the result of a nonprofit agency's request to the Committee for the addition of a new product or service to the Procurement List (PL) exceeds $500,000 in total contract value, the nonprofit agency will be required to complete a project specific representations and certification form to ensure that the Committee has up-to-date and complete information about the nonprofit agency's qualifications to participate in the AbilityOne Program. This form is completed only for new additions of products or services to the PL, and does not include administrative additions, or any other administrative or fair market price changes, to the PL. The already established annual representations and certification form (OMB number: 3037-0013) will continue to be required. The project specific representations and certification form being certified has been developed to include the regulatory requirements of section 51-4.3 and to collect other information pertinent to the Committee's determination of nonprofit agency qualifications under 41 CFR 51-2.4(a) (b).

Title: Project Specific Representations and Certification Form for AbilityOne Qualified Nonprofit Agency.

OMB Control Number: 3037-0014.

Form Number: Project Specific Reps and Certs.

Description of Respondents: Nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind or significantly disabled that participate in the AbilityOne Program.

Annual Number of Respondents: About 469 nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind or significantly disabled annually participate in the AbilityOne Program.

Total Annual Burden Hours: Burden is estimated to average 2 hours per respondent. Total annual burden is 938 hours. Note: This burden estimate is only for the nonprofit agencies that will be submitting addition requests for a product or service with a total contract value exceeding $500,000. Therefore, not all participating NPAs will be required to complete the form.

We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the existing collections of information listed below.

Title: Real-Time Public Reporting and Block Trade (OMB Control No. 3038-0070). This is a request for extension of currently approved information collections.

Abstract: Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) added to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) new section 2(a)(13), which establishes standards and requirements related to real-time reporting and the public availability of swap transaction and pricing data. Section 2(a)(13) and part 43 of the Commission's Regulations require reporting parties to publish real-time swap transactions and pricing data to the general public. Without the frequency of reporting set forth in part 43, the Commission would not be able to adequately assess the swap markets and, more importantly, would fail to achieve the frequency of reporting and promotion of increased price discovery in the swaps market which are mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.

With respect to these information collections, the Commission invites comments on:

• Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: Part 43 of the Commission's regulations results in three information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA.2 The first collection of information requirement under part 43 imposes a reporting requirement on registered swap execution facilities (“SEFs”) or designated contract markets (“DCMs”) when a swap is executed on a trading facility or on the parties to a swap transaction when the swap is executed bilaterally. The second collection of information requirement under part 43 of the Commission's regulations creates a public dissemination requirement on registered swap data repositories (“SDRs”). The third collection of information requirement imposes a recordkeeping requirement for SEFs, DCMs, SDRs and any reporting party (as such term is defined in part 43 of the Commission's regulations).

The Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 40 SEFs, there currently are 25 SEFs either registered with the Commission or with registrations pending.3 The Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 18 DCMs, there currently are 15 DCMs registered with the Commission.4 The Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 15 SDRs, there currently are 4 SDRs registered with the Commission.5 Based on the experience gained by the Commission with regard to SDRs, the Commission estimates that rather than the initial estimate of 750 reporting parties who are not swap dealers (“SDs”) or major swap participants (“MSPs”), and who contract with third parties to satisfy their reporting obligations, there are 496 such reporting parties.6 The Commission estimates that rather than the initial estimate of 250 reporting parties who are not swap dealers (“SDs”) or major swap participants (“MSPs”), and who satisfy their reporting obligations themselves, there are 207 such reporting parties.7 The burden hours for each entity category based upon these new estimates are noted in the applicable table below.

Respondents/Affected Entities: SEFs.

Estimated number of respondents: 25.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 52,000 hours.8

Respondents/Affected Entities: DCMs.

Estimated number of respondents: 15.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 31,200 hours.9

Respondents/Affected Entities: SDRs.

Estimated number of respondents: 4.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 27,600 hours.10

Respondents/Affected Entities: Non SD/MSPs Using Third Party.

Estimated number of respondents: 496.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 10,912 hours.11

Respondents/Affected Entities: Non SD/MSPs Reporting Themselves.

Estimated number of respondents: 207.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 139,932 hours.12

In addition to the above burden hours for compliance with part 43 obligations generally, the Commission determined that certain market participants would incur burden hours associated with the masking of the geographic detail of the underlying assets to a swap in the other commodity asset class, and with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade or large notional off-facility swap.13 The Commission initially estimated that respondent SDRs would incur an aggregate of 833 annual burden hours in connection with the masking of geographic detail of the underlying assets to a swap in the other commodity asset class.14 Based on the Commission's observation of registered SDRs' operations and compliance with part 43's requirements, the Commission is increasing this estimate and now estimates that SDRs will incur an aggregate of 3,307 annual burden hours in connection with the masking of geographic detail of the underlying assets to a swap in the other commodity asset class.15

The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,167 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade.16 Based on the Commission's observation of market participants' compliance with part 43's requirements, the Commission is increasing this estimate and now estimates that market participants will incur an aggregate of 3,648 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade.17

The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,255 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a large notional off-facility swap.18 Based on the Commission's observation of market participants' compliance with part 43's requirements, the Commission is increasing this estimate and now estimates that market participants will incur an aggregate of 77,230 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a large notional off-facility swap.19

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

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

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

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

A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2017 at 82 FR 7804. This comment period ended March 24, 2017. No public comments were received from this Notice.

Description: CNCS seeks to renew the current AmeriCorps State and National Application Instructions. The information collection will be used in the same manner as the existing Instructions. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application expired on January 31, 2017.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Application Instructions: State Commissions, State and National Competitive, Professional Corps, Indian Tribes, States and Territories without Commissions, and State and National Planning.

OMB Number: 3045-0047.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Nonprofit organizations, States, Territories, and Local, and Tribal eligible entities.

Total Respondents: 1,159.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time per Response: Averages 80 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 92,720.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

As a result of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, Congress passed Public Law 113-2, which authorized supplemental appropriations to Federal agencies for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy. The Corps is investigating measures to reduce future flood risk in ways that support the long‐term resilience and sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and surrounding communities, and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with flood and storm events. In support of this goal, the Corps completed the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NAACS), which identified nine high risk areas on the Atlantic Coast for further analysis based on preliminary findings. The Nassau County Back Bays area was identified as one of the nine areas of high risk, or Focus Areas, that warrants an in-depth investigation into potential coastal storm risk management measures.

During Hurricane Sandy, the study area communities were severely affected with large areas subjected to erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline, and flooding of communities within and surrounding Bays. Along the Atlantic Ocean, surge and waves inundated low lying areas, and contributed to the flooding along the shoreline of the interior of the Bays. Hurricane Sandy illustrated the need to re-evaluate the entire back-bay area as a system, when considering risk-management measures. Acknowledging the amount of analyses required to comprehensively reevaluate the study area considering the influence of the Atlantic Ocean shorefront conditions on the back-bay system, an EIS will be prepared. The EIS will build upon the extensive Atlantic shoreline alternatives analysis and environmental and technical studies and outreach conducted to date. The scope of analysis will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for an EIS and will receive input from the public and reviewing agencies. The analysis will provide the basis for the alternatives to problems associated with storm surge and wave damage along the back-bays.

The study area includes all of the tidally influenced bays and estuaries located in and hydraulically connected to the south shore of Nassau County, New York, located on Long Island, NY, directly east of Queens County and west of Suffolk County for approximately 98 square miles.

As required by Council on Environmental Quality's Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need will be considered in the EIS. These alternatives will include no action and a range of reasonable alternatives for managing flood risk within the Nassau County Back Bays Area. The measures to be evaluated will be the subject of additional public stakeholders and agency coordination. The result of this coordination early on in the process will identify any concerns, potential impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions which will aid in the Corps developing an EIS for the entire study area. This decision making approach will allow time to address agency policy issues and build consensus among cooperating agencies and the public.

The Corps has scheduled meeting to invite the public to come and comment on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the draft EIS. The Nassau County Back Bay, NEPA Scoping Meeting will be held:

Each of the public meetings will begin with an informal open house followed by the formal presentation. Input will also be received through written comments, comments may be submitted during the scoping meetings, or via mail or email at any time.

The Corps is the lead federal agency and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation will be the nonfederal sponsor for the study and the preparation of the EIS and meeting the requirements of the NEPA and its Implementing Regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508). Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel David A. Caldwell, District Engineer (see ADDRESSES). The preparation of the EIS will be coordinated with New York State and Nassau County offices with discretionary authority relative to the proposed actions. The Draft Integrated Feasibility Report/EIS is currently scheduled for distribution to the public in 2019.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to: (1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students with disabilities in a timely manner.1

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority and the competitive preference priorities within this priority are from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) 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:

Stepping-up Technology Implementation.

The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to: identify strategies needed to effectively implement research-based technology tools 2 that benefit students with disabilities, and develop and disseminate products 3 that will help a broad range of schools to effectively implement these technology tools.

Congress recognized in IDEA that “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities” (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA).

Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students with disabilities. The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the general education curriculum. Additionally, the development of newer technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education is rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).

Technologies can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As stipulated in section 4109 of the Every Student Succeeds Act, technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences.

Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals and offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for students with disabilities.

In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation 4 of instructional and assistive technology tools in early childhood or K-12 settings.5

The purpose of this priority is to fund five cooperative agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing technology tools based on evidence that benefit students with disabilities; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3; e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist personnel in early childhood or K-12 settings to readily use, understand, and implement these technology tools.

To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.

An applicant must include in its application—

(a) A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice);

(b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;

(d) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;

(e) Documentation that the technology tool is fully developed, is based on evidence, and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal design:

(1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and Web sites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech, changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of different reading levels);

(2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and

(3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning activities or content for a particular competency or skill and providing opportunities for increased collaboration or scaffolding); 6

(f) A plan for how the project will sustain the proposed technology tool or strategy, supported by evidence, after funding ends;

(g) A plan for recruiting and selecting 7 the following:

(1) Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development 8 of the products and resources intended to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two;

(2) Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and

(3) Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination schools will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination schools will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination school, eligible schools and LEAs must commit to working with the project to implement the research-based technology tool. A school may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination);

(h) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school or early childhood setting; persistently lowest-achieving school or high-needs school (as defined in this notice)) about the development, pilot, and dissemination schools; student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data; and

(i) A budget for attendance at the following:

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

(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.

(3) Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.

To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

(a) Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraph (g) of the Application Requirements section of this notice.

(b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to support technology tool implementation, create accessible learning opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, and will support the sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development schools, followed by a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot schools. To support implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, at a minimum, include:

(1) An instrument or method for assessing—

(i) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes;

(ii) The school staff's current technology uses and needs, current technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel; and

(iii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, and survey of teachers' interests.

(c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it into the curriculum.

(d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness.

(e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products.

(f) If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination schools that are not the same schools used as development or pilot schools.

(g) Collect summative data about the success of the products in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination schools; and

(h) By the end of the project period, provide—

(1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool;

(2) A plan for implementing the technology that includes relevant information (e.g., data on how teachers used the technology, data on how technology impacted student outcomes, how technology was implemented with fidelity, features of universal design);

(3) Information on how the technology tool achieved its intended outcomes related to early childhood (e.g., data to assess how well the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model), academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities; and

(4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the schools directly involved in the project.

OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:

(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and collaborate around implementation and specific project issues; and

(b) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation).

The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes (e.g., provides data that demonstrate the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model) and making a positive contribution to the implementation of a research-based technology tool in the development and pilot schools. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month award. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and will consider:

(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third 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) Evidence of the degree to which the project's activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.

Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets one of the competitive preference priorities. Applicants may address only one competitive preference priority. Applications will only be awarded two or zero points and must identify which competitive preference priority they are addressing.

The priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities. (Two Points).

To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must be designed to support teachers in providing access through technology to the general education curriculum aligned with State grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement standards in mathematics and English language arts (K-12) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Teachers of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will be able to use the technology to differentiate grade-level instruction effectively and will be able to better track student progress toward grade-level proficiency. Applicants responding to the competitive preference priority must—

(a) Identify technology tools based on evidence needed to implement an English language arts or mathematics curriculum aligned with State grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities;

(b) Identify a curriculum and performance tracking tool for use by teachers for the purpose of assessing the outcomes of the technology's intended use on individualized instruction aligned to K-12 grade—level content standards, or alternate academic achievement standards, in English language arts and mathematics appropriate to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; and

(c) Develop and disseminate accessible products and resources (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist teachers in K-12 settings to implement the technology.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Projects Supported by Evidence of Promise (Two Points).

To meet this competitive preference priority, applicants must include in the literature review required under the absolute priority (paragraph (a) under the heading Application Requirements) research that meets at least the evidence of promise standard and that supports the promise (i.e., evidence base) of the proposed model under the absolute priority and its components and processes.

Competitive Preference Priority 3—Technology to Support Instructors and Students in Juvenile Correctional Facilities (Two Points).

To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must provide technology to support instructors and students in juvenile correctional facilities that—

(a) Allows instructors to immediately assess a student's current grade-level ability when the student moves into a juvenile correctional facility without having the appropriate educational information (e.g., individualized education program, section 504 plans, behavior intervention plans). Technology can also allow instructors to develop education plans in addition to individualized education programs required for students with disabilities under IDEA and plans that describe services required for students with disabilities under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

(b) Equips instructors with tools and resources to enhance the classroom experience, such as flipped classrooms, blended learning, and other models and methods that would allow students to make educational gains in and outside of the classroom; and

(c) Expands the reach of correctional education services to provide more incarcerated individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to graduate.

These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), as marked.

The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:

Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

(i) There is at least one study that is a—

(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

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

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

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

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

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities:

Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State—

(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and that—

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both—

(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

(ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.

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.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $30,047,000 for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $2,500,000 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.

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $471,352 per year.

Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 5.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

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

(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 must, with respect to the aspects of the proposed project relating to the absolute priority, 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: 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 package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327S.

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 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 in the application narrative section, or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: April 21, 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 4, 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 Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition, CFDA number 84.327S, 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 Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation 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 84.327, not 84.327S).

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: Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, 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 84.327S), 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.

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 84.327S), 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 maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The application narrative should include the following sections in this order:

(a) Significance (10 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(1) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed, and the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or carried out by the proposed project;

(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and how the specific gaps or weaknesses will be addressed by the proposed project;

(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies and the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study; and

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of children with disabilities.

(b) Quality of project services (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project.

(1) In determining the quality of the products and/or 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.

(2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project reflect current knowledge from research and effective practice;

(ii) The extent to which the products and/or services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to outcomes as intended by the proposed project;

(iii) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed, project, involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;

(iv) The likely utility of the products and/or services that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings; and

(v) The extent to which the products and resources developed by the proposed project include accessible accessibility features, supporting the sustained implementation of the technology tool or strategy.

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

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(1) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers 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 the proposed logic model or conceptual framework depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, reflects current knowledge from research and effective practice; supported by strong theory; a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy is fully-developed, evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college and career readiness; and

(v) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy addresses the following principles of universal design: (a) Multiple means of representation so students can approach information in more than one way; (b) multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate and express what they know; and (c) multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning.

(d) Quality of the management plan (25 points).

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

(1) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section and 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 and qualifications of the project director and principal investigator, including relevant training and experience of key project personnel, project consultants or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(iii) The adequacy of the plan for recruiting and selecting:

(a) The three development schools (the sites in which iterative development of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with at least one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two;

(b) Four pilot schools (the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and

(c) Ten dissemination schools. The dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development and pilot schools;

(iv) The adequacy of the information (e.g., early childhood setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-achieving school; priority school) about the development, pilot, and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data;

(v) The adequacy of the plan to which the results and accompanying products of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies; and

(vi) The adequacy of the plan to sustain the technology after funding ends.

(e) Adequacy of resources (10 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

(1) In determining the quality of project personnel, 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.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; and

(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).

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

(1) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the context within which the project operates, and include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data;

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for the examination of the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation is linked to the proposed project's logic model is appropriate for the formative evaluation, describing how performance objectives in plan will ensure continuous performance feedback and improvement and assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes in the operation of the proposed project's activities.

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.

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

4. Performance Measures: 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 Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. 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 performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).

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.

Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.

Report title: Survey of Small Business and Farm Lending.

Agency form number: FR 2028B, FR 2028D, and FR 2028S.

OMB control number: 7100-0061.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Respondents: Commercial banks.

Estimated number of respondents: FR 2028B—250; FR 2028D—398; and FR 2028S—250.

Estimated average hours per response: FR 2028B—1.4 hours; FR 2028D—1.5 hours; FR 2028D (First Time only)—1.5 hours; and FR 2028S—0.1 hours.

Estimated annual burden hours: 4,485 hours.

General Description of Report: The STL collects unique information concerning price and certain nonprice terms of loans made to businesses and farmers during the first full business week of the mid-month of each quarter (February, May, August, and November). The FR 2028A and FR 2028B collect detailed data on individual loans made during the survey week, and the FR 2028S collects the prime interest rate for each day of the survey from both FR 2028A and FR 2028B respondents. From these sample STL data, estimates of the terms of business loans and farm loans extended during the reporting week are constructed. The aggregate estimates for business loans are published in the quarterly E.2 statistical release, Survey of Terms of Business Lending, and aggregate estimates for farm loans are published in the E.15 statistical release, Agricultural Finance Databook.

Proposed revisions: The Federal Reserve proposes to (1) discontinue the FR 2028A, (2) create a new Small Business Lending Survey (FR 2028D) that would provide focused and enhanced information on small business lending including rates, terms, credit availability, and reasons for their changes (in contrast to the individual loan data collected on the FR 2028A, the FR 2028D would collect quarterly average quantitative data on terms of small business loans and qualitative information on changes and the reasons for changes in the terms of lending), and (3) the STL would be renamed the Survey of Small Business and Farm Lending (SSBFL) to more accurately describe the data collection. No changes are proposed to the FR 2028B and FR 2028S. The proposed final data collection for the FR 2028A would be for the May 2017 survey week, and the proposed first data collection for the FR 2028D would be in February 2018 for the December 31, 2017, as of date.

The survey data are used to assess conditions and to track developments in business credit markets. For instance, during the credit market turmoil that began in the second half of 2007 and early 2008, STL data showed a smaller increase in the spread of loan rates over banks' cost of funds than other indicators of business loan pricing suggested. Moreover, information about the date on which commitments were finalized or renewed has been important in understanding how loan rates evolved during the crisis, as it allowed the Federal Reserve to study the terms on new loan commitments separately from commitments written prior to the crisis. More broadly, the survey data have been useful for monitoring the changing role of the prime rate as a benchmark for business loan pricing and of shifts in the mix of fixed-rate and variable-rate lending as financial markets have changed. The STL microdata are not available to researchers outside the Federal Reserve, but have been used in a number of research papers.

The FR 2028A data have limitations for assessing conditions and analyzing developments in nonfarm business credit markets. For example, it was noted in the memorandum for renewing the STL in June 2015 that “The STL is an important source of individual loan data used by those concerned with lending to small businesses, for which banks are one of the primary sources of credit.” 1 However, the data were insufficient for addressing questions about small business lending during the financial crisis, ensuing recession, or economic recovery. For example, the data could not answer questions on whether changes in the flow of credit to small businesses were due to supply issues, such as changes in bank lending standards or terms, demand issues, such as changes in application rates, or both. Additionally, the FR 2028A data could not be used to answer questions regarding changes in the credit quality of applicants or identify potential underlying factors for observed changes in credit quality. For reasons such as these, the June 2015 memorandum stated “The Federal Reserve is seeking alternative sources of detailed, disaggregated data on small business loans, but there are currently none available. Should a better source for this type of data become available, the Federal Reserve may revisit the need for this survey.”

The Federal Reserve System has conducted a study of alternative small business loan data sources to assess their usefulness for addressing policy questions on small business credit. The study identified and conducted an extensive analysis of 35 existing and potential new small business lending data collections. The data collections considered included, among others, collections undertaken by the Board of Governors, private sector surveys such as the National Federation of Independent Business member survey, and a Dodd-Frank Act mandated data collection by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.2 The primary finding was that existing and new data collections under consideration would not meet the policy needs for understanding and addressing the relevant policy issues and questions.

The FR 2028D data collection is being proposed to address the gaps in existing and planned new surveys on small business lending. In addition, other Federal Reserve reports that have been developed in recent years provide information on large nonfarm business loans. As a result, the information used for assessing and analyzing developments in nonfarm business credit markets would be improved by combining the proposed FR 2028D data collection on the terms of small business loans with the existing reports on large business loans. For these reasons, the FR 2028A would be discontinued. The proposed final data collection for the FR 2028A would be for the May 2017 survey week.

The FR 2028S is completed by banks that file the FR 2028A or the FR 2028B.3 The prime rate, an administered rate, remains the base rate banks use to price a significant portion of the loans covered by the FR 2028A and FR 2028B.4 The prime rate is by far the most common base rate used to price variable rate business and farm loans at small and medium-sized banks. Even for large borrowers and the largest banks, the prime rate is a pricing option frequently available along with market-related rates. The FR 2028S imposes little burden and the information it provides is useful in interpreting movements in rates charged on business and farm loans, especially for small loans and for loans at smaller banks. It also provides valuable information about variations in the prime-lending rate across banks, which can be considerable. The FR 2028S will be renewed without revision and will be reported by FR 2028B respondents. Information on base rates for small business loans will be included in the proposed FR 2028D.

The FR 2028D would collect quantitative and qualitative information that the Federal Reserve can use to monitor developments in the availability of credit to small businesses. Bank lending to small businesses is critical for employment and economic growth at the local, regional, and national levels because it is a primary source of funding for these businesses. The FR 2028D was motivated by the inability to answer basic policy questions raised by Federal Reserve policymakers on small business credit during the recent financial crisis and subsequent recovery. It would also contribute to a better understanding of the role of community banks in providing loans to small businesses and on small business access to credit in local communities. The survey would be timed to make reports on developments in small business lending available for the second FOMC meeting of each quarter. The data would also be available for Federal Reserve System economists and other staff to use for research purposes. To get a complete understanding of the availability, terms, and market conditions of bank lending to small and large nonfarm businesses, the Federal Reserve would combine the information gathered from the FR 2028D with other Federal Reserve data collections that gather information on large business loans.

The FR 2028D would improve the ability to assess and analyze developments in nonfarm small business credit markets and to answer policy questions in a timely manner. The proposed information to be collected is not available from existing or planned surveys conducted by either the private or public sectors. The survey would collect unique, quarterly quantitative and qualitative information on nonfarm small business lending that improves upon the information currently collected by the FR 2028A. The quantitative information is similar to the data in the FR 2028A, but the FR 2028D would collect quarterly amounts or average levels of the data items as opposed to individual loan information from a survey week. As a result, the quantitative information will be less costly to report and less impacted by idiosyncratic events. The qualitative questions will provide information on changes in loan demand, credit standards and terms, and credit quality of applicants and reasons for the changes. Information on the reasons for denying a small business loan application will also be collected.

The FR 2028D would also improve upon current information on outstanding loans collected on the Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report; FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051; OMB No. 7100-0036), which collects data on loans less than a certain dollar amount rather than on loans to small businesses. The Call Report data may result in information distortions about the availability of credit to small businesses because not all small loans are made to small businesses.

The FR 2028D would collect quantitative and qualitative information on loans to small businesses from a stratified sample of 398 banking institutions. The survey would be administered at a quarterly frequency and distributed during the second month of each quarter. Survey responses would be based on loan activity over the previous quarter. Quantitative information collected would include the aggregate number and dollar amount of outstanding loans and new loans extended by banks to small businesses each quarter, as well as line-of-credit drawdowns and the average interest rate and benchmark rate. Loans are separated into two categories: Term loans and lines of credit, with each category further separated into fixed rate and variable rate. Additionally, quantitative information on the number and dollar amount of small business loans with guarantees (Small Business Administration and other) would be collected, as well as information regarding loan maturity and the use of interest rate floors. The FR 2028D would also collect quantitative information on small business loan applications received and applications approved during the survey quarter, including information on applications from Low- and Moderate-Income tracts.

Qualitative information collected by the FR 2028D would include questions to gauge changes in lending terms, loan demand, and credit standards for small business loans during the survey period.5 Furthermore, respondents will be asked to identify possible reasons for indicated changes in lending terms or credit standards. The survey would also include qualitative questions on the demand for small business loans, changes in credit line usage, and changes in the credit quality of small business loan applicants. Respondents would be asked to identify potential factors underlying a reported change in applicant credit quality (e.g., credit scores, quality of collateral) and to identify top reasons for denying small business loans during the survey quarter.

The replacement of the FR 2028A with the FR 2028D would result in a reduction of the burden by 2,873 hours.

The FR 2028B panel has an authorized size of 250 domestically chartered commercial banks. The panel of banks has been drawn from a random sample of banks stratified according to farm loan volumes since 1989. Since that time, the authorized size of the panel has been 250 banks, with 189 banks currently reporting. The number of respondents is less than the authorized size due to mergers among reporters and loss of respondents due to the voluntary nature of the panel. If the authorized size of the panel is reduced to 189, the standard errors for the data items would increase 17 percentage points. Moreover, the standard errors on the regional estimates, which are based on smaller samples, likely would be greatly increased. Consequently, the recommendation is not to change the authorized number of banks.

The proposed authorized panel for the FR 2028D panel is 398 domestically chartered commercial banks. The proposed size is based on obtaining survey results with a 95% confidence level and 5% standard error, allowing for a 10% nonresponse rate. The panel of banks would be a random sample of banks stratified according to the dollar volumes of commercial and industrial loans with original amounts of $1,000,000 or less.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that these surveys are authorized by section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) which authorizes the Board to require any depository institution to make such reports of its assets and liabilities as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable the Board to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates. The reports are voluntary. Individual responses reported on the FR 2028A, FR 2028B, FR 2028D, and FR 2028S are regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

FDA conducts focus group interviews on a variety of topics involving FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, devices, food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine.

Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information because they allow for a more in-depth understanding of patients' and consumers' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool have three major purposes:

• To obtain patient and consumer information that is useful for developing variables and measures for quantitative studies,

• to better understand patients' and consumers' attitudes and emotions in response to topics and concepts, and

• to further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.

FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine their ideas, but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to support these policies.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Comments

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2005-0024 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: G-325A; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information to be collected under the PM will be used by USCIS to determine eligibility of discretionary deferred action on a case-by-case basis, for certain family members of military personnel who currently serve on active duty or in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, military personnel who previously served on active duty or in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve (who were not dishonorably discharged) whether they are living or deceased, and Delayed Entry Program (DEP) enlistees (as well as DEP enlistees themselves).

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection G-325A is 250 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.15 hours; 1.9 hours to comply with the guiding policy and .25 hours to complete the form.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 537.5 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $18,750.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Application for Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative and Condominium Housing.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0141.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: 93201.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information collected on the “Application for Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative and Condominium Housing” form is used to analyze data, cost data, drawings, and specifications to determine cooperative or condominium project eligibility for FHA mortgage insurance.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Number of Responses: 20.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 4 hours.

Total Estimated Burdens: 80 hours.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

HUD will submit the proposed information collection package to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

Title of Information Collection: Survey of Market Absorption of New Multifamily Units.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0013.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Survey of Market Absorption (SOMA) provides the data necessary to measure the rate at which new rental apartments and new condominium apartments are absorbed; that is, taken off the market, usually by being rented or sold, over the course of the first twelve months following completion of a building. The data are collected at quarterly intervals until the twelve months conclude, or until the units in a building are completely absorbed. The survey also provides estimates of certain characteristics, including asking rent/price, number of units, and number of bedrooms. The survey provides a basis for analyzing the degree to which new apartment construction is meeting the present and future needs of the public.

Members of affected public: Rental Agents/Builders.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000 yearly (maximum).

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes/initial interview and 5 minutes for any subsequent interviews (up to three additional, if necessary).

Frequency of Response: Four times (maximum).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.00 (12,000.00 buildings × 30 minutes).

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to respondents is that of their time. The total estimated cost to HUD in FY 2017 is $1,120,000.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: The survey is conducted under Title 12, United States Code, Section 1701Z.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase II.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0309.

Type of Request: Substantial revision of currently approved collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Office of Policy Development and Research, at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is proposing a revision of currently approved data collection activity as part of the evaluation of the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) Project Rental Assistance (PRA) Program. The Section 811 supportive housing model provides people with disabilities affordable housing and access to appropriate, voluntary supportive services. The traditional Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) program awarded interest-free capital advances and contracts for project-based rental assistance to nonprofit organizations to develop supportive housing. The Section 811 PRA program is a new approach to supportive housing that provides project-based rental assistance to state housing agencies for the development of supportive housing for extremely low-income persons with disabilities. Housing agencies must have an interagency partnership agreement with the state health and human service agency and the state Medicaid provider to provide services and supports directly to residents living in units funded with Section 811 PRA.

This evaluation is the second phase of a two-phase evaluation. Phase I evaluated the early implementation of the Section 811 PRA Program in the 12 states that were awarded the first round of PRA grants. The OMB Approval Number for Phase I is 2528-0309. HUD is now undertaking the second phase of the Section 811 PRA evaluation. The second phase will continue to evaluate the implementation of the Section 811 PRA Program, but will also assess the program's effectiveness and its impact on residents and will be limited to six states. The evaluation of the Section 811 PRA Program, including the assessment of its effectiveness compared to the traditional Section 811 PRAC Program, is mandated by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010. This Federal Register Notice provides the opportunity to comment on the revision of the approved information collection activity for the second phase of the Section 811 PRA evaluation.

Data collection for the second phase of the evaluation of the Section 811 PRA Program includes in-person surveys with residents assisted by the Section 811 PRA and PRAC programs and in-person interviews with staff from PRA program participating agencies (property owners or managers of properties where Section 811 PRA residents live, manager-level staff at organizations that provide supportive services to PRA residents, and manager-level staff at Public Housing Authorities that committed housing subsidies for the PRA program). The purpose of the interviews is to assess the implementation experience of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program and the program's impact on residents. Participation in the resident survey is voluntary for PRA and PRAC residents.

Respondents: Residents assisted with HUD's Section 811 program, Section 811 property managers, supportive service providers, and Public Housing Authorities.

Total Estimated Burdens: Researchers will administer resident surveys for an average of 45 minutes with an additional 30 minutes needed to schedule the call and conduct prescreening questions with the respondent. The total burden for the 480 Section 811 residents is 600 hours. The average burden of interviews for property managers and service providers is one hour, with an additional half-hour to schedule the call and compile information needed to complete the interview. The average burden for Public Housing Authorities is 30 minutes with an additional 30 minutes needed to schedule the call and compile information for the interview. The total burden hours for property owners is 36 hours, the total burden hours for service providers is 72 hours, and the total burden hours for Public Housing Authorities is 12 hours. The total respondent burden for these data collection activities is 720 hours.

Based on the assumptions and table below we calculate the total annual cost burden for this information collection to be $10,252.44. For staff of participating agencies, we estimated their cost per response using the most recent (May 2015) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for selected occupations classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. To estimate hourly wage rates for property owners and managers of properties where Section 811 residents live, we used the occupation code Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers (11-940), with a median hourly wage of $26.63. For managers of service providers of Section 811 residents, we used Medical and Health Services Managers (11-911), with a median hourly wage of $45.43. For Public Housing Authority managers, we used the Administrative Services Manager (11-310), with a median hourly wage of $41.40.

Section 811 PRA and PRAC households participating in the Section 811 evaluation will range in employment position and earnings, but national data indicate the population has very low incomes. According to 2016 HUD Picture of Subsidized Households Data (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html), the average per person household income for Section 811 PRAC residents in the six states where the study is being conducted was $10,573, but only six percent of PRAC residents report wages as a major source of household income (current data on PRA participants is not yet available). We estimated the hourly wage burden for Section 811 residents, at $9.21, the average expected prevailing minimum wage in the six states where the evaluation is being conducted [California—$10.50; Delaware—$8.25; Louisiana—$7.25 (federal minimum wage); Maryland—$8.75; Minnesota—$9.50; Washington—$11.00]. We assumed an unweighted average as the survey sample will comprise of approximately 80 residents from each of the six states. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Minimum Wage Laws in the States—January 2017, https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm).

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Compliance Inspection Report and Mortgagee's Assurance of Completion.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0189.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Numbers: HUD 92051, HUD-92300.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Accurate and thorough property information is critical to the accuracy of underwriting for the mortgage insurance process. This information collection is needed to ensure newly built homes financed with FHA mortgage insurance are constructed in accordance with acceptable building standards and that deficiencies found in newly constructed and existing dwellings are corrected.

Respondents: Business or other-for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,674.

Estimated Number of Responses: 26,969.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Hours per Response: .175.

Total Estimated Burdens: 4,720.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

The first table in this notice provides contact information for individuals who can give further information about the irrigation projects covered by this notice. The second table provides the current 2016 irrigation assessment rates, the proposed rates for Calendar Year (CY) 2017, and proposed rates for subsequent years where these rates are available.

In this notice:

Administrative costs mean all costs we incur to administer our irrigation projects at the local project level and is a cost factor included in calculating your operation and maintenance assessment. Costs incurred at the local project level do not normally include Agency, Region, or Central Office costs unless we state otherwise in writing.

Assessable acre means lands designated by us to be served by one of our irrigation projects, for which we collect assessments in order to recover costs for the provision of irrigation service. (See total assessable acres.)

BIA means the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Bill means our statement to you of the assessment charges and/or fees you owe the United States for administration, operation, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation. The date we mail or hand-deliver your bill will be stated on it.

Costs means the costs we incur for administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation to provide direct support or benefit to an irrigation facility. (See administrative costs, operation costs, maintenance costs, and rehabilitation costs).

Customer means any person or entity to whom or to which we provide irrigation service.

Due date is the date on which your bill is due and payable. This date will be stated on your bill.

I, me, my, you and your means all persons or entities that are affected by this notice.

Irrigation project means a facility or portion thereof for the delivery, diversion, and storage of irrigation water that we own or have an interest in, including all appurtenant works. The term “irrigation project” is used interchangeably with irrigation facility, irrigation system, and irrigation area.

Irrigation service means the full range of services we provide customers of our irrigation projects. This includes our activities to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate our projects in order to deliver water.

Maintenance costs means costs we incur to maintain and repair our irrigation projects and associated equipment and is a cost factor included in calculating your operation and maintenance assessment.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) assessment means the periodic charge you must pay us to reimburse costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating irrigation projects consistent with this notice and our supporting policies, manuals, and handbooks.

Operation or operating costs means costs we incur to operate our irrigation projects and equipment and is a cost factor included in calculating your O&M assessment.

Past due bill means a bill that has not been paid by the close of business on the 30th day after the due date as stated on the bill. Beginning on the 31st day after the due date, we begin assessing additional charges accruing from the due date.

Rehabilitation costs means costs we incur to restore our irrigation projects or features to original operating condition or to the nearest state which can be achieved using current technology and is a cost factor included in calculating your O&M assessment.

Responsible party means an individual or entity that owns or leases land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects and is responsible for providing accurate information to our billing office and paying a bill for an annual irrigation rate assessment.

Total assessable acres means the total acres served by one of our irrigation projects.

Water delivery is an activity that is part of the irrigation service we provide our customers when water is available.

We, us, and our means the United States Government, the Secretary of the Interior, the BIA, and all who are authorized to represent us in matters covered under this notice.

This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.

You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Printing Office at http://www.thefederalregister.org.

We are publishing this notice to inform you that we propose to adjust our irrigation assessment rates. This notice is published in accordance with the BIA's regulations governing its operation and maintenance of irrigation projects, found at 25 CFR part 171. This regulation provides for the establishment and publication of the proposed rates for annual irrigation assessments as well as related information about our irrigation projects.

Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.

We will put the rate adjustments into effect for the CY 2017 and subsequent years where applicable.

We calculate annual irrigation assessment rates in accordance with 25 CFR part 171.500 by estimating the annual costs of operation and maintenance at each of our irrigation projects and then dividing by the total assessable acres for that particular irrigation project. The result of this calculation for each project is stated in the rate table in this notice.

Consistent with 25 CFR part 171.500, these expenses include the following:

(a) Salary and benefits for the project engineer/manager and project employees under the project engineer/manager's management or control;

(b) Materials and supplies;

(c) Vehicle and equipment repairs;

(d) Equipment costs, including lease fees;

(e) Depreciation;

(f) Acquisition costs;

(g) Maintenance of a reserve fund available for contingencies or emergency costs needed for the reliable operation of the irrigation facility infrastructure;

(h) Maintenance of a vehicle and heavy equipment replacement fund;

(i) Systematic rehabilitation and replacement of project facilities;

(j) Carriage Agreements for the transfer of project water through irrigation facilities owned by others.

(k) Any water storage fees for non-BIA-owned reservoirs, as applicable,

(l) Contingencies for unknown costs and omitted budget items; and

(m) Other expenses we determine necessary to properly perform the activities and functions characteristic of an irrigation project.

We will mail or hand-deliver your bill notifying you (a) the amount you owe to the United States and (b) when such amount is due. If we mail your bill, we will consider it as being delivered no later than 5 business days after the day we mail it. You should pay your bill by the due date stated on the bill.

All responsible parties are required to provide the following information to the billing office associated with the irrigation project where you own or lease land within the project's assessable acreage or to the billing office associated with the irrigation project with which you have a carriage agreement:

(1) The full legal name of person or entity responsible for paying the bill;

(2) An adequate and correct address for mailing or hand delivering our bill; and

(3) The taxpayer identification number or social security number of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill.

Public Law 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires that we collect the taxpayer identification number or social security number before billing a responsible party and as a condition to servicing the account.

If you are late paying your bill because of your failure to furnish the required information listed above, you will be assessed interest and penalties as provided below, and your failure to provide the required information will not provide grounds for you to appeal your bill or any penalties assessed.

We can refuse to provide you irrigation service.

Yes. 25 CFR 171.545(a) states: “We will not provide you irrigation service until: (1) Your bill is paid; or (2) You make arrangement for payment pursuant to § 171.550 of this part.” If we do not receive your payment before the close of business on the 30th day after the due date stated on your bill, we will send you a past due notice. This past due notice will have additional information concerning your rights. We will consider your past due notice as delivered no later than 5 business days after the day we mail it. We follow the procedures provided in 31 CFR 901.2, “Demand for Payment,” when demanding payment of your past due bill.

Yes. We will assess you interest on the amount owed, using the rate of interest established annually by the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Treasury) to calculate what you will be assessed. You will not be assessed this charge until your bill is past due. However, if you allow your bill to become past due, interest will accrue from the original due date, not the past due date. Also, you will be charged an administrative fee of $12.50 for each time we try to collect your past due bill. If your bill becomes more than 90 days past due, you will be assessed a penalty charge of 6 percent per year, which will accrue from the date your bill initially became past due. Pursuant to 31 CFR 901.9, “Interest, penalties and administrative costs,” as a Federal agency, we are required to charge interest, penalties, and administrative costs in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717.

If you do not pay your bill or make payment arrangements to which we agree, we are required to send your past due bill to the Treasury for further action. Under the provisions of 31 CFR 901.1, “Aggressive agency collection activity,” Federal agencies should consider referring debts that are less than 180 days delinquent, and we must send any unpaid annual irrigation assessment bill to Treasury no later than 180 days after the original due date of the bill.

The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.

The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the proposed rates for the CY 2017 and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.