Federal Register Vol. 82, No.95,

USDA is committed to operating efficiently, effectively, and with integrity, and minimizing the burdens on individuals businesses and communities for participation in and compliance with USDA programs. USDA works to support the American agricultural economy to strengthen rural communities; to protect and conserve our natural resources; and to provide a safe, sufficient, and nutritious food supply for the American people. The Department's wide range of programs and responsibilities touches the lives of every American every day.

Executive Order 13781, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch. The principles in the Executive Order provide the basis for taking actions to enhance and strengthen the delivery of USDA programs. The Department will continue to work within the Administration on the government-wide reform plan and additional reform efforts.

On May 11, 2017, Secretary Perdue announced his intent to take actions to advance agricultural trade by creating an Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, create a customer-focused culture of public service and improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of agencies who provide services to agricultural producers by realigning agencies in the Department under an Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation, and elevate the importance of the activities carried out by the Rural Development mission area by realigning those agencies to report directly to the Secretary. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/05/11/secretary-perdue-announces-creation-undersecretary-trade.

USDA is seeking public comment on the actions identified in the May 11, 2017, announcement. In addition, we note that the Administration has requested the public's ideas on how to reorganize the Executive branch. For those who would like to provide their input, the Administration has provided a Web site located at https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-the-executive-branch. The Department encourages the public to participate.

USDA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. While responses to this notice do not bind USDA to any further actions, all submissions will be reviewed by the appropriate program office, and made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will hold a series of public meetings on its proposed rule regarding revisions to the regulations concerning the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7008-7039, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0057). The meetings will be held in various locations to facilitate attendance.

A representative of APHIS will preside at the meetings. Any interested party may appear and be heard in person, or through an attorney or other representative. We are interested in obtaining the views of the public on all aspects of the proposed rule. A simultaneous webcast will also be made available for those who are unable to attend the meeting in person. Those planning to attend either in person or via the webcast are asked to register in advance. Instructions for registering, accessing the webcast, and submitting written comments are available at https://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=1961632.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-352-6793 and conference call 2512042. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-352-6793 and conference call 2512042.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=239; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links.Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8701, conference ID: 3131926. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

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

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Ohio Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=268). Select “meeting details” and “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-481-2844, conference ID: 8621046. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

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

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov at the EasternRegional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, July 14, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commissionon Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=252 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

The merchandise subject to the order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.1

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary 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 is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

On July 22, 2016, Yieh Hsing reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.2 To confirm Yieh Hsing's no shipment claim, the Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP requesting that it review Yieh Hsing's no-shipment claim.3 CBP did not report that it had any information to contradict Yieh Hsing's claim of no shipments during the POR.

Given that Yieh Hsing certified that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR and there is no information calling its claim into question, we preliminarily determine that Yieh Hsing did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Consistent with the Department's practice, we will not rescind the review with respect to Yieh Hsing but, rather, will complete the review and issue instructions to CBP based on the final results.4

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin exists:

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.5 Interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the due date for filing case briefs.7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.8 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.9 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

If the weighted-average dumping margin for Shin Yang is not zero or de minimis in the final results, then the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates. Because Shin Yang did not report the entered value of its sales, we will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total quantity (i.e., weight) associated with those sales. To determine whether the importer-specific per-unit assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem rates based on estimated entered values. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries for which the importer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis.

With respect to Yieh Hsing, if we continue to find that Yieh Hsing had no shipments of subject merchandise in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Yieh Hsing, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.11

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) The cash deposit rate for Shin Yang will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for other manufacturers and exporters covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate in the LTFV investigation.12 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through December 30, 2015.1

On March 23, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register the Final Determination that HEDP from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act).2 From March 23, 2017, to March 24, 2017, WW Group, Henan Qingshuiyuan Technology Co., Ltd. (Qingshuiyuan), and Compass Chemical International LLC (the petitioner) respectively submitted ministerial allegations concerning the Final Determination. 3 On May 8, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from the PRC.4 On May 12, 2017, the ITC published its final determination in the Federal Register.5

For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Appendix.

After considering parties' comments and reviewing the record, pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the Final Determination to reflect the correction of ministerial errors it made in calculating the final margin assigned to the WW Group.6 In addition, because the rates for Qingshuiyuan, Jianghai Environmental Protection Co., Ltd., and the PRC-Wide Entity are based on the margins for WW Group and/or Shandong Taihe Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Taihe), we are also revising these rates.7

As a result of this amended final determination, we have revised the estimated weighted-average dumping margins and the export subsidy adjustments applied to the final weighted-average dumping margins as follows:

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from the PRC entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties. In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of HEDP from the PRC. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of HEDP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. 8

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of HEDP from the PRC. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 9 equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value (NV) exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above will be the rate identified for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

We normally adjust antidumping duty cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, we have found that the WW Group did not receive export subsidies.10 Therefore, no offset to the WW Group's cash deposit rate for export subsidies is necessary.11 With respect to Taihe, because its CVD rate in the companion investigation included an amount for export subsidies, an offset of 0.30 percent will be made to its cash deposit rate.12 With respect to the separate-rate companies, we find that an export subsidy adjustment of 0.30 percent to the cash deposit rate is warranted because this is the export subsidy rate included in the CVD “all-others” rate to which the separate-rate companies are subject. For the PRC-wide entity, which continues to receive an adverse facts available (AFA) rate in this amended final determination, as an extension of the adverse inference found necessary pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has not adjusted the PRC-wide entity's AD cash deposit rate by the lowest export subsidy rate determined for any party in the companion CVD proceeding, because the lowest export subsidy rate determined in the companion CVD proceeding is 0.00 percent.13 14

Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, we normally adjust preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. However, in this case there is no basis to grant a domestic subsidy pass-through adjustment.15

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months.

At the request of the exporters that account for a significant portion of HEDP from the PRC, we extended the four-month period to six months in this case.16 In the underlying investigation, the Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 4, 2016. Therefore, the extended period beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination, ended May 2, 2017. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination, i.e., May 11, 2017.17

Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of HEDP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 2, 2017, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations, i.e., May 10, 2017, in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on May 11, 2017, the date of publication of the ITC Final.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to HEDP from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

This order and amended final determination are published in accordance with sections 735(e), 736(a) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211 and 351.224(e).

Background

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), on March 23, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of HEDP from the PRC.1 On May 8, 2017, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from the PRC.2

Introduction

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), exploded, caught fire, and subsequently sank in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest maritime oil spill in United States history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas also was released to the environment as a result of the spill.

The Deepwater Horizon Federal and State natural resource trustees (DWH Trustees) conducted the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Pursuant to OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

The DWH Trustees are:

• U.S. Department of the Interior, as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture;

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;

• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

• For the State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Upon completion of the NRDA, the DWH Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damages claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Texas Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the Texas TIG. The Texas TIG is comprised of the following DWH Trustees:

• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department;

• Texas General Land Office;

• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality;

• U.S. Department of the Interior, as represented by National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture; and

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This restoration planning activity is proceeding in accordance with the PDARP/PEIS. Information on the Restoration Types being considered in the Draft RP/EA, as well as the OPA criteria against which project ideas are being evaluated, can be viewed in the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan) and in the Overview of the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan).

On July 6, 2016, the Texas TIG posted a public notice at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov requesting new or revised proposals by August 31, 2016, regarding natural resource restoration in the Texas Restoration Area for the 2016-2017 planning years. The notice stated that the Texas TIG is prioritizing restoration planning efforts on Restoration Types that were not addressed previously by Early Restoration: (1) restore and conserve wetland, coastal, and nearshore habitats; (2) restore water quality through nutrient reduction (nonpoint source); and (3) replenish and protect oysters.

The Draft RP/EA is being released in accordance with OPA, the OPA NRDA regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR part 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

In the Draft RP/EA, the Texas TIG proposes preferred project alternatives for the following Restoration Types: (1) Wetland, coastal, and nearshore habitats; and (2) oysters. For the water quality (nonpoint source) Restoration Type, the Texas TIG has determined additional restoration planning is necessary, and does not propose any restoration projects in this Draft RP/EA.

For wetland, coastal, and nearshore habitats, the Draft RP/EA proposes the following preferred project alternatives:

• Bird Island Cove Habitat Restoration Engineering,

• Essex Bayou Habitat Restoration Engineering,

• Dredged Material Planning for Wetland Restoration,

• McFaddin Beach and Dune Restoration,

• Bessie Heights Wetland Restoration,

• Pierce Marsh Wetland Restoration,

• Indian Point Shoreline Erosion Protection,

• Bahia Grande Hydrologic Restoration,

• Follets Island Habitat Acquisition,

• Mid-Coast Habitat Acquisition,

• Bahia Grande Coastal Corridor Habitat Acquisition, and

• Laguna Atascosa Habitat Acquisition.

For oysters, the Draft RP/EA proposes Oyster Restoration Engineering as the preferred project alternative.

The Draft RP/EA also evaluates a no action alternative. One or more alternatives may be selected for implementation by the Texas TIG.

The Texas TIG has examined the injuries assessed by the DWH Trustees and evaluated restoration alternatives to address the injuries. In the Draft RP/EA, the Texas TIG presents to the public its draft plan for providing partial compensation to the public for injured natural resources and ecological services in the Texas Restoration Area. The proposed projects are intended to continue the process of restoring natural resources and ecological services injured or lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The total estimated cost of the proposed projects is $49,466,000. Additional restoration planning for the Texas Restoration Area will continue.

The public is encouraged to review and comment on the Draft RP/EA. Public meetings are scheduled to facilitate the public review and comment process. After the close of the public comment period, the Texas TIG will consider and address the comments received before issuing a final RP/EA. A summary of comments received and the Texas TIG's responses and any revisions to the document, as appropriate, will be included in the final document.

The Texas TIG will conduct public meetings to provide information and seek input on the Draft RP/EA:

• June 7, 2017, at 6 p.m. at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412;

• June 8, 2017, at 6 p.m. at the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Galveston County Office, 4102-B Main Street (FM 519), La Marque, Texas 77568.

Written and oral comments on the Draft RP/EA may be submitted at the public meetings. Persons with disabilities may request special accommodations at the public meeting by contacting the Texas TIG by July 1, 2017 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

The Texas TIG seeks public review and comment on the Draft RP/EA (see ADDRESSES above). Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will become part of the public record.

The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Draft RP/EA can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

The authority for this action is OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and the OPA NRDA regulations at 15 CFR part 990.

Agenda Monday, June 5, 2017; 8 a.m.-5:15 p.m.

The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. in a CLOSED SESSION of the Full Council to discuss appointments to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) and Red Drum Advisory Panel Appointments. The meeting is expected to open to the public around 8:30 a.m. The Administrative/Budget Committee will review and approve the Final 2017 Budget Funding Report; and review the MSA Legislation: H.R. 200 & H.R. 2023 Potential Impacts. The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will receive an overview on Barotrauma from Florida Sea Grant; review and discuss an options paper for a framework action that require possession of descending devices or venting tools on board vessels possessing reef fish and an options paper for carryover of unharvested quota; and any Scientific and Statistical (SSC) recommendations. The Gulf SEDAR Committee will review the meeting summary from the May 2017 Steering Committee; the assessment schedule; and a draft letter on NOAA's Updated Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. The Spiny Lobster Committee will review the Final Joint Spiny Lobster Regulatory Amendment 4. The Joint Coral/Habitat Protection & Restoration Committees will review and discuss an options paper for Coral Amendment 7. The Reef Fish Management Committee will review and discuss final action items: Amendment 44—Minimum Stock Size Threshold for Reef Fish Stocks, and Amendment 47—Vermilion Snapper Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Proxy and Annual Catch Limit (ACL).

The Reef Fish Management Committee will review and discuss taking final action on Abbreviated Framework Action to Modify the Number of Unrigged Hooks Carried Onboard Bottom Longline Vessels, Draft Framework Action to modify the ACT for Red Snapper Federal For-hire and Private Angler Components, and a Draft Framework Action for Greater Amberjack ACL and Management Measures; and receive a report from the Ad Hoc Red Snapper Private Angler Advisory Panel (AP) meeting. The committee review and discuss red snapper allocation issues, an options paper on Amendment 36B—Commercial Reef Fish Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) Modifications; Draft Amendment 41—Federal Charter-for-Hire Red Snapper Management; and Draft Amendment 42—Federal Reef Fish Headboat Management.

The Data Collection Committee will receive a presentation by Gulf states on procedures to estimate recreational landings; and review draft comments on Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Strategic Plan.

The Full Council will convene mid-morning (approximately 10:15 a.m.) with a call to order, announcements, introductions; adoption of agenda; approval of minutes; and review of Exempt Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications, if any. The Council will receive presentations from Florida Law Enforcement, the Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), and a Summary of Anecdotal Data Efforts. After lunch, the Council will listen to public testimony from 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. on the following agenda items: Final Action on Amendment 44—Minimum Stock Size Threshold for Reef Fish Stocks; Final Action on Amendment 47—Vermilion Snapper MSY Proxy and ACL; Final Action on Abbreviated Framework Action to Modify the Number of Unrigged Hooks Carried Onboard Bottom Longline Vessels; Final Action on Joint Spiny Lobster Amendment 4 to Increase Spiny Lobster Annual Catch Limits and Triggers; and, open testimony on any Other Fishery Issues or Concerns.

The Council will receive reports from the following Management Committees: Reef Fish, Gulf SEDAR, Administrative/Budget, Spiny Lobster, Joint Coral/Habitat Protection & Restoration, Data Collection, and Sustainable Fisheries. The Council will announce the Advisory Panel Membership for the Red Drum and CMP, and vote on Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Applications, if any.

The Council will receive updates from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of State. Lastly, the Council will discuss any other business.

—Meeting Adjourns.

You may listen in to the June 2017 Council Meeting via webinar by registering on: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8601999915509219074. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on FTP Server under Quick Links. For meeting materials, select the “Briefing Books/Briefing Book 2017-06” folder on Gulf Council file server. The username and password are both “gulfguest”. The meetings will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final 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 (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).

Purpose of the Meeting: The Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee is an independent Federal advisory committee established as directed by Section 3133(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007) (Pub. L. 110-114). The committee is advisory in nature only with duties to include providing information and recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding operations of Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma for project purposes. In accordance with Sections 3133(c)(2) and 3133(d)(1) of WRDA 2007, the committee will also provide recommendations on a reallocation study concerning current and future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for authorized project purposes as well as a subsequent pool management plan.

Agenda: This will be the third meeting of the LEAC. The committee will have a question and answer session with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives about reallocation studies and lake level manipulation plans, discuss proposals for recommendations about reallocation studies, and discuss future direction.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Legacy on Main Street is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Jeff Knack, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Knack, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer and the Committee Chair will review all timely submitted written comments or statements and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Please note that because the LEAC operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) days in advance to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Officer will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Designated Federal Officer.

The original spoil banks were constructed by MRGCD as part of their authority to drain wetlands and deliver irrigation water.

Preparation of this GRR/SEIS became necessary due to the changes that have occurred since the project was authorized as described below. A longer period of record for hydrological data is now available to allow improved and updated hydrological analysis. New levee design criteria that address long duration flows have also been adopted by the Corps in 1993. Any proposed plan now has to incorporate new design features that prevent seepage through the levee or its foundation due to prolonged flow against the riverward toe. The Corps has adopted a probabilistic determination of flood risk to perform levee design. Three species that have been listed as threatened or endangered since 1994 occur within the study area (two with critical habitat). These include the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow.

The GRR/SEIS will investigate and determine the extent of Federal interest in a range of alternative plans designed to reduce the risk of flooding in the communities between Albuquerque and Belen. The GRR/SEIS will describe the risk of flooding in the communities between Albuquerque and Belen; evaluate a range of alternatives to reduce flood risk and potential environmental impacts; and describe measures to minimize or mitigate for potential environmental impacts.

On November 27, 1995, the Corps published the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the SEIS for the MRG GRR study in the Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 227).

Previously Proposed Action: The Corps has previously proposed a Tentatively Selected Plan for the Project to rehabilitate the spoil bank system with an engineered levee in four Middle Rio Grande Units. The levee for the Mountain View (4.4 miles), Isleta West (3.2 miles), Belen East (18.1 miles), and Belen West Units (22.1 miles) are designed to provide protection for the 0.1% probability flood. The Corps initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the effects of the Project on species listed under the ESA. As part of that consultation, the Corps has proposed several conservation measures that would modify structures or operation and maintenance of the Project. The Service is preparing a Biological Opinion (BiOp) and the Corps expects that the Service may incorporate the conservation measures as part of the BiOp. The Corps will need to complete applicable environmental compliance, including evaluation under NEPA, prior to adopting and implementing any terms and conditions in the BiOp. The proposed GRR/SEIS would constitute that evaluation under NEPA. The Corps has proposed several measures to improve conditions for listed species, including the actions described in the Public Involvement Process section below, subject to authority and funding:

Public Involvement Process: Coordination has been ongoing since 2008 with both public and private entities that have jurisdiction or an interest in land and resources in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. These entities include the general public, local governments, the Pueblo of Isleta, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Service, the MRGCD, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the Interstate Stream Commission. Coordination will continue throughout the development of the SEIS through comment letters, public meetings and field visits. All interested parties, including federal, state, tribal, and public entities, will be invited to submit comments on the draft SEIS when it is circulated for review.

The planning effort is also being coordinated with the Service pursuant to the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1972 and the ESA of 1973, as amended. Consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer is ongoing pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Significant Issues To Be Analyzed: Significant issues to be analyzed in the development of the SEIS include the effect of the alternatives on endangered or threatened species and their critical habitat; floodplain development; water quality; riparian ecological systems; social welfare; human safety; cultural resources; and aesthetic qualities. Development of mitigation measures will be undertaken for any unavoidable impacts.

Request for Review Comments: The Corps invites affected federal, state, and local agencies, affected Native American tribes, and other interested organizations and persons to participate in the review of the GRR/SEIS. The Corps invites interested parties to provide specific comments on issues and the preferred alternative in the GRR/SEIS related to the construction of the Project. Comments, requests to be placed on the GRR/SEIS mailing list, and requests for information may be submitted to the address above. All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. Interested parties should not submit confidential business or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

Public Scoping Meeting: The Corps currently plans to conduct public review meetings for this GRR/SEIS in 2017. The exact date, time, and location of the public meetings has not yet been determined. The Corps will publicize this information once the meeting arrangements have been made. The draft GRR/SEIS is currently scheduled to be available for public review in summer 2017. The final GRR/SEIS is currently scheduled to be available for public review in spring 2018.

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

Title of Collection: Consolidated Annual Report for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Act of 2006.

OMB Control Number: 1830-0569.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 55.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9,020.

Abstract: The purpose of this information collection package—the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR)—is to gather narrative, financial, and performance data as required by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV). Perkins IV requires the Secretary to provide the appropriate committees of Congress copies of annual reports received by the Department from each eligible agency that receives funds under the Act. The Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) will determine each State's compliance with basic provisions of Perkins IV and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations [Annual Performance Report] and Part 80.41 [Financial Status Report]). OCTAE will review performance data to determine whether, and to what extent, each State has met its State adjusted levels of performance for the core indicators described in section 113(b)(4) of Perkins IV.

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

Title of Collection: Application for the Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0808.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 27.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,700.

Abstract: This collection contains the application forms and instructions for the Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program. It is used by applicants to apply for funding under the LRC program. Applicants' submissions are used by peer reviewers during the grant competition to evaluate and score the proposed projects.

Purpose of Program: The Javits program supports evidence-based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities designed to build and enhance the ability of elementary and secondary schools nationwide to identify gifted and talented (as defined in this notice) students and meet their special educational needs.

Application Requirements: The following application requirements apply. Application requirements (1) through (4) and (5)(b) through (5)(d) are from section 4644 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). We are establishing application requirements (5)(a) and (6) in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). These requirements apply to the FY 2017 competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Each application must describe how—

(1) The proposed project will—

(a) Implement evidence-based activities that are supported by promising evidence (as defined in this notice); or

(b) Develop new information that—

(i) Improves the capability of schools to plan, conduct, and improve programs to identify and serve gifted and talented students; or

(ii) Assists schools in the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals who are English learners (as defined in this notice), and children with disabilities) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods;

(2) The proposed identification methods, as well as gifted and talented services, materials, and methods, can be adapted, if appropriate, for use by all students;

(3) The proposed programs can be evaluated;

(4) The proposed project will, where appropriate, provide for the equitable participation of students and teachers in private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools, including the participation of teachers and other personnel in professional development programs serving such students;

(5) The funds awarded under this program will be used to carry out one or more of the following activities:

(a) Conducting evidence-based research (as described in paragraph (6)(e)), supported by promising evidence, on methods and techniques for identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and for using gifted and talented programs and methods to serve all students, particularly low-income and at-risk students;

(b) Establishing and operating model projects and exemplary programs for serving gifted and talented students, including innovative methods and strategies (such as summer programs, mentoring programs, peer tutoring programs, service learning programs, and cooperative learning programs involving business, industry, and education) for identifying and educating students who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs;

(c) Providing technical assistance and disseminating information, including assistance and information regarding how gifted and talented programs and methods, where appropriate, may be adapted for use by all students, particularly low-income and at-risk students; or

(d) Training of personnel in the identification and education of gifted and talented students and in the use, where appropriate, of gifted and talented services, materials, and methods for all students; and

(6) The proposed project will scale up (as defined in this notice) and evaluate the effectiveness of a model designed to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups who, through gifted and talented education programs, perform at high levels of academic achievement. To meet this requirement, applicants must include all of the following in their applications:

(a) Promising evidence from one or more evidence-based research and evaluation studies (as described in paragraph (6)(e)) indicating that the proposed intervention, or project component (as defined in this notice), has raised the achievement of students from one or more underrepresented groups in one or more core subject areas;

(b) Promising evidence from one or more evidence-based research and evaluation studies (as described in paragraph (6)(e)) that the proposed intervention has resulted in the identification of, and provision of services to, increased numbers of students from underrepresented groups who participate in gifted and talented education programs;

(c) A detailed description of the professional qualifications of each member of the applicant's leadership team, including an explanation of how the leadership team has significant expertise in each of the following areas: Gifted and talented education, research and program evaluation, content knowledge in one or more core academic subject areas, and experience working with underrepresented groups;

(d) A sound plan for implementing the model in multiple settings or with multiple populations; and

(e) A research and evaluation plan that employs an experimental study (as defined in this notice) or quasi-experimental design (QED) study (as defined in this notice) to measure the impact of the intervention on the achievement of students from underrepresented groups, including students who are economically disadvantaged, English learners, and students who have disabilities, and on the number of these students who are identified as gifted and talented and served through gifted and talented programs.

Evaluation methods using an experimental design are best for determining program effectiveness. Thus, when feasible, the project must use an experimental design under which participants (e.g., students, teachers, classrooms, or schools) are randomly assigned to participate in the project activities being evaluated or to a control group that does not participate in the project activities being evaluated.

If random assignment is not feasible, the project may use a QED study with carefully matched comparison conditions. This alternative design attempts to approximate a randomly assigned control group by matching participants with non-participants having similar pre-intervention characteristics.

In addition, successful applicants who accept this award must participate in a national evaluation study during the grant period.

Definitions: We are establishing definitions for correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias, experimental study, What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with reservations, WWC Evidence Standards without reservations, project component, promising evidence, and relevant outcome, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The other definitions listed below are from section 8101 of the ESEA; 34 CFR 77.1; and the notice of final priority for this program that was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2008 (73 FR 21329). These definitions apply to the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias means a study that (1) estimates how a relevant outcome varies with the receipt of a project component, and (2) uses sampling or analysis methods (e.g., multiple regression) to account for at least some of the differences between the groups being compared.

English learner means an individual—

(a) Who is aged 3 through 21;

(b) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(c)(1) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(2)(i) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and

(ii) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(3) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(d) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(1) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(2) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(3) The opportunity to participate fully in society.

Experimental study means a study, such as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. In some circumstances, a finding from a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) or findings from a collection of single-case design studies (SCDs) may be considered equivalent to a finding from an RCT. RCTs, RDDs, and collections of SCDs, depending on design and implementation, can meet WWC Evidence Standards without reservations. Definitions of randomized controlled trials, RDDs, and SCDs can be found at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Glossary.

Gifted and talented, when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project.

Promising evidence means the following conditions are met:

(a) There is at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with a relevant finding, meaning the study is a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (QED studies or experimental studies may also qualify); and

(b) The relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is of a statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect of the project component on a student outcome or other relevant outcome with no statistically significant and overriding negative (i.e., unfavorable) evidence on that project component from other findings on the intervention reviewed by and reported in the WWC that meet WWC Evidence Standards with reservations or WWC Evidence Standards without reservations.

Quasi-experimental design (QED) 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. This type of study, depending on design and implementation, can meet WWC Evidence Standards with reservations (but not WWC Evidence Standards without reservations).

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

Scale up means to expand a program with demonstrated effectiveness on a small scale for use with gifted and talented students in broader settings (such as in multiple schools, grade levels, or districts, or in other educational settings) or with different populations of gifted and talented students (based on differences such as the socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and linguistic backgrounds of the students and their families).

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with reservations means the second-highest rating for a group design study reviewed by the WWC. Studies receiving this rating provide a reasonable degree of confidence that an estimated effect was caused by the project component studied. Both experimental studies (such as RCTs with high rates of sample attrition) and QED studies may receive this rating if they establish the equivalence of the treatment and comparison groups in key baseline characteristics. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without reservations means it is the highest possible rating for a study finding reviewed by the WWC. Studies receiving this rating provide the highest degree of confidence that an estimated effect was caused by the project component studied. Experimental studies may receive this highest rating. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed requirements and definitions. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 4644 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7294) and, therefore, it qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the requirements and definitions under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. The requirements and definitions in this notice will apply to the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations in 34 CFR part 299.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $5,000,000.

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

Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000 to $500,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $425,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 9-12.

Project Period: 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies; local educational agencies; the Bureau of Indian Education; IHEs; other public agencies; and other private agencies and organizations.

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

1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet, from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), or from the program office.

To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www2.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 program as follows: CFDA number 84.206A.

To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Theda Zawaiza, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E310, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-3783 or by email: [email protected]. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

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

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

Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 35 pages, and (2) use the following standards:

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

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

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

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

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

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: May 18, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 22, 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 21, 2017.

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

5. Funding Restrictions: 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: http://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 Javits program, CFDA number 84.206A, 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 Javits program 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 84.206, not 84.206A).

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, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—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.

• 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, flattened 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: Theda Zawaiza, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E310, Washington, DC 20202-6200. FAX: (202) 260-8969.

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 84.206A, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) A private metered postmark.

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

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

c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.206A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

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

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

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

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

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum possible score for addressing all criteria is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses. The selection criteria for this competition are as follows:

(a) Quality of the Project Design (40 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which—

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

(2) The design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs; and

(3) The proposed project represents an exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.

(b) Quality of Project Personnel (20 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. 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. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors—

(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator; and

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(c) Quality of the Management Plan (20 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(d) Quality of the Project Evaluation (20 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which—

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

(2) The methods of evaluation 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 to the extent possible; and

(3) The evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.

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

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

3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program 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.

4. 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 (APR) 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: Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed the following two measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of projects funded under this competition: (1) The quality of project designs, based on an expert panel review; and (2) significant gains in academic achievement among target student populations.

For the first measure, the Department collects data twice over the life of the grant (mid-term and final) by convening an expert panel of scientists and practitioners to review information from a sample of APRs and self-evaluations prepared by grantees.

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) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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.

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

Title of Collection: Application for the Centers for International Business Education (CIBE) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0616.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 50.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,000.

Abstract: This collection contains the application forms and instructions for the Centers for International Business Education (CIBE) Program, which provides funding to institutions of higher education in the United States on issues of importance to U.S. trade and competitiveness. Eligible institutions of higher education use the information to develop and submit grant applications to the Department of Education (ED). Applicants' submissions are used by peer reviewers during the grant competition to evaluate and score the proposed projects.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB Control No.: 1910-5112; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Final Rule: Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: This collection provides the Department with the information needed to continue reducing the number of workers currently exposed to beryllium in the course of their work at DOE facilities managed by DOE or its contractors; minimize the levels and potential exposure to beryllium; to provide information to employees, to provide medical surveillance to ensure early detection of disease; and to permit oversight of the programs by DOE management; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,936 (22 DOE sites and 5,914 workers affected by the rule); (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 16,971; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 25,399; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,441,230; (9) Response Obligation: Mandatory.

Section 57b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is implemented through the DOE/NNSA regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 810 (Part 810) governing exports of unclassified nuclear technology and assistance. Applicants seeking specific authorizations to transfer or provide any such technology or assistance must make an application to DOE, and those who are transferring or providing such technology or assistance must provide regular reports to DOE. In response to public comment, DOE/NNSA is pursuing a number of efforts to improve the Part 810 authorization process collectively known as a Process Improvement Plan (PIP) to make the Part 810 authorization process more transparent, orderly, and efficient. One of the main components of the PIP was to develop an electronic application and reporting database (which DOE has called “e810”). e810 was designed to ease the application and reporting burden on industry, streamline the review process for specific authorization applications, and provide greater transparency into the authorization process and timelines. The e810 database is now available for use. The Web site is: e810.energy.gov. Prospective users may register for an account at that site. Use of the e810 site for Part 810 communications is strictly optional; the email and paper communication options listed at 10 CFR 810.4 remain available. However, we encourage its use as continued upgrades to the e810 database will further enhance and streamline the Part 810 authorization process. Early use will allow users to take full advantage of those features as they come on line.

This information collection request relates to: (1) OMB No. 1910-5136; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Western Area Power Administration Applicant Profile Data; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of WAPA's power marketing functions. WAPA markets a limited amount of Federal hydropower. WAPA has discretion to determine who will receive an allocation of Federal hydropower. Due to the limited quantity and high demand for WAPA's hydropower available under established marketing plans, WAPA may need to be able to collect information using the APD to evaluate the entities that apply to receive allocations of Federal hydropower; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 33.3; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 33.3; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 266.7; and (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $34,063.44.

Reclamation Laws are a series of laws arising from the Desert Land Act of 1877 and include, but are not limited to, the Desert Land Act of 1877, Reclamation Act of 1902, Reclamation Project Act of 1939, and the Acts authorizing each individual project such as the Central Valley Project Authorizing Act of 1937.1 The Reclamation Act of 1902 established the Federal reclamation program.2 The basic principle of the Reclamation Act of 1902 was that the United States, through the Secretary of the Interior, would build and operate irrigation works from the proceeds of public land sales in the sixteen arid Western states (a seventeenth was later added). The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 expanded the purposes of the reclamation program and specified certain terms for contracts that the Secretary of the Interior enters into to furnish water and power.3 Congress enacted the Reclamation Laws for purposes that include enhancing navigation, protection from floods, reclaiming the arid lands in the Western United States, and for fish and wildlife.4 Congress intended the production of power would be a supplemental feature of the multi-purpose water projects authorized under the Reclamation Laws.5 No contract entered into by the United States for power may, in the judgment of the Secretary, impair the efficiency of the project for irrigation purposes.6 Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 is read in pari materia with Reclamation Laws with respect to the WAPA.7 In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act transferred the power marketing functions of the Department of the Interior to the Secretary of Energy, acting by and through a separate Administrator for WAPA.8 Pursuant to this authority, WAPA markets Federal hydropower. As part of WAPA's marketing authority, WAPA needs to obtain information from interested entities who desire an allocation of Federal power using the APD form. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires WAPA to obtain a clearance from OMB before collecting this information through the APD form.9

This public process and the associated Federal Register notice only determine the information that WAPA will collect from an entity desiring to apply for a Federal power allocation. This public process is a legal requirement that WAPA must comply with before WAPA can request information from potential preference customers. This public process is not the process whereby interested parties request an allocation of Federal power. The actual allocation of power is outside the scope of this proceeding. Please do not submit a request for Federal power in this process. Later, through a separate process, WAPA will issue a call for applications, as part of its project-specific marketing plans. When WAPA issues a call for applications, the information WAPA proposes to collect is voluntary. WAPA will use the information collected, in conjunction with its project-specific marketing plans, to determine an entity's eligibility and ultimately which entity will receive an allocation of Federal power.

WAPA intends to extend and reuse the APD form under the OMB control number to September 30, 2020. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated electronic, mechanical or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Noninvasive, Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).

The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Noninvasive, Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=2470.

This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Noninvasive, Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain helpful:

A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the EPC email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/.

The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

I. In adults with chronic low back pain:

A. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with sham treatment, no treatment, waitlist, attention control, or usual care?

B. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with pharmacological therapy (e.g., opioids, NSAIDS, acetaminophen, anti-seizure medications, antidepressants)?

C. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with exercise?

II. In adults with chronic neck pain:

A. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with sham treatment, no treatment, waitlist, attention control, or usual care?

B. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with pharmacological therapy?

C. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with exercise?

III. In adults with osteoarthritis-related pain:

A. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with sham treatment, no treatment, waitlist, attention control, or usual care?

B. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with pharmacological therapy?

C. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with exercise?

IV. In adults with fibromyalgia:

A. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with sham treatment, no treatment, waitlist, attention control, or usual care?

B. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with pharmacological therapy?

C. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with exercise?

V. In adults with chronic tension headache:

A. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with sham treatment, no treatment, waitlist, attention control, or usual care?

B. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with pharmacological therapy?

C. What are the benefits and harms of noninvasive nonpharmacological therapies compared with biofeedback?

VI. Do estimates of benefits and harms differ by age, sex, or presence of comorbidities (e.g., emotional or mood disorders)?

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. As part of its effort to fulfill its mission goals, AHRQ, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense's TRICARE Management Activity, developed TeamSTEPPS® (Team Strategies and Tools for Enhancing Performance and Patient Safety) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for training teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. TeamSTEPPS includes multiple toolkits, which are all tied to, or are variants of, the core curriculum. TeamSTEPPS resources have been developed for primary care, rapid response systems, long-term care, and patients with limited English proficiency.

The main objective of the TeamSTEPPS program is to improve patient safety by training health care staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques and ultimately helping to build national capacity for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations.

Created in 2007, AHRQ's National Implementation Program trains Master Trainers who have stimulated the use and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in health care delivery systems. These individuals were trained during two-day, in-person classes using the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum at regional training centers across the U.S. AHRQ has also provided technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS and has developed user networks, various educational venues, and other channel of learning for continued support and the improvement of teamwork in health care. Since the inception of the National Implementation Program, AHRQ has trained more than 6,000 participants to serve as TeamSTEPPS Master Trainers.

Due to the success of the National Implementation Program, which resulted in increased requests for in-person training, AHRQ had been unable to match the demand for TeamSTEPPS Master Training, and wait lists for training at times exceeded 500 individuals.

To address this prevailing need, AHRQ developed TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer course, which mirrors the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 core curriculum and provides equivalent training to the in-person classes offered through the National Implementation Program.

As part of this initiative, AHRQ seeks to continue to conduct an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program. This evaluation seeks to understand the effectiveness of TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Training and what revisions might be required to improve the training program.

This research has the following goals:

(1) Conduct a formative assessment of the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program to determine what improvements should be made to the training and how it is delivered, and

(2) Identify how trained participants use and implement the TeamSTEPPS tools and resources.

The TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program is led by Reingold, Inc. This study is being conducted by Reingold's subcontractor, IMPAQ International (IMPAQ). This study is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness, and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

To achieve this project's goals, AHRQ will train participants using the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program and then survey these participants six months post-training. Each activity is briefly described below.

1. TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer Course. This training program, which includes 13 accredited hours of training, is based on the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 instructional materials and will be delivered online to 3,000 participants. The training will cover the core TeamSTEPPS tools and strategies, coaching, organizational change, and implementation science.

2. TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Post-Training Survey. This online instrument will be administered to all participants who complete the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Training. The survey will be administered six months after participants complete the training program.

This data collection is for the purpose of conducting an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program which was last approved by OMB on November 14th 2014 (OMB Control Number is 0935-0224), and will expire November 30th, 2017. The evaluation is primarily formative in nature as AHRQ seeks information to improve the delivery of the training.

This is a new data collection for the purpose of conducting an evaluation of TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program. The evaluation will be primarily formative in nature as AHRQ seeks information to improve the delivery of the training.

The OMB Control Number for the MEPS-HC and MPC is 0935-0118, which was last approved by OMB on December 20th, 2012, and will expire on December 31st, 2015.

To conduct the evaluation, the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Post-Training Survey will be administered to all individuals who completed the TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Master Trainer program, six months after completing training. The purpose of the survey is to assess the degree to which participants felt prepared by the training and what they did to implement TeamSTEPPS. Specifically, participants will be asked about their reasons for participating in the program; the degree to which they feel the training prepared them to train others in and use TeamSTEPPS; what tools they have implemented in their organizations; and resulting changes they have observed in the delivery of care.

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. The TeamSTEPPS 2.0 Online Post-Training Survey will be completed by approximately 3,000 individuals. We estimate that each respondent will require 20 minutes to complete the survey. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 1,000 hours.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $45,320.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, 73 FR 70732-70814, provide for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. Information that is assembled and developed by providers for reporting to PSOs and the information received and analyzed by PSOs—called “patient safety work product”—allows for the aggregation of data that help to identify and address underlying causal factors of patient safety and quality issues.

The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule establish a framework by which doctors, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other health care providers may assemble information regarding patient safety events and quality of care. Information that is assembled and developed by providers for reporting to PSOs and the information received and analyzed by PSOs is privileged and confidential. Patient safety work product is used to conduct patient safety activities, which may include identifying events, patterns of care, and unsafe conditions that increase risks and hazards to patients. Definitions and other details about PSOs and patient safety work product are included in the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule which can be accessed electronically at: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/legislation/.

The term “Common Formats” refers to the standardized reporting formats—using common language and definitions—that AHRQ has developed for reporting safety concerns from a variety of health care settings and throughout the quality improvement cycle. The Common Formats allow health care providers to collect and submit standardized information and facilitate aggregation of comparable data at local, PSO, regional, and national levels. The formats are not intended to replace any current mandatory reporting system, collaborative/voluntary reporting system, research-related reporting system, or other reporting/recording system; rather, the Common Formats are intended to enhance the ability of health care providers to report information that is standardized both clinically and electronically.

In collaboration with the interagency Federal Patient Safety Workgroup (PSWG), the National Quality Forum (NQF), and the public, AHRQ has developed Common Formats for three settings of care—acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and community pharmacies—in order to facilitate standardized data collection and analysis. The scope of the formats applies to all patient safety concerns including: incidents—patient safety events that reached the patient, whether or not there was harm; near misses or close calls—patient safety events that did not reach the patient; and unsafe conditions—circumstances that increase the probability of a patient safety event.

AHRQ's Common Formats for patient safety event reporting include:

• Event descriptions (definitions of patient safety events, near misses, and unsafe conditions to be reported);

• Delineation of data elements and algorithms to be used for collection of adverse event data to populate the reports; and

• Technical specifications for electronic data collection and reporting.

The technical specifications promote standardization of collected patient safety concerns by specifying rules for data collection and submission, as well as by providing guidance for how and when to create data elements, their valid values, conditional and go-to logic, and reports. These specifications will ensure that data collected by PSOs and other entities have comparable clinical meaning. They also provide direction to software developers, so that the Common Formats can be implemented electronically, and to PSOs, so that the Common Formats can be submitted electronically to the PSO Privacy Protection Center (PSOPPC) for non-identification and data transmission to the Network of Patient Safety Databases.

In anticipation of the need for Common Formats, AHRQ began its development by creating an inventory of functioning private and public sector patient safety reporting systems. This inventory provided an evidence base to inform construction of the Common Formats. The inventory included many systems from the private sector, including prominent academic settings, hospital systems, and international reporting systems (e.g., from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia). In addition, virtually all major Federal patient safety reporting systems were included, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Since February 2005, AHRQ has convened the PSWG to assist AHRQ with developing and maintaining the Common Formats. The PSWG includes major health agencies within HHS—CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, FDA, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office of Public Health and Science, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—as well as the DoD and VA.

Since the initial release of the Common Formats in August 2008, AHRQ has regularly revised the formats based upon public comment. First, AHRQ reviews existing patient safety practices and event reporting systems. Then, AHRQ works in collaboration with the PSWG and Federal subject matter experts to develop and draft the Common Formats. In addition, the PSWG assists AHRQ with assuring the consistency of definitions/formats with those of relevant government agencies. Next, AHRQ solicits feedback from private sector organizations and individuals. Finally, based upon the feedback received, AHRQ further revises the Common Formats.

Participation by the private sector in the development and subsequent revision of the Common Formats is achieved through work with the NQF. The Agency engages the NQF, a non-profit organization focused on health care quality, to solicit comments and advice regarding proposed versions of the Common Formats. AHRQ began this process with the NQF in 2008, receiving feedback on AHRQ's 0.1 Beta release of the Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital. After receiving public comment, the NQF solicits the review and advice of its Common Formats Expert Panel and subsequently provides feedback to AHRQ. The Agency then revises and refines the Common Formats and issues them as a production version. AHRQ has continued to employ this process for all subsequent versions of the Common Formats.

On April 8, 2016, AHRQ announced the availability of the Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital Version 2.0 for review and comment in the Federal Register (81 FR 20642-20643). At the time of the initial release of the formats, only the event descriptions—which define adverse events of interest in the inpatient hospital setting—were made available. Based on public comment and NQF Expert Panel advice, AHRQ updated the event descriptions and developed additional documentation for the Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital Version 2.0, including data element definitions, algorithms, and technical specifications. Beginning with this version, AHRQ will no longer publish aggregate report specifications, which were initially provided for versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 as a local resource for providers, because the report specifications are no longer needed to guide providers regarding aggregating output.

The Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital Version 2.0 constitutes a major release of the AHRQ Common Formats and reflects these key changes:

• Data elements are designated as either `core' or `supplemental' for reporting purposes;

• Event descriptions for each module are condensed; and

• Module-specific paper forms are eliminated.

The formats have two tiers, or data sets. The first tier, or core data set, contains elements that are collected for submission at the national level to the PSOPPC. The second tier, or supplemental data set, is optional for use at the local level to support additional analyses, and is not required for transmission to the PSOPPC. All documentation for the Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital Version 2.0 is posted on the PSOPPC Web site. https://www.psoppc.org/psoppc_web.

More information on the Common Formats can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/.

Proposed Project

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. The AHRQ Safety Program for Enhancing Surgical Care and Recovery is a quality improvement project that aims to provide technical assistance to hospitals to help them implement evidence-based practices to improve outcomes and prevent complications among patients who undergo surgery. Enhanced recovery pathways are a constellation of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative practices that decrease complications and accelerate recovery. A number of studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated successful results. In order to facilitate broader adoption of these evidence-based practices among U.S. hospitals, this AHRQ project will adapt the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP), which has been demonstrated to be an effective approach to reducing other patient harms, to enhanced recovery after surgery. The approach uses a combination of clinical and cultural (i.e., technical and adaptive) intervention components, which include promoting leadership and frontline staff engagement, close teamwork among surgeons, anesthesia providers, and nurses, as well as enhancing patient communication and engagement. Interested hospitals will voluntarily participate.

This project has the following goals:

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

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

Who's at Risk: From Hazards to Communities—An Approach for Operationalizing CDC Guidelines to Determine Risks, and Define, Locate and Reach At-Risk Populations in Public Health Emergencies—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Risk Assessment, Mapping, and Planning (RAMP) tool is currently being developed by CDC for public health and medical emergency planners (especially Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Program awardees) to assess and quantify risk, identify and map at-risk populations, and to determine response objectives for hazard-specific public health emergency plans at all jurisdictional levels in the United States.

To assist in developing this tool, key informant interviews/focus groups will be conducted with public health and emergency management professionals from across the United States. And to understand the needs of at-risk populations, an anonymous survey will be conducted at Los Angeles County Department of Public Health clinics.

CDC is proposing an information collection to OMB to obtain subject matter expertise and feedback for pilot testing the RAMP tool and anonymous demographic information from LA County DPH clinic guests. CDC will use the data to develop the RAMP tool.

Public health and emergency manager respondents in pre-identified partner jurisdictions will participate in the interview and focus groups.

Los Angeles Department of Public Health Clinic guests will be offered an anonymous survey at the time of service registration.

All information will be collected on paper surveys and entered into a secured database. All paper surveys will be locked in the secure offices of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Program. All information will be disseminated and/or reported in aggregate form only.

It is anticipated that the focus group/interview and survey data collections will begin three months after OMB approval, beginning in the fall of 2017 and continuing for the duration of the project (through September 25, 2019). OMB approval is being requested for two years from the date of approval.

Public Health and Medical Emergency Planner Focus Group Questionnaire:

Information collection will involve approximately 100 surveys at approximately $20,000 (costs for convening workshops to engage survey respondents). There is no annual reporting or record-keeping burden. It is anticipated that participation in focus group questionnaires will occur as part (workshop, breakout group sessions) of pre-identified emergency preparedness/management meetings, conferences, and/or summits, in which participants will already be in attendance or participating in. As such, it is anticipated that participation in the focus group questionnaires will not result in any additional costs to, or burden on the vast majority of participants. For those few participants who may see an increased cost or burden on them through participation in focus group questionnaires, the proposed costs of participation are estimated at: $35.46 for one hour participation in a focus group questionnaire. Mean Hourly Wage of Emergency Management Directors (occupational code 11-9161): $35.46. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2015).

LA County Public Health Clinic Guests:

Information collection will involve approximately 1,500 surveys and will be administered by DPH Staff and volunteers and will not require any costs to administer. It is anticipated that those individuals participating in the Public Health Client Surveys will do so while waiting for clinic services in clinic waiting rooms, and as such will not require any additional cost or burden to their participation. For those few participants who may see an increased cost or burden on them through participation in Public Health Client Surveys, the proposed costs of participation are estimated at: $0.90 for completing one five minute survey. California State Minimum Wage: $10.50 per hour. (Source: State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Schedule for California Minimum Wage rate 2017-2023).

The total estimated burden is 225 hours.

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Conditions of Participation for Community Mental Health Centers and Supporting Regulations; Use: On June 17, 2011, we proposed for the first time new conditions of participation (CoPs) for community mental health centers (CMHCs). We finalized it in the final rule that published October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64604), with an effective date 12-months after publication of the final rule. These CoPs which are based on criteria prescribed in law and are standards designed to ensure that each facility has properly trained staff to provide the appropriate safe physical environment for patients. These particular standards reflect comparable standards developed by industry organizations such as the Joint Commission. The primary users of this information will be State agency surveyors, CMS and CMHCs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with Medicare CoPs as well as ensuring the quality of care provided by CMHCs to patients. Form Number: CMS-10506 (OMB Control number: 0938-1245); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit organizations; Number of Respondents: 68; Total Annual Responses: 18,586; Total Annual Hours: 2,091. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Mary Rossi-Coajou at 410-786-6051.)

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Information Collection Request Title: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Information Collection Effort for Potential Donors for Living Organ Donation—New.

Abstract: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) is administered under contract with HRSA, an agency of HHS. HHS is authorized to establish and maintain mechanisms to evaluate the long-term effects associated with living donations (42 U.S.C. 273a) and is required to submit to Congress an annual report on the long-term health effects of living donation (42 U.S.C. 273b). The SRTR contractor will establish a pilot living donor registry in which 14 transplant programs will register all potential living donors who provide informed consent to participate in the pilot registry. The SRTR's authority to collect information concerning potential living donors is set forth in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network final rule requiring Organ Procurement Organizations and transplant hospitals to submit to the SRTR, as appropriate, information regarding “donors of organs” and “other information that the Secretary deems appropriate” 42 CFR 121.11(b)(2).

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The transplant programs will submit health information collected at the time of donation evaluation through a secure web-based data collection tool developed by the contractor. The SRTR contractor will maintain contact with registry participants and collect data on long-term health outcomes through surveys. The data collection will also include outcomes of evaluation including reasons for non-donation. The goal of the pilot registry is to develop data collection tools and survey instruments that can be used to expand the registry to include most, if not all, living donor transplant programs in the United States over time. Monitoring and reporting of long-term health outcomes of living donors post donation will provide useful information to transplant programs in their future donor selection process and will aid potential living donors in their decision to pursue living donation.

Likely Respondents: Potential living donors, transplant programs, medical and scientific organizations, and public organizations.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to: (1) Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; (2) train personnel to respond to a request for collection of information; (3) search data sources; (4) complete and review the collection of information; and (5) to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Information Collection Request Title: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part F Dental Services Report, OMB No. 0915-0151—Extension.

Abstract: The Dental Reimbursement Program (DRP) and the Community-Based Dental Partnership Program (CBDPP) under Part F of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) offer funding to accredited dental schools and other accredited dental education programs to support the provision of oral health services for people living with HIV as well as the education and training of oral health providers in HIV oral health care. Institutions eligible for these RWHAP Part F funds are accredited schools of dentistry and other accredited dental education programs, such as dental hygiene programs or those sponsored by a school of dentistry, a hospital, or a public or private institution that offers postdoctoral training in the specialties of dentistry, advanced education in general dentistry, or a dental general practice residency. The Dental Services Report (DSR) collects data on program information, client demographics, oral health services, funding, and training. Awards are authorized under section 2692(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(b)).

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The primary purpose of collecting this information annually is to verify applicant eligibility and determine reimbursement amounts for DRP applicants, as well as to document the program accomplishments of CBDPP grant recipients. This information also allows HRSA to learn about (1) the extent of the involvement of dental schools and programs in treating patients with HIV, (2) the number and characteristics of clients who receive RWHAP-supported oral health services, (3) the types and frequency of the provision of these services, (4) the non-reimbursed costs of oral health care provided to patients living with HIV, and (5) the scope of grant recipients' community-based collaborations and training of providers. In addition to meeting the goal of accountability to Congress, clients, public and community groups, and the general public, information collected in the DSR is critical for HRSA, state and local grantees, and individual providers to help assess the status of existing HIV-related health service delivery systems.

Likely Respondents: Accredited schools of dentistry and other accredited dental education programs, such as dental hygiene programs or those sponsored by a school of dentistry, a hospital, or a public or private institution that offers postdoctoral training in the specialties of dentistry, advanced education in general dentistry, or a dental general practice residency.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. As this ICR is an extension, the total burden hours are unchanged. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Information Collection Request Title: Assessing Client Factors Associated with Detectable HIV Viral Loads and Models of Care and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program OMB No. 0906-xxxx-New.

Abstract: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP), first authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1990, is administered by HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB). In 2015, 533,036 clients received services from RWHAP-funded providers; 97.0 percent were living with HIV. This information collection request covers two distinct evaluation studies with RWHAP provider sites that will share some data collection instruments. The sharing of data collection instruments will minimize the burden on RWHAP provider sites related to data collection, increase the sample size that could be used for data analysis resulting in greater generalizability of results, and provide richer and more robust data that may offer additional depth to the findings of each study.

The first evaluation study, Assessing Client Factors Associated with Detectable HIV Viral Loads, will explore clinical activities and barriers to achieving and sustaining viral suppression. Early and effective treatment for HIV has been shown to greatly reduce associated morbidity and mortality. In spite of the known benefit of treatment, many individuals remain out of care or access care only intermittently; the CDC estimated that, in 2013, approximately 45 percent of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States were not virally suppressed, indicating a significant gap in the percentage of PLWH who are being successfully engaged and retained in care. In spite of the increased attention on retention in care and the overarching goal of viral suppression, little data exist regarding the specific individual factors that are associated with sub-optimal viral suppression. Such information would be valuable in targeting programs to reach populations that are currently not achieving viral suppression.

The second evaluation study, Models of Care and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, seeks to answer the critical questions of what individual and system-wide factors, including the models of care employed among RWHAP provider sites, contribute to better health outcomes for PLWH. While advances in treatment have improved survival in patients with HIV, longer lives are associated with increased prevalence of adverse effects of HIV infection and therapeutic complications, concurrent with medical conditions related to aging processes that would occur in the absence of HIV. These long-term complications amplify chronic disease management as a major issue for the HIV population and a challenge for the delivery of effective health care. These studies will inform HAB about how the method of health services delivery (the “model of care”) contributes to better health outcomes, including HIV-related outcomes. Understanding the most effective models of care will be important for HIV specialists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who care for PLWH as they design and coordinate a full array of primary care and support services for their HIV patients. These primary care and support services have a direct impact on viral suppression, which, in turn, improves life expectancy and quality of life, and prevents HIV transmission.

The two studies inform each other in that the degree to which clients are virally suppressed may be attributed partly to the model of care practiced at their clinic. Likewise, the degree to which its clients have achieved viral suppression may drive a clinic to practice a particular model of care. The two studies will collect several identical data elements through their individual collection instruments, allowing data to be aggregated across the two studies. The aggregation of data across the two studies will minimize the burden on RWHAP provider sites related to data collection, increase the sample size that could be used for data analysis resulting in greater generalizability of results, and provide richer and more robust data that may offer additional depth to the findings of each study.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Assessing Client Factors Associated with Detectable HIV Viral Loads study will identify characteristics of RWHAP clients and health facilities that are associated with the ability to achieve and sustain an undetectable viral load as compared to the characteristics that are associated with sub-optimal viral suppression. This study will enable the development of better targeted services for improved viral suppression rates. The Models of Care and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program study will compare HIV and primary health outcomes across various models of care to determine which are most effective in responding to HIV to improve health outcomes for people living with HIV and to prevent HIV transmissions. The results from this study will enable improvements or redesigns of effective delivery of HIV care among Ryan White providers, which will, in turn, improve HIV clinical outcomes such as viral suppression.

In both studies, an analysis of the perceptions of providers and clients will further support the understanding of the impact of individual and system-wide factors on achieving health outcomes. The two studies will share data to inform both studies' objectives, allow for a larger sample size from which to generalize conclusions, and reduce the overall burden of response on RWHAP providers and clients. The objectives of both studies will be achieved through collection of the following data:

• RWHAP provider interviews—Site staff interviewees (in person);

• RWHAP client surveys—Clients with detectable and undetectable viral load at each clinic;

• RWHAP client records abstraction—Medical chart and administrative records (e.g., service utilization and health outcomes data);

• RWHAP site survey data—Site Director responses; and

RWHAP client semi-structured interviews—Clients with detectable and undetectable viral load.

These studies will build upon and complement HAB's study focusing on RWHAP outcomes within the context of the changing health care landscape; and will use the RWHAP site survey and chart abstraction instruments that were submitted as part of that study. The data will be collected by a contractor selected by HRSA.

Likely Respondents: RWHAP Administrators, RWHAP Care Providers, and RWHAP Clients.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below. Both research studies are included in the table, with burden proportional to the number of RWHAP provider sites from which each study will collect data: 25 distinct facilities for Assessing Client Factors Associated with Detectable HIV Viral Loads and 50 distinct facilities for Models of Care and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The table below provides the level of burden inclusive of both studies.

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that American Cargo Assurance, LLC, 3417-A Maplewood Drive, Sulphur, LA 70663, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. American Cargo Assurance, LLC, is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 116 Bryan Road, Suite 101, Wilmington, NC 28412 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Robinson International (USA) Inc., 4400 S. Wayside Drive #107, Houston, TX 77087 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Robinson International (USA) Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising the Notice of Intent to prepare a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the National Bison Range (NBR), with headquarters in Moiese, Montana. With a notice published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5597), we initiated a process for developing a CCP for the NBR. We are revising the original notice of intent to provide an additional opportunity for input and to share with the public that we intend to move in a different direction than that indicated by the January 2017 notice. Specifically, due to the variety of information and perspectives received during the comment period and a change in policy direction, we will not proceed with evaluating a preferred alternative of legislative transfer of the NBR. With this notice, we request comments in order to obtain suggestions and information on a revised scope of issues to be considered in the planning process. The CCP will describe the desired future conditions of the refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction on how best to achieve refuge purposes.

The notice complies with our CCP policy to (1) advise other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct planning on this refuge and (2) to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of additional issues to consider during development of the CCP. Through the CCP, we intend to evaluate how we will manage NBR. Participation in the planning process will be encouraged and facilitated by various means, including news releases and public meetings. Notification of all such meetings will be announced in the local press and on the NBR Web site.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose of a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

We will conduct environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), by preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Service intends to invite the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) to participate as a cooperating agency as provided by 40 CFR 1508.5.

We will prepare a CCP and EIS which will describe how we will manage NBR over the next 15 years. To facilitate sound planning and environmental assessment, we intend to gather information necessary for the preparation of the CCP/EIS and obtain suggestions and information from other agencies, municipalities, and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the CCP/EIS. We will separately consider CCPs for Pablo, Lost Trail, and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and the Northwest Montana Lake County Wetland Management District and the waterfowl production areas therein, which are also part of the National Bison Range Complex.

In 1908, the first purchase of land for the exclusive protection of wildlife occurred when Congress appropriated money for the establishment of NBR. The overall mission of the NBR is to maintain a representative herd of bison, under reasonably natural conditions, to ensure the preservation of the species for continued public enjoyment. The NBR is 18,800 acres and supports between 350 and 500 bison. The National Bison Range lies entirely within the boundary of the Flathead Indian Reservation of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). Members of the CSKT have a cultural, historical, or geographic connection to the land and resources of the NBR.

The mission for NBR, and purposes for which it was established, are used to develop and prioritize management goals and objectives within the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and to guide which public uses will occur on the Refuge. The planning process is a way for the Service and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives for the best possible conservation efforts of this important wildlife habitat while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with the Refuges' establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We will conduct a CCP process that will provide opportunity for tribal, State, and local governments; Federal and State agencies; organizations; and the public to participate in issue scoping and public comment. We are requesting input on issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of NBR.

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

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to gather information necessary to prepare a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for Pablo, Lost Trail, and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and the Northwest Montana Wetland Management Districts, all of which are units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The three Refuges and Wetland Management Districts are all part of the National Bison Range Complex. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we are also publishing a revised notice of intent to prepare a draft CCP for the National Bison Range. We are accepting comments on these two notices simultaneously.

The CCP for Pablo, Lost Trail, and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and the Northwest Montana Wetland Management Districts, will describe the desired future conditions of the units and provide long-range guidance and management direction to Refuge staff on how best to achieve refuge purposes. The notice complies with our CCP policy to (1) advise other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct planning on this refuge complex, and (2) to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of additional issues to consider during development of the CCP. Through the CCP, the Service intends to evaluate how it will manage Pablo, Lost Trail, and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and the Northwest Montana Wetland Management Districts.

This notice is in compliance with Service Refuge Planning policy to advise other agencies and the public of our intentions, and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process. Participation in the planning process will be encouraged and facilitated by various means, including news releases and public meetings. Notification of all such meetings will be announced in the local press and on the NBR Web site: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/national_bison_range/.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose of a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

We will conduct environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), by preparing an environmental assessment (EA). The Service intends to consult with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) during this process.

The Service will prepare a CCP and EA that will describe how it will manage the units over the next 15 years. To facilitate sound planning and environmental assessment, the Service intends to gather information necessary for the preparation of the CCP/EA and obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the CCP/EA.

Ninepipe and Pablo National Wildlife Refuges were each established as easement refuges in 1921 “as a refuge and breeding ground for native birds,” (Executive Order 3503, Ninepipe; Executive Order 3504, Pablo). Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 24, 1999, and became the 519th refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It was established for use by migratory birds, conservation of fish and wildlife resources, fish and wildlife oriented recreation, and the conservation of endangered or threatened species. Finally, the Northwest Montana Wetland Management Districts are lands acquired “as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “all of the provisions of [the Migratory Bird Conservation Act . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions” (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718). Ninepipe and Pablo National Wildlife Refuges, and the portion of the Wetland Management District in Lake County, Montana, lie within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). Members of the CSKT have a cultural, historical, or geographic connection to the land and resources of the Range.

The mission and purposes for which the units were established are used to develop and prioritize management goals and objectives within the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and to guide which public uses will occur on the units of the Complex. The planning process is a way for the Service and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives for the best possible conservation efforts of this important wildlife habitat, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with the Refuges' establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

We will conduct a comprehensive conservation planning process that will provide opportunity for tribal, State, and local governments; Federal and State agencies; organizations; and the public to participate in issue scoping and public comment. We are requesting input for issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of Pablo, Lost Trail, and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and the Northwest Montana Wetland Management Districts.

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