Federal Register Vol. 82, No.99,

Agenda

The Groundfish Committee plans to discuss Amendment 23/Groundfish Monitoring, receive reports from the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP). They will discuss public scoping comments and make recommendations to the Council on the scope, purpose and need, and range of alternatives for Amendment 23. They also plan to review the 2017 Council Priorities with a discussion of Atlantic halibut management, receive reports from the PDT and GAP and make recommendations to the Council. They will also discuss a possible reclassification of windowpane flounder stocks with a report from the PDT and GAP and make recommendations to the Council. The committee will also review Recreational management measures process with reports from the PDT and Recreational Advisory Panel (RAP) and make recommendations to the Council. The committee will also review a draft Council letter (inclusive of Council staff and RAP input) regarding feedback on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Strategic Plan. The committee will consider comments on the Interim Final Rule for 2017 and 2018 Sector Operations Plans, including whether additional measures or restrictions should be recommended for Sector IX as a result of misreporting by sector vessels. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically 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 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 Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

The Recreational Advisory Panel plans to discuss the 2017 Council Priority—Recreational management measures process, with a report from the Groundfish Plan Development and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee. The Advisory Panel will also discuss Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Strategic Plan and review a draft Council letter (inclusive of Council staff input) regarding feedback on the plan. They will provide additional feedback for review by the Groundfish Committee. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically 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 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 Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

CFF submitted an application for an EFP on April 17, 2017, to complete work on a 2016 scallop RSA seeding and enhancement project on Georges Bank titled “Drivers of Dispersal and Retention in Recently Seeded Sea Scallops.” The project has been delayed due to personnel changes and changes in the original approach of the project from using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to instead deploying underwater cameras on stands. Previously, the project focused on transporting, seeding, and monitoring aspects of a seeding program with longer-term monitoring, along with investigating short-term retention of seeded scallops, with an emphasis on the drivers of dispersal and their effects on the different size classes of scallops. The goal of the project is to demonstrate the feasibility of a seeding program to enhance and stabilize scallop recruitment on Georges Bank while documenting the factors that affect seed survival.

To conduct this experiment, vessels would require exemptions from the following regulations: Atlantic sea scallop crew size restrictions at 50 CFR 648.51(c); Atlantic sea scallop observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); and closed area exemptions for Closed Area I at § 648.60(c) and Nantucket Lightship at § 648.60(f). It would also exempt participating vessels from the access area program requirements at § 648.59(a)(4), which would allow them to transit in and out of the access areas from the open area, as well as from the 50 bushel (17.6 hl) in-shell scallop possession limit outside of an access area found at § 648.52(f). Finally, the EFP would exempt vessels from possession limits and minimum fish size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for biological sampling purposes and to retain any yellowtail flounder showing signs of disease for further shore side analysis.

The project would transplant scallops from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration that were historically known to have high scallop densities, to demonstrate the feasibility of a reseeding program to enhance and stabilize scallop recruitment on Georges Bank. One dredging trip would collect and transplant roughly 1,000 scallops utilizing a single vessel, June through July 2017. The juvenile scallops would be harvested from the southeast portion of Nantucket Lightship Access Area (NLAA) to suitable sites in an alternate area of NLAA. The projects define a suitable site as having currents less than 3 knots (~1 m/s) and large areas of coarse substrate preferred by scallops. An alternate site in Closed Area I Access Area may be chosen if needed.

The vessel would tow two standard 15-foot (4.57-m) wide dredges with a 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bag for up to 10 minutes at 4.5 knots (2.3 m/s). To harvest all of the scallops for transplant, the applicant estimates they would need to complete no more than 10 tows. Once the catch is on deck, the scallops would be sorted by size class, marked with reflective tape to enhance images in the photographs, and stored in fish totes with a chilled seawater flow through system. When the vessel arrives at the transplant site the scallops would then be placed into a box that would be attached to a large steel camera stand with an image coverage of approximately 3 square meters. The camera stand would then be deployed overboard, lowered to the ocean floor, and the scallops released. The cameras are equipped with batteries that would allow for 48 hours of continuous coverage. After 48 hours, the camera stands would be collected, refilled with scallops, and redeployed. Researchers will deploy two camera stands in this manner as many times as needed to release 1,000 scallops. If researchers are unable to release all 1,000 scallops according to the project protocols, any remaining scallops will be released adjacent to the camera sites. Researchers conclude that tag returns over time from the fishery could potentially provide information for the project.

One bushel from each tow would be measured for size frequency and 15 individual scallops would be sampled for meat weights to determine shell height/meat weight ratios prior to transplanting. Any finfish caught in the dredge that show signs of abnormalities would be retained and brought back to shore for analysis. Researchers would like to continue gathering information on the prevalence of the disease Ichthyophonus seen locally in yellowtail flounder. Anticipated catch for the project is listed in the Table 1 below.

Exemptions are needed to deploy dredge gear in closed access areas and retain yellowtail flounder for scientific purposes. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel and possession waivers would enable them to conduct data collection activities. We would waive the observer program notification requirements because the research activity is not representative of standard fishing activity.

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

I. Background

Section 3 of the Charter of the Consumer Advisory Board states that:

The Consumer Advisory Board will discuss credit visibility, credit products, trends and themes, and small business lending.

Written comments will be accepted from interested members of the public and should be sent to [email protected], a minimum of seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. The comments will be provided to the CAB members for consideration. Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact [email protected], 202-435-9EEO, 1-855-233-0362, or 202-435-9742 (TTY) at least ten business days prior to the meeting or event to request assistance. The request must identify the date, time, location, and title of the meeting or event, the nature of the assistance requested, and contact information for the requester. CFPB will strive to provide, but cannot guarantee that accommodation will be provided for late requests.

Individuals who wish to attend the Consumer Advisory Board meeting must RSVP to [email protected] by noon, June 7, 2017. Members of the public must RSVP by the due date and must include “CAB” in the subject line of the RSVP.

The Board's agenda will be made available to the public on May 24, 2017, via www.consumerfinance.gov. Individuals should express in their RSVP if they require a paper copy of the agenda.

A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site www.consumerfinance.gov.

(1) Oral Argument in In the Matter of Zen Magnets, LLC, Docket No. 12-2.

(2) Executive Session to follow Oral Argument in In the Matter of Zen Magnets, LLC, Docket No. 12-2.

On May 17, 2017, Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle and Commissioners Elliot F. Kaye, Robert S. Adler, Marietta S. Robinson, and Joseph P. Mohorovic, voted unanimously to close Matter Number (2).

The Commission has determined that Matter Number (2) may be closed under 16 CFR 1013.4(b)(10) because the meeting will “[s]pecifically concern . . . disposition by the Agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 554,” and that the public interest does not require the matter to be open.

Pursuant to a May 20, 2016, Delegation of Authority, the Office of the General Counsel has certified that Matter Number (2) may properly be closed, citing the following relevant provision: 16 CFR 1013.4(b)(10).

Expected to attend the closed meeting are the Commissioners and their immediate staff, such other Commission staff as may be appropriate, and a court reporter from Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(D)).

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

This priority is:

Educational Materials in Accessible Formats for Children and Students with Visual Impairments and Print Disabilities.

Background:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a center that will provide free educational materials,1 including textbooks, in accessible formats to eligible children and students— individuals who are: (1) Blind, have a visual impairment, have a physical disability, or have a print disability; (2) certified by a competent authority as unable to read typical printed material as a result of physical limitations (e.g., dyslexia, specific reading disability, and disabilities in which students are unable to manipulate standard books and materials); and (3) enrolled in elementary or secondary schools (as defined by the State) or postsecondary or graduate schools.2 AEM include, but are not limited to: Electronic text, braille, audio files, description, closed captioning, and tactile graphics.

IDEA requires the provision of free educational materials, including textbooks and instructional materials, in accessible formats to eligible children and students. State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) must provide materials in accessible formats in a timely manner (IDEA Part B, section 612(a)(23)(B) and section 613(a)(6)(B)).

Further, under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, institutions of higher education (IHEs), SEAs, and LEAs must provide educational materials in accessible formats as a means to accommodate students who are blind, have a visual impairment, have a physical disability, or have a print disability. The accessible formats are needed to provide these students with an equal educational opportunity. 34 CFR 104.4.

Title II of the ADA is also applicable and requires, among other things, that public entities, including public IHEs, ensure that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in school activities and ensure that communication with students with disabilities is as effective as communication with students without disabilities, through the provision, in a timely manner, of auxiliary aids and services. 28 CFR 35.160.

As a condition of this grant, the materials and textbooks must be provided in formats that are of high quality and meet industry standards for accessibility (e.g., Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA Standard, EPUB Accessibility 1.0).3

To help ensure the free distribution of educational materials in accessible formats, Congress has granted exceptions to copyright holders' exclusive rights to replication and distribution through the Chafee Amendment, which authorizes entities to reproduce or distribute copies of previously published works in specialized, accessible formats exclusively for use by eligible children and students.

In the 2015-2016 school year, States reported that there were 29,186 enrolled students, ages 3 through 21, who were deaf-blind or had a visual impairment, and 2,357,143 had a specific learning disability, some of whom would typically qualify as having a print disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Over the past 10 years, work under this program has provided more than 400,000 students with access to AEM, which have been downloaded more than 3,350,000 times. These numbers continue to grow daily (www.bookshare.org).

This center will increase the production, availability, distribution, and use of AEM across grade levels and across ability levels. In order to do so, the center will upgrade available software to reflect new and emerging technology, increase the number of educational titles, reduce the time it takes to make accessible digital materials available, and improve the quality of these materials.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a center that will provide free educational materials,4 including textbooks and instructional materials, in accessible formats for eligible children and students—those who are: (1) Blind, have a visual impairment, have a physical disability or have a print disability; (2) certified by a competent authority as unable to read normal printed material as a result of physical limitations (e.g., dyslexia, specific reading disability, and disabilities in which students are unable to manipulate standard books and materials); and (3) enrolled in elementary or secondary (as defined by the State) or postsecondary, or graduate schools.5 Prior investments established a center to acquire educational materials, convert those materials into AEM, and distribute AEM to eligible children and students. These, and new AEM produced by the center funded under this priority, must remain available to eligible children and students after the end date of the project. In addition, it is critical to expand the availability, quality, and use of AEM, and apply new and emerging technology solutions to support efficient and effective production and distribution. The center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) The provision of AEM for use by eligible children and students. Materials must be provided in a timely manner and directly to eligible children and students or to SEAs, LEAs, postsecondary institutions, graduate schools, and vocational rehabilitation agencies requesting materials.

(b) The provision of free, high-quality, up-to-date software needed by eligible children and students, families, schools, LEAs, SEAs, postsecondary schools, and vocational rehabilitation agencies to use the AEM.

(c) The incorporation of the most efficient, cost-effective technology available to provide timely access to AEM that can be used across multiple accessible formats, including, at a minimum, braille-ready files, audio, standard text, standard text with audio, and large print.

(d) The production and distribution of high-quality, user-friendly AEM, including digital text, braille-ready files, and audio formats, using files that are consistent with the current industry standards and guidelines (e.g., Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Level AA Standard, EPUB Accessibility 1.0).

(e) The production of tools and software that can be used by developers, producers, publishers, and others to embed accessibility features into textbooks and educational materials during their initial development and production.

(f) The distribution of AEM to traditionally underserved eligible children and students (e.g., students living in poverty, homeless students, and culturally and linguistically diverse students including English learners).

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

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

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

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

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

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

(iv) A plan to implement the services and provide the products that are described in the Products and Services section of this priority;

(v) A plan that focuses on improving the quality, timeliness, ease of use, and access to AEM for eligible children and students;

(vi) A plan to ensure that eligible children and students will continue to be able to access at no cost the educational materials, including textbooks, in accessible formats, when the center is no longer federally funded, including a plan to:

(A) Provide software that is compatible for use with currently available devices. Examples include e-readers, smart phones, tablets, and data pads; and

(B) Anticipate future needs and technologies across the five years of the project;

(vii) A plan to ensure that materials and technologies are, to the maximum extent allowable under the law, openly licensed educational resources 6 through an open licensing authority;

(viii) Cost and efficiency measures, or a plan for cost and efficiency measures, for the production of AEM;

(ix) A detailed digital rights management plan that will be implemented during the project and will protect the interests of rights holders while maintaining ease of access to AEM for eligible children and students;

(x) A plan to consult with publishers, software developers, other manufacturers of AEM for eligible children and students, and the National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC) 7 to ensure that the project uses the most efficient, cost-effective technology available to provide timely access to AEM. This plan should also address strategies to work towards universal applicability across all interfaces and media formats;

(xi) A plan for how the project will coordinate across multiple partners to include IHEs, SEAs, and LEAs to reduce costs of production and duplication of materials, and to improve the timeliness of distribution;

(xii) Information on how the project will develop and implement a plan for increasing IHE, SEA, and LEA use of the project's resources and AEM as part of their systems for providing educational material in accessible formats to eligible students;

(xiii) A plan for a data system that collects information on the free educational materials produced, provided, distributed to, and downloaded by, eligible children and students; and

(xiv) A description of how the project will ensure that project activities are conducted in compliance with section 121 of the copyright law, as amended (www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121).

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

(1) Provide AEM, including textbooks, to SEAs and LEAs for use by eligible children and students. The AEM must be provided at no cost to the children, students, families, schools, SEAs and LEAs;

(2) Provide AEM to eligible students. Materials may be provided directly to eligible students or to postsecondary and graduate schools and vocational rehabilitation agencies requesting AEM on behalf of eligible students. The AEM and any specialized software needed to use the materials must be provided at no cost to eligible students, postsecondary and graduate schools, and vocational rehabilitation agencies. The project may not assess fees to individual eligible students or to institutions, including postsecondary schools, graduate schools, and vocational rehabilitation agencies;

(3) Provide free high-quality, up-to-date software needed to use and access the AEM by eligible children, students, families, schools, LEAs and SEAs, postsecondary and graduate schools, and vocational rehabilitation agencies. The project must also keep up to date on emerging technologies and implement changes and updates to technology, software, and other material to ensure that they continue to meet industry standards;

(4) Incorporate the most efficient, cost-effective technology available to provide timely access to AEM that can be used across alternative media formats;

(5) Produce high-quality, user-friendly AEM, including digital text, Braille-ready files, and audio formats. Materials produced as part of this cooperative agreement must include accessible digital images, charts, formulas, and graphics;

(6) Produce AEM using files that are consistent with the current industry standards for the production of AEM;

(7) Encourage and support the inclusion of accessibility features that are embedded during the development and production of the AEM by publishers and producers, where possible; and

(8) Provide AEM for historically underserved eligible children and students (e.g., students living in poverty, homeless students, and culturally and linguistically diverse students).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) The proposed project will establish and maintain an advisory committee consisting of representatives from an SEA and an LEA; representatives from community colleges and four-year IHEs; representatives from vocational rehabilitation agencies; eligible children and students, parents or family members of individuals with blindness, visual impairments, physical disabilities, and print disabilities; and representatives of schools or other institutions where AEM are used. The purpose of this advisory committee is to provide the project with input and ongoing advice on the project's goals, objectives, products, and services. The project must submit the proposed membership of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award;

(6) The project will communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with OSEP-funded projects (see www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center), including NIMAS-related projects. Activities could include jointly developing products, training sessions, and materials; and improving the AEM delivery system to ensure timely and easy access; and

(7) The project will maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer through bi-monthly phone conferences, email communication, and face-to-face meetings, as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, and to meet with the OSEP project officer and other funded projects for the purposes of cross-project collaboration and information exchange; and

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

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

(6) Maintain a high-quality Web site, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

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

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

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

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

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

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

References:

Purpose of Program: The primary purpose of the Native Hawaiian Education (NHE) program is to support innovative projects that enhance the educational services provided to Native Hawaiian (as defined in this notice) children and adults. These projects may include one or more of the activities authorized under section 6205(a)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7515(a)(3)).1

Priorities: This notice includes four competitive preference priorities. The competitive preference priorities are from section 6205(a)(2) of the ESEA.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 20 points to applicants that propose projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priorities, depending on how well the application addresses the priority or priorities. The maximum possible score for each competitive preference priority is five points.

These priorities are:

Priority 1—Beginning Reading and Literacy (up to 5 points).

To receive points under this priority, the application must propose to address beginning reading and literacy among students in kindergarten through third grade.

Priority 2—The Needs of At-Risk Children and Youth (up to 5 points).

To receive points under this priority, the application must propose to address the needs of at-risk children and youth.

Priority 3—Native Hawaiian Underemployment (up to 5 points).

To receive points under this priority, the application must propose to address the needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are underemployed.

Priority 4—Use of Native Hawaiian Language (up to 5 points).

To receive points under this priority, the application must propose to address the use of Native Hawaiian language (also referred to as “Hawaiian language”) in instruction.

Application Requirement: The following application requirement is from section 6206(b) of the ESEA and applies to the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition:

Each applicant for a grant under this program must submit the application for comment to the local educational agency serving students who will participate in the program to be carried out under the grant, and include those comments, if any, with the application to the Secretary.

Definitions: The definitions below are from 34 CFR 77.1(c) and 200.34(c)(2), and sections 6207 and 4310(2) of the ESEA. 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.

Charter School means a public school that—

(a) In accordance with a specific State statute

authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this definition;

(b) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;

(c) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;

(d) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;

(e) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;

(f) Does not charge tuition;

(g) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly referred to as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974”), and part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

(h) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that (1) admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or (2) in the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in clause (1);

(i) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;

(j) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;

(k) Operates in accordance with State law;

(l) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school and;

(m) May serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students.

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

Native Hawaiian means any individual who is—

(a) A citizen of the United States; and

(b) A descendant of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of Hawaii, as evidenced by—

(1) Genealogical records;

(2) Kupuna (elders) or Kamaaina (long-term community residents) verification; or

(3) Certified birth records.

Native Hawaiian community-based organization means any organization that is composed primarily of Native Hawaiians from a specific community and that assists in the social, cultural, and educational development of Native Hawaiians in that community.

Native Hawaiian educational organization means a private nonprofit organization that—

(a) Serves the interests of Native Hawaiians;

(b) Has Native Hawaiians in substantive and policymaking positions within the organization;

(c) Incorporates Native Hawaiian perspective, values, language, culture, and traditions into the core function of the organization;

(d) Has demonstrated expertise in the education of Native Hawaiian youth; and

(e) Has demonstrated expertise in research and program development.

Native Hawaiian language means the single Native American language indigenous to the original inhabitants of the State of Hawaii.

Native Hawaiian organization means a private nonprofit organization that—

(a) Serves the interests of Native Hawaiians;

(b) Has Native Hawaiians in substantive and policymaking positions within the organization; and

(c) Is recognized by the Governor of Hawaii for the purpose of planning, conducting, or administering programs (or portions of programs) for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma. A regular high school diploma does not include—

(a) A diploma aligned to the alternate academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA; or

(b) A general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or any similar or lesser credential, such as a diploma based on meeting individualized education program (IEP) goals.

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this notice).

Program Authority: Title VI, Part B of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7511-7517).

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 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.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $21,498,999.

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: $250,000 to $950,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $693,516.

Estimated Number of Awards: 31.

Project Period: 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: (a) Native Hawaiian educational organizations (as defined in this notice); (b) Native Hawaiian community-based organizations (as defined in this notice); (c) public and private nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language (as defined in this notice); (d) charter schools (as defined in this notice); (e) consortia of the eligible applicants listed in (a) through (c).

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

3. Other: Performance reports. If you receive an award under this program, you are required to provide copies of the performance reports (see section VI of this document below) to the Native Hawaiian Education Council (authorized under section 6204 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7514)).

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: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.

To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

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

If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.362A.

To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E306, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-1265 or by email: [email protected]. If you use a TDD or TTY, call 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 forms 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 30 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.

• 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; 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 24, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 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 section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements 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.

4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in CFR part 79.

5. Funding Restrictions: No more than five percent of funds awarded for a grant under this program may be used for program administration (20 U.S.C. 7515(b)). We reference regulations outlining additional 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 Native Hawaiian Education Program, CFDA number 84.362A, 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 NHE 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 84.362, not 84.362A).

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), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. Therefore, 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. There is no need to password protect a file in order to meet the requirement to submit a read-only flattened PDF. And, as noted above, the Department will not review password protected files.

• 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;

• 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: Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E306, 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 84.362A, 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 84.362A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum possible score for 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) Need for project (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(b) Significance (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield findings that may be utilized by other appropriate agencies and organizations.

(c) Quality of the project design (up to 30 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 following factors:

(1) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (up to 10 points);

(2) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement. (up to 10 points); and

(3) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice). (up to 10 points).

(d) Quality of project services (up to 10 points)

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

In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.

(e) Quality of project personnel (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of the 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 qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(f) Adequacy of resources (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources, the Secretary considers the extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

(g) Quality of the management plan (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary considers the adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.

(h) Strategy to Scale (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the applicant's strategy to scale the proposed project. In determining the quality of the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the application.

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

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/aapforms.html.

4. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following four Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 performance measures for this program: (1) The percentage of Native Hawaiian students in schools served by the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in reading, mathematics, and science on the State assessments; (2) The percentage of Native Hawaiian children participating in early education programs who consistently demonstrate school readiness in literacy as measured by the Hawaii School Readiness Assessment; (3) The percentage of Native Hawaiian students in schools served by the program who graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma (as defined in this notice) in four years; and (4) The percentage of students participating in a Native Hawaiian language program conducted under the Native Hawaiian Education program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in reading on a test of the Native Hawaiian language.

All grantees will be expected to submit an APR that includes data addressing these performance measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.

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 disk) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

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 the 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.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674(b)(2)and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1474(b)(2) and 1481(d)).

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

This priority is:

Research and Development Center on Developing Software To Adapt and Customize Instruction in Digital Learning Environments To Improve Results for Children with Disabilities.

Background:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a research and development center that will develop software designed to adapt and customize digital materials for children with disabilities, whether or not delivered online (Center). The software should enable teachers to differentiate instruction to meet the diverse needs of children with disabilities. In this way, the software will: (a) Enable educators, children with disabilities, and their parents to select settings and preferences that provide access and customize instructional materials to meet their individual needs in digital or online instruction; and (b) self-adjust so that material is presented at appropriate instructional levels based upon an individual child's input.1 When possible, the software should be embedded during production of the digital materials.

The IDEA requires the provision of specially designed instruction to children with disabilities, regardless of the manner in which the instruction is delivered (traditional classroom setting, online, hybrid setting) (34 CFR 300.39(a)(1)). Under Department regulations, this means adapting, as appropriate to meet the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum (34 CFR 300.39(b)(3)). However, environments that use digital or online instruction or resources may not be specially designed for students with disabilities (Westat, 2016).

The population of students needing specially designed instruction is significant. Recent estimates suggest that, in the 2013-14 school year, more than 2.7 million K-12 students, with and without disabilities, were participating in some type of online learning (Westat, 2016), and approximately 315,000 K-12 students were enrolled in statewide, fully online schools (Evergreen Education Group, 2014). Estimates indicate that more than 75 percent of districts offered at least some instruction online in the 2013-2014 school year (whether fully online or blended) (Evergreen Education Group, 2013). Due to the way data are reported, it is difficult to determine the number of students with disabilities participating in online environments. However, it is possible that the percentage is similar to that of students with disabilities physically in schools (nearly 13 percent), although estimates vary widely (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016; Westat 2016).

In spite of the wide use of digital and online materials in instruction nationwide, there are still challenges to ensuring that (a) digital instructional material is fully accessible to children with disabilities, and (b) educators have the ability to effectively differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of those children. Educators often incorrectly assume that if instructional material is digital, it is accessible, adaptable, and customizable to meet those children's individual needs; however, that is not necessarily the case. Even though digital materials may provide some access to instructional content, they may not adapt or allow for the customization necessary to ensure that unique needs of children with disabilities are met.

A number of existing technologies can make instructional materials accessible (e.g., text to speech, captioning and highlighting features, embedded videos, digital storybooks, image description, font and size choices), and some of these digital resources provide access to content and help to differentiate instruction for children who are engaged through digital or online platforms; however many obstacles still remain. These include challenges with implementing the supports and services specified in their individualized education programs (IEPs). For example, while font and color options may be readily available in most applications, there are few options to reduce the complexity of language. In addition, accessibility features may not be compatible across all operating systems and platforms.

As a result of these barriers, educators, caregivers, parents, and children may struggle to find the appropriate features in a timely manner and could spend extended periods of time attempting to modify digital materials at the expense of instructional time. In addition, the inclusion of digital materials in instruction is a relatively new practice, and inconsistencies exist in the selection of accessibility features included in the production process. Finally, some of the technology necessary for successful differentiated instruction is in its infancy. Software that has the capability to adjust in complexity based on the child's input is not yet widely available.

If digital learning materials could be more fully and individually customized and adapted across all learning environments, then children with disabilities would have more and better access to the general education curriculum. As such, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) proposes a research center to develop the necessary software to improve results for children with disabilities.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a Research and Development Center on Developing Software to Adapt and Customize Instruction in Digital Learning Environments to Improve Results for Children with Disabilities. Under this priority, the Center must:

(1) Determine the most effective digital products that are currently available to support differentiated instruction for children with disabilities in digital and online learning environments;

(2) Determine, for each of these products, the key design components that maximize the ability of educators, caregivers, parents, and children to adapt and customize digital content and to differentiate instruction;

(3) Develop and deliver software that meets current industry standards and guidelines for accessibility (e.g., WCAG 2.0, EPUB Accessibility 1.0) 2 and includes accessible options that can be embedded into existing learning materials and into new digital learning materials during their development. Options must allow educators, caregivers, parents, and children to customize the instructional material and the software must automatically adjust complexity and delivery based on the child's input;

(4) Ensure that the product is both an Open Educational Resource (OER) 3 and licensed through an open access licensing authority;

(5) Identify legal issues surrounding accessible education materials that may impede the use of the product with digital products or platforms and determine ways to ensure access for all children with disabilities;

(6) Develop measures to evaluate the potential usefulness and fit of the selected accessibility components to be included in the development and production of the software; and

(7) Maximize the efficiency of the product, by reducing the cost of including it in the production of materials (including added costs and time to re-design workflow to create the accessible materials) and ensuring optimal ease of use by end users.

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

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

(1) Address the need for adaptive software that includes a range of accessible options that allow the end user to customize the instructional material and self-adjust based on the child's input. To meet this requirement, the applicant must present information on what digital materials are currently available to educators, caregivers, parents, and children that offer specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; and

(2) Improve outcomes for children with disabilities by enhancing their ability to access instruction that meets their State's college- and career-ready standards through differentiated and customized digital materials.

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

(1) Ensure that the software developed meets the needs of publishers, distributors, developers, and end users;

(2) Achieve measurable outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must develop a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed projects. A logic model used in connection with this priority communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.

(3) Use an iterative process of field testing in the development of the software;

(4) Improve the capabilities of the software by describing the key components of the software that maximize the ability to adapt and customize content and to differentiate or individualize instruction in digital or online environments for children with disabilities and the specifications necessary for the software to be embedded during design;

(5) Be based on current research and technologies used to develop accessible education materials and support differentiation of instruction. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will align to current industry standards and technical specifications in the development of the software; and

(ii) How the proposed project will work with publishers to ensure that the software can be embedded into the digital materials during initial development or retrofitting of existing materials;

(6) Meet current accessibility standards to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on designing fully accessible and customizable digital and online instructional materials; and

(ii) How it proposes to ensure that the software will appropriately tagged metadata. This metadata should allow for the evaluation of accessibility and adaptation within online and digital learning environments;

(7) Develop a computer adaptable software product that is readily available to teachers, instructors, students, and parents; can be embedded during production; meets accessibility standards; and facilitates instruction that meets the unique needs of children with disabilities. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will develop software that makes instructional material accessible based on the setting selected by the educator, caregiver, parent, or child;

(ii) How the proposed project will develop and adaptable software product that facilitates differentiated instruction by adjusting in complexity based on the child's input; and

(iii) How the proposed project will include plans for continued improvement and scale up its work to ensure the software is available to the widest range of children with disabilities;

(8) Ensure effective communication and collaboration between project staff, stakeholders, and OSEP, including other OSEP-funded projects. To address this requirement, the applicant must—

(i) Describe how the project will communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other OSEP-funded projects;

(ii) Describe how the project will collaborate with publishers, Accessible Media Producers, technology developers, vendors, distributors, and others with expertise in accessible education materials production;

(iii) Describe how the project will communicate using a wide variety of media methods (presentations, publication, conference attendance, demonstrations) to reach a broad range of technology developers, publishers and end users, including educators, children with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities; and

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

The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will—

(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),4 the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:

(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the grant application to provide a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting and throughout the project period;

(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, as appropriate, and the usefulness of the software, designing instruments or identifying data sources, and identifying analytic strategies); and

(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the grant application such that it clearly—

(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completion of the plan; and

(B) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project's Annual Performance Report;

(2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (1) of this section; and

(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.

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

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

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications 5 and experience to carry out the proposed development of the software and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks, including an iterative process of field testing and redesigning the software throughout the five-year grant cycle to include adding more accessible features and functions to increase the capability of the software;

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

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the research and software development are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives in the software's development and design, including those of developers; technical designers; publishers; distributors; vendors; standards consortia members; families, including those who have children with disabilities; educators, including those who serve children with disabilities; researchers; and policy makers;

(5) The proposed project will establish and maintain a technical review board. The technical review board must—

(i) Consist of no fewer than five members representing the full range of diverse stakeholders, including at least one representative from each of the following five specific groups: Technology developers; publishers; end users, including educators of children with disabilities; persons with disabilities; and parents of children with disabilities. Board members should be identified and approved by OSEP no later than six weeks from the award date;

(ii) Meet at least twice per year during the project period with the project director, relevant project staff, and the OSEP project officer;

(iii) Evaluate current technologies, standards, and guidelines that are used and applied in the production and use of educational materials to ensure that the material is accessible to children with disabilities; and

(iv) Evaluate current applications, materials, and programs that support and ensure access to educational materials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

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

(5) Maintain a high-quality Web site, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

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

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.

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 as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide, on an annualized basis, $30,047,000 for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program, of which we would use an estimated $1,000,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

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

Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $1,000,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

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

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

3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

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

4. Other General Requirements:

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

(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

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

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

If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327A.

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

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

Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit Part III to no more than 70 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, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

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

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

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Applications Available: May 24, 2017.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 10, 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: September 6, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

Applications for grants under the Research and Development Center on Developing Software to Adapt and Customize Instruction in Digital Learning Environments to Improve Results for Children with Disabilities competition, CFDA number 84.327A, 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 Research and Development Center on Developing Software to Adapt and Customize Instruction in Digital Learning Environments to Improve Results for Children with Disabilities competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.327, not 84.327A).

Please note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You do not have access to the internet; or

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

• 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: Tara Courchaine, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5143, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-TBD. FAX: (202) 245-7590.

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

b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327A), 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 84.327A), 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.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are as follows:

(a) Significance (20 points).

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

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

(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increasing the knowledge or understanding of problems issues or effective strategies.

(ii) The likely utility of the product (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for it being used effectively in a variety of settings.

(iii) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.

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

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

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

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

(ii) The extent to which there are (1) a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the project's proposed goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes; and (2) a conceptual framework underlying the proposed activities and the quality of that model and framework.

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and understanding of current research and development in the field; are highly relevant and useful to educators, children, and parents; and are delivered in a timely, cost-efficient manner.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.

(v) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls, and as appropriate, repeated testing of products.

(vi) The extent to which the services provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.

(c) Quality of the evaluation plan (15 points).

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

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

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

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

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

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.

(d) Adequacy of project resources (25 points).

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

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

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

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

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience of project consultants or subcontractors.

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

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

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).

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

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

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

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

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

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No. 1905-0167;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Coal Markets Reporting System. The surveys included in this information request are:

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with changes;

(4) Purpose: The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands and to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by, or in conjunction with, the EIA.

These EIA surveys are conducted to collect coal market data. The data elements collected include production, consumption, receipts, stocks, sales, and prices. Information pertaining to the quality of the coal is also collected. The information collected is used to support public policy analyses of the coal industry, economic modeling, forecasting, coal supply and demand studies, and support research and development programs. EIA publications, including the Monthly Energy Review, Quarterly Coal Report, Quarterly Coal Distribution Report, Annual Coal Report, and Annual Coal Distribution Report, publish data collected on the coal production and consumption survey forms listed above.

In addition, the EIA uses the data collected in short-term and long-term models such as the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System (STIFS) and the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) Coal Market Module. The forecast data also appear in the Short-Term Energy Outlook and the Annual Energy Outlook publications.

Please refer to the forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses of the information.

Changes to Form EIA-3:

• Change the title of the survey from the “Quarterly Survey of Non-Electric Sector Coal Data” to “Quarterly Survey of Industrial, Commercial, & Institutional Coal Users.”

• In Part 2, Question 6 (Question 5 in the current form), revise reporting for co-fired sites to allow reporting more than one additional fuel source.

• In Part 2, Question 7 (Question 6 in the current form), remove the instruction that refers to “scrubbers” as a carbon dioxide emissions capture system. (A “scrubber” is used to control emissions of sulfur dioxide.)

• In Part 3, Question 2, remove Adjustments to Total Cost of Coal (received during the reporting quarter). Cognitive testing indicated that this data element was unnecessary.

• In Part 5, Questions 2 and 3, revise coking plant disposition categories and include distinction between domestic and export sales of coke and breeze to gather more accurate data on each type of sale.

• In Part 8, Question 2, revise coal refining plant disposition categories to allow for more accurate accounting of refined coal stocks.

• In Part 2, Question 2, add the question: “Does this site operate a coke oven?” This question will be used to identify active U.S. coking plants within manufacturing sites.

• In Part 3, Question 3A, add the question “Please provide the contact information for your broker.” Broker contact information will be used to help maintain the EIA-8A frame and eliminate duplicative reporting on Form EIA-7A.

Changes to Form EIA-7A:

• In Part 3, Question 5A, add the question “What is the average depth of the mine below the surface?” This question will assist with data discrepancies of coalbed data reported by comparing coalbeds mined with U.S. Geological Survey data.

• In Part 5, revise Question 2, which currently reads “With the existing equipment in place, what is the maximum amount of coal that this mining operation can produce during the reporting year?” to read “With the existing equipment in place, what is the annual operating capacity of this mine?” By comparing actual production to operating capacity, EIA can better assess if mines are producing at maximum capacity and can use this information as an indicator of market conditions affecting coal supply.

• In Part 5, revise Question 5, which currently reads “As of December 31st of the reporting year, what is the estimated tonnage representing the amount of coal identified in the reserve that is technologically and economically feasible to extract?” to read “As of December 31st of the reporting year, what is the estimated amount of coal in the reserve that is feasible (economically/technologically) to extract?” Rewording the current recoverable coal reserves question helps clarify to respondents to report the amount of coal that can be recovered from the coal reserve.

• In Part 5, remove Question 6, which asks “What is the recovery rate used to estimate recoverable coal reserves at this mine?” Cognitive testing indicates that the term “recovery rate” does not have a common understanding by respondents in the coal industry and respondents cannot provide consistent answers to this question.

• In Part 5, Question 7, revise reporting categories of coal mine sales to simplify question wording while adding export categories to include Open Market Export Sales, Captive Market Export Sales, and Broker Export Sales. The new categories will provide more accurate information on coal exports by type of sale and seller by eliminating potential double-counting of export coal sales on Form EIA-8A. This information will improve EIA's assessments of production trends and coal supply and exports by basin.

Changes to Form EIA-8A:

• In Part 2, Question 2, revise the list of locations where U.S. produced coal stocks are located to include “IT—In Transit.” This change will provide more accurate information on the quantity and disposition of coal stocks.

• In Part 3, Question 2, add new data field requesting port of export and destination country for export sales to gather more detailed export data. This data field will assist EIA in cross-survey comparisons with the EIA-7A and coal trade data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau to quantify and eliminate double-counting of export coal sales.

EIA is requesting a three-year extension with no changes for the following mandatory emergency standby forms:

(5) Estimated Number of Survey Respondents: 1,347.

• EIA-3 will consist of 432 respondents

• EIA-7A will consist of 848 respondents

• EIA-8A will consist of 48 respondents

• EIA-6 (standby) will consist of 11 respondents

• EIA-20 (standby) will consist of 8 respondents

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Responses: 2,814.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 5,059.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: Additional costs to respondents are not anticipated beyond costs associated with response burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $372,646 (5,059 burden hours times $73.66 per hour). Other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Washington State Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of pyridate on double-cut mint (peppermint and spearmint) to control terbacil-resistant redroot pigweed biotypes, common lambquarters, Powell amaranth, cinquefoil, Russian thistle, marestail and field violet. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

In this specific exemption, the Applicant asserts that there are currently no available registered herbicides that can be applied at the proper timing to provide effective control of various broadleaf weeds without causing unacceptable injury in double-cut mint. In addition, there are no economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices, and that mint producers expect to experience yield loss greater than 20% in double-cut spearmint and peppermint.

The Applicant proposes to apply no more than a total of 2,597 gallons of the unregistered product, Tough EC, (approximately 12,985 pounds active ingredient of pyridate) per acre per year. Up to 13,850 acres of double-cut mint (8,800 acres spearmint; 5,050 acres peppermint) in Washington may be treated. Additional information from the Applicant's submission that details the need for the exemption and the proposed use pattern can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the specific exemption application request from the Washington Department of Agriculture for emergency use of pyridate in double-cut peppermint and spearmint to control terbacil-resistant redroot pigweed species.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a pesticide that was voluntarily canceled in 2004, and which is now considered to be unregistered under the FIFRA Act. Accordingly, this notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Further, numerous states that have previously requested a specific exemption for use of pyridate on mint to control various broadleaf weeds species may submit similar specific exemption requests.

This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 17-442; MB Docket No. 16-306, GN Docket No. 12-268, released May 12, 2017. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0515/DA-17-442A1.pdf.

The Media Bureau will announce a limited window (Special Displacement Window) for LPTV/translator stations subject to displacement as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process to submit displacement applications. The Special Displacement Window will be announced after full power and Class A television stations reassigned to new channels in the repacking process have had an opportunity to apply for their preferred facilities. The exact dates for the Special Displacement Window will be announced by public notice (Displacement Public Notice) approximately seven to eight months after release of the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice on April 13, 2017. The Displacement Public Notice will be released not less than 60 days prior to the opening of the Special Displacement Window. The Special Displacement Window will remain open for 30 days.

Channel Study. The Displacement Public Notice will provide channel availability data to assist eligible LPTV/TV translator stations in identifying potential new channels in the repacked TV bands, consistent with the Commission's direction in the LPTV DTV Third R&O. Specifically, the data will identify locations and channels where LPTV/translator stations cannot propose displacement facilities because of the presence of other non-displaced LPTV/translator stations, full power and Class A television stations or land mobile operations. The data will be based on use of the incentive auction software nationwide and the full power and Class A television station technical parameters in the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice, as well as any full power and Class A television modifications proposed in the two alternate channel/expanded facilities filing windows. The data will be provided on the same 2x2 kilometer basis as utilized in “TVStudy,” the repacking software used in connection with the incentive auction. While LPTV/translator stations applying for displacement channels will still be required to show that their proposals would not cause impermissible interference to other full power, Class A and LPTV/translator stations, identification of the locations and channels where eligible LPTV/translator stations cannot propose to operate will facilitate the LPTV/translator displacement application process by providing critical information on where applicants can do so. Stations are encouraged to use this information to help identify available channels and to use TVStudy to verify that the displacement facilities they propose will satisfy station needs while not creating harmful interference. Once a channel is identified, stations are encouraged to file for it during the Special Displacement Window.

Eligibility to File in Special Displacement Window. To be eligible to file in the Special Displacement Window, an LPTV/translator station must be both “operating” and “displaced.” “Operating” LPTV/translator stations are those that had licensed their authorized construction permit facilities or had an application for a license to cover on file with the Commission on April 13, 2017—the release date of the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice. In order to be “displaced” for purposes of filing in the Special Displacement Window, an LPTV/translator station must: (1) Be subject to displacement by a full power or Class A television station on the repacked television band (channels 2-36) as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process, (2) be licensed on frequencies repurposed for new, flexible use by a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee, or (3) be licensed on frequencies that will serve as part of the 600 MHz Band guard bands (which includes the duplex gap).

Application Filing Procedures. Eligible stations may file a displacement application on FCC Form 2100—Schedule C. Displacement applications will be treated as a “minor change.” There is no fee for filing a displacement application.

Limits on Modification. During the Special Displacement Window, all of the requirements of the current displacement rules will continue to apply (e.g., required interference showing and limits on transmitter moves) except for the requirement that displacement applications be submitted only after the primary station obtains a construction permit or license. Eligible digital stations may propose a change in transmitter site of not more than 48 kilometers from the reference coordinates of the existing station's community of license. Eligible analog stations may propose a change in antenna location of not more than 16.1 kilometers.

In addition, eligible stations may apply only for a channel that remains allocated to broadcast television service (i.e., channels 2-36), and not for channels that have been repurposed for the new, flexible 600 MHz Band wireless services or reserved for the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap (i.e., former television channels 38-51). In their displacement applications, stations will be required to demonstrate that they would not cause interference to the predicted service of: (1) All other primary users in the repacked TV Band or in adjacent bands including land mobile operations, (2) licenses and valid construction permits for LPTV/translator stations; (3) licenses and valid construction permits for full power and Class A stations that were not reassigned; (4) the post-auction channels of reassigned full power and Class A stations as reflected in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, and (5) the alternative channels and expanded facilities proposed during the two filing windows by reassigned full power and Class A stations.

So that as many potential channels as possible are available for operating LPTV/translator stations that are subject to displacement, stations are permitted to file displacement applications proposing pre-auction channels in the repacked television band (channels 2-36) that full power and Class A stations will relinquish as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process. This includes channels being voluntarily relinquished by relinquishment stations, channel sharee stations, and band changing stations as well as the pre-auction channels of stations assigned to a new channel as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process. Ordinarily, such applications would be prohibited by the contingent application rule until such channels are actually vacated. The Media Bureau will look favorably, however, upon requests to waive the contingent application rule filed by operating LPTV/translator stations that are subject to displacement if the station can demonstrate that the requested channel is necessary to allow the station to continue to serve its current viewers. In addition, in order to comply with Section 73.3700(g)(2), the station must agree to a condition that it will not begin transmitting on the requested channel prior to discontinuation of operation by the full power or Class A station that is licensed to use that channel. If the conditional grant requires an LPTV/translator station to be silent for a consecutive 12-month period prior to discontinuation of operation by the full power or Class A station, the Media Bureau will consider a request for extension or reinstatement pursuant to Section 312(g) of the Act and a request for waiver of the applicable Commission rule.

Some LPTV/translator stations on channels in the repacked television band (channels 2-36) that would otherwise qualify as displaced stations may be able to avoid displacement by making minor changes to their existing facilities that bring those facilities into compliance with the interference rules. For example, an LPTV/translator station that will cause interference to a full power or Class A television station post-repack may make a minor change in power, antenna height or location that would eliminate such interference and allow the LPTV/translator station to continue broadcasting on its channel. LPTV/translator stations are encouraged to file such minor change applications as soon as possible. To create a stable database for stations filing in the Special Displacement Window, approximately 30 days before the release of the Displacement Public Notice (which itself will be released no later than 60 days before the Special Displacement Window opens), the Media Bureau will issue a public notice freezing the filing of minor change applications by LPTV/translator stations. The freeze will be lifted upon the issuance of a later public notice after completion of the Special Displacement Window.

Mutual Exclusivity and Priority for Displaced DRTs and DTDRT Applications. All displacement applications submitted during the window will be considered filed on the last day of the window and will be processed in accordance with the existing rules. Consistent with the Commission having found that doing so would serve the public interest, applicants will be given an opportunity to resolve their mutual exclusivity through settlement or engineering amendment that may be submitted during a settlement window to be announced by the Media Bureau by separate public notice.

Should submitted applications remain mutually exclusive after the close of the settlement window, any application filed by a displaced analog-to-digital replacement translator (DRT) and any application for a new digital-to-digital replacement translator (DTDRT) will have priority over any application by a displaced LPTV and TV translator station. DRT displacement applications and DTDRT applications have co-equal processing priority. Unless mutually exclusive with a co-equal application, a DRT displacement application or DTDRT application will be processed and, if granted, any pending LPTV and TV translator displacement application that is mutually exclusive with the granted application will be dismissed.

If two or more DRT and DTDRT applications remain mutually exclusive with one another after the close of the settlement window, the applications will be subject to the Commission's competitive bidding rules. Likewise, if two or more LPTV or TV translator applications are not subject to a priority application by a displaced DRT or for a new DTDRT and remain mutually exclusive after the close of the settlement window, the applications will be subject to the Commission's competitive bidding rules.

Construction Period, Extension of Time, and Tolling. Displaced LPTV/translator stations may be analog or digital and different construction periods apply to each type. A displaced LPTV/translator station operating in digital will have three years to construct its displacement facility. A displaced LPTV/translator station operating in analog is not subject to the three-year construction period. Rather, displaced analog stations are subject to the digital transition deadline of July 13, 2021 adopted in the LPTV DTV Third Report and Order. No later than this date, the displaced analog station must begin operating a digital facility or go silent. Upon completion of construction and initiation of service on their new channel, stations are required to submit an application for license by electronically filing FCC Form 2100—Schedule F on LMS within 10 days.

Until March 13, 2021, any displaced LPTV/translator station (either analog or digital) that is unable to complete construction of its displacement facility by its deadline may seek an extension of time to construct of up to 180 days. Stations anticipating the need for an extension must submit an extension application electronically via LMS on FCC Form 2100—Schedule 337. An application for extension of time to construct must include an exhibit demonstrating that failure to meet the construction deadline is due to circumstances that are either unforeseeable or beyond the licensee's control and that the licensee has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem expeditiously. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: (1) Delays in obtaining zoning or other approvals, or similar constraints; (2) inability to obtain equipment; or (3) financial hardship. The grant of an extension of time to complete construction on a new channel will in no way extend the deadline by which a station must terminate operations on its displaced channel.

After March 13, 2021, additional time to construct may be sought only pursuant to the Commission's “tolling” rule. The tolling rule provides that a construction permit deadline may be tolled only for specific circumstances not under the licensee's control, such as acts of God or delays due to administrative or judicial review. Stations must electronically file tolling requests via LMS. Stations may also seek a waiver of the tolling rule to receive additional time to construct in the case where “rare or exceptional circumstances” prevent construction. With respect to tolling waivers, the Media Bureau will look favorably upon requests where a displaced station can demonstrate that it is unable to construct due to circumstances resulting directly from the post-auction transition, such as the inability to procure necessary resources because resources are unavailable due to the full-power and Class A post-auction transition.

Silent Authority. If a station must go silent on its licensed channel prior to completing construction on its displacement channel, it may file a request for silent authority. We remind stations that a station may suspend operations for a period of not more than 30 days absent specific authority from the Commission. Stations that remain silent for more than 10 days must notify the Commission not later than the tenth day of their suspended operations by filing a Suspension of Operations Notification via LMS. Stations that need to remain silent for more than 30 days must file a Silent STA via LMS. There is no fee for this filing.

The license of any station that remains silent for any consecutive 12-month period expires automatically at the end of that period, by operation of law, except that the Commission may extend or reinstate such station license if the holder of the license prevails in an administrative or judicial appeal, the applicable law changes, or for any other reason to promote equity and fairness.

Following the initiation of service by a repacked full power or Class A television station or receipt of notice of likely interference to a new 600 MHz Band wireless licensee, LPTV/translator stations must immediately eliminate the likelihood of interference or discontinue operations. In addition, LPTV and TV translator stations must cease operations on the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap no later than the end of the transition period (July 13, 2020).

Stations on Channels 38-51. The repurposed spectrum associated with the 600 MHz Band Plan affects LPTV/TV translator stations operating on television channels 38-51 (614-698 MHz). The 600 MHz Band Plan is comprised of an uplink band (663-698 MHz) and a downlink band (617-652 MHz) for the 600 MHz Band wireless service (the 600 MHz Band), a duplex gap (652-663 MHz) between these bands (the 600 MHz duplex gap), and a guard band (614-617 MHz) between the downlink band and channel 37 (the 600 MHz guard band).

In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission established a process under which LPTV/translator stations may continue operating on channels that were reallocated for use by 600 MHz Band wireless licensees unless the stations are notified in advance by a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee of likely interference with its operations in areas where it intends to commence operations. In addition, the Commission required that LPTV/TV translator stations must cease operations on the 600 MHz guard band and the duplex gap no later than the end of the transition period.

Continued Operation Permitted in the 600 MHz Band for Wireless Services Until Wireless Licensees Commence Operations or Conduct FFA Testing. Subject to the advance notification requirements below, LPTV/translator stations on channels that overlap with the 600 MHz Band (617-652 MHz/663-698 MHz) may continue operating until a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee commences operations (as defined below) or conducts FFA testing in an area where a station operates. The obligation to cease operations or eliminate the likelihood of harmful interference will apply even if the LPTV/translator station has yet to receive a displacement construction permit. To the extent that a 600 MHz wireless licensee commences operations or conducts FFA testing in an area of its geographic license where harmful interference from LPTV/translator stations would not be likely, these stations may continue to operate.

“Commencing operations” is defined as the time when a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee conducts site commissioning tests. In this context, “site commissioning tests” include site activation and commissioning tests using permanent base station equipment, antennas and/or tower locations as part of wireless licensee's site and system optimization in the area of its planned commercial service infrastructure deployment. The Commission provided for a limited exception to permit 600 MHz Band wireless licensees to undertake FFA testing (which occurs prior to site commissioning tests) on their licensed 600 MHz Band frequencies in limited areas, free from potential interference from secondary and unlicensed users, because such testing will speed deployment of the 600 MHz Band.

The 600 MHz wireless licensee must provide notice to the LPTV/translator station of its intent to commence operations and the likelihood of receiving harmful interference from the station in the form of a letter, by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice must indicate the date that the 600 MHz Band licensee intends to commence operations or conduct FFA testing, and must be delivered to the LPTV/translator station not less than 120 days in advance of that date.

Operations in the 600 MHz Guard Band and Duplex Gap. LPTV/TV translator stations must cease operations on the 600 MHz guard band (614-617 MHz) and the 600 MHz duplex gap (652-663 MHz) no later the end of the transition period (July 13, 2020). The 600 MHz guard band at 614-617 MHz band overlaps with a portion of television channel 38, and the 600 MHz duplex gap at 652-663 MHz overlaps with all of television channel 45 and portions of channels 44 and 46. LPTV/TV translator stations may need to cease operations on these channels earlier than the end of the transition period to the extent that the station operations on specific frequencies associated with these channels are likely to cause harmful interference to 600 MHz Band wireless licensees that commence operations or conduct FFA testing, subject to the advance notification requirements summarized above.

Stations on Channels 2-36. LPTV/translator stations on channels 2-36 displaced by full power and Class A television stations as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process must eliminate the actual or predicted harmful interference or discontinue operations upon initiation of service by the displacing full power or Class A television station on its new channel.

In the LPTV DTV Third R&O, the Commission adopted rules to permit channel sharing between LPTV and TV translator stations. In the event that the incentive auction and repacking process causes either (1) the sharer station to be subject to displacement or (2) both the sharer and the sharee stations to be subject to displacement, the applicable station(s) must file FCC Form 2100 Schedule C—application for a construction permit—specifying the identical technical facilities during the Special Displacement Window proposing to share the channel, including a copy of the channel sharing agreement as an exhibit. If only a potential sharee's station is subject to displacement as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process, the potential sharee station may file an application to propose sharing the sharer's non-displaced facilities at any time after April 13, 2017 and is not limited to filing during the Special Displacement Window. Channel sharing stations will have three years to implement their shared facilities and may avail themselves of the extension and tolling provisions.

In the LPTV DTV Third R&O, the Commission established a new digital-to-digital replacement translator (DTDRT) service to allow eligible full power television stations to recover lost digital service area that could result from the repacking process. The Commission concluded that full power stations may begin to file for DTDRTs beginning with the opening of the Special Displacement Window outlined in Section III and ending one year after completion of the incentive auction transition period. Accordingly, DTDRT applications must be filed by July 13, 2021.

Eligibility. Eligibility for DTDRTs is limited to full power television stations reassigned in the repacking process that can demonstrate: (1) A loss of a portion of their pre-auction digital service area; and (2) that the proposed DTDRT will be used solely to fill in such loss areas, subject to an allowance for a de minimis expansion of the station's pre-auction digital service area. Applicants for DTDRTs must demonstrate a digital loss area through an engineering study that depicts the station's pre- and post-incentive auction digital service areas. In addition, applicants must demonstrate that the loss resulted from the station being repacked.

The Media Bureau may grant de minimis expansions of pre-auction digital service areas. Stations are required to show the need to site their proposed DTDRT facility with a de minimis expansion of the station's pre-auction digital service area. The Bureau will determine whether an expansion is de minimis on a case-by-case basis.

DTDRT Application Filing Procedures. Eligible stations may file an application for a DTDRT electronically through LMS on FCC Form 2100—Schedule C. DTDRT applications will be minor change applications, and will be exempt from filing fees. Full power television stations shall have a three-year construction period to build their authorized DTDRT facilities. The provisions for extension of time and tolling, including the tolling waiver policy will apply.

Processing Priority. DTDRT applications will be afforded co-equal processing priority with displacement applications filed by full power television stations for their displaced analog-to-digital replacement translator stations (DRTs). Therefore, applications for new DTDRTs and displacement applications for existing DRTs will have processing priority over all other LPTV and TV translator applications including new, minor change, and displacement applications. Applications for DTDRTs may be filed commencing with the opening of the Special Displacement Window. All applications for new DTDRTs and displacement applications for existing DRTs filed during the Special Displacement Window will be considered filed on the last day of the window, will have priority over all other displacement applications filed during the window by LPTV and TV translator stations, and will be considered co-equal if mutually exclusive. Following the close of the Special Displacement Window, applications for new DTDRTs will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, will continue to have priority over all LPTV and TV translator new, minor change or displacement applications, even if those applications were first-filed, and co-equal priority with displacement applications for existing DRTs filed on the same day.

In the LPTV DTV Third R&O, the Commission extended the September 1, 2015 digital transition date until July 13, 2021. All construction permits related to the LPTV and TV translator digital transition and construction permits for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations are hereby extended to July 13, 2021, and stations' records in LMS will be updated to reflect this date. All LPTV and TV translator stations must terminate all analog operations by 11:59 p.m. local time on July 13, 2021 regardless of whether their digital facilities are operational.

As the Commission stated in the LPTV DTV Third R&O, although the digital deadline has been extended, stations that are not affected by the incentive auction “are encouraged to complete their transition to digital as soon as feasible after the completion of the auction.”

Transitioning LPTV and TV translator stations, including permittees of new digital LPTV/TV translator stations, that experience delays in completing their digital facilities may seek one last extension of time, of not more than six months, to be filed not later than March 13, 2021, which is four months prior to the new transition date of July 13, 2021. After March 13, 2021, LPTV and TV translator stations seeking additional time to construct digital facilities will be able to obtain additional time to construct only through the tolling provisions in the rules. Stations may also seek a waiver of the tolling rule to receive additional time to construct in the case where “rare or exceptional circumstances” prevent construction. The Media Bureau will look favorably upon waiver requests where a station can demonstrate that it is unable to construct due to circumstances resulting directly from the post-auction transition, such as the inability to procure necessary resources because such resources are unavailable due to the full power and Class A post-auction transition.

To ensure that viewers are aware of the impending termination of analog service, stations must provide notification to viewers of their planned transition to digital. Stations have the flexibility to determine the frequency, length, and content of their notifications. For those stations with the technical ability to locally originate programming, viewer notification must be done on the air at a time when the highest number of viewers are watching. For those stations that lack the technical ability to locally originate programming, or conclude that airing of viewer notifications would pose a hardship, they may notify viewers by some other reasonable means, e.g., publication of a notification in a local newspaper or by contacting the originating station to relay a crawl or service advisory to the communities that would be affected.

The Media Bureau, on January 19, 2017, froze the filing of digital companion channel (DCC) applications and on June 11, 2014, froze the filing of displacement applications. The DCC and displacement application freeze will be lifted after the closing of the Special Displacement Window. The Media Bureau will announce the date the freezes are lifted in a future public notice, whereupon the Commission will once again accept DCC applications and displacement applications by LPTV/translator stations that are displaced pursuant to the rules.

Displaced LPTV/translator stations that do not qualify for the Special Displacement Window (e.g., permittees that were not operating as of the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice) and stations that were eligible but do not file during the Special Displacement Window must wait until the freeze is lifted to submit a displacement application. In addition, the provisions concerning construction periods, extensions of time, tolling and tolling waivers apply to these displaced permittees/stations.

With respect to tolling waivers submitted by these displaced stations, the Media Bureau will look favorably upon requests where a displaced station can demonstrate that it is unable to construct due to circumstances resulting directly from the post-auction transition, such as the inability to procure necessary resources because such resources are unavailable due to the full power and Class A post-auction transition.

The Committee was established in December 2014 to make recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in proceedings before the Commission. The Committee is organized under, and operated in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee held its first meeting on March 17, 2015. At its June 16, 2017 meeting, the Committee is expected to receive and consider reports on the activities of its subcommittees. The Committee is also expected to receive presentations from Commission staff on matters of interest to the Committee. A limited amount of time may be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. The public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address [email protected].

The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If making a request for an accommodation, please include a description of the accommodation you will need and tell us how to contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. The meeting will be webcast with open captioning, at: www.fcc.gov/live.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

On March 6, 2017, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements in the Funeral Rule (“March 6, 2017 Notice”),1 16 CFR part 453 (OMB Control Number 3084-0025). No relevant comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew clearance for the Rule's information collection requirements.

Burden statement: The estimated burden associated with the collection of information required by the Rule is 19,322 hours for recordkeeping, 103,345 hours for disclosure, and 38,644 hours for compliance training for a cumulative total of 161,311 hours. This estimate is based on the number of funeral providers (approximately 19,322),2 the number of funerals per year (an estimated 2,626,418),3 and the time needed to fulfill the information collection tasks required by the Rule.

Recordkeeping: The Rule requires that funeral providers retain for one year copies of price lists and statements of funeral goods and services selected by consumers. Based on a maximum average burden of one hour per provider per year for this task, the total burden for the 19,322 providers is 19,322 hours.

Disclosure: As noted above, the Rule requires that funeral providers: (1) Maintain current price lists for funeral goods and services, (2) provide written documentation of the funeral goods and services selected by consumers making funeral arrangements, and (3) provide information about funeral prices in response to telephone inquiries.

1. Maintaining accurate price lists may require that funeral providers revise their price lists occasionally (most do so once a year, some less frequently) to reflect price changes. Staff conservatively estimates that this task may require a maximum average burden of two and one-half hours per provider per year. Thus, the total burden for 19,322 providers is 48,305 hours.

2. Staff retains its prior estimate that 13% of funeral providers prepare written documentation of funeral goods and services selected by consumers specifically due to the Rule's mandate. The original rulemaking record indicated that 87% of funeral providers provided written documentation of funeral arrangements, even absent the Rule's requirements.4

According to the rulemaking record, the 13% of funeral providers who did not provide written documentation prior to enactment of the Rule are typically the smallest funeral homes. The written documentation requirement can be satisfied through the use of a standard form, an example of which the FTC has provided to all funeral providers in its compliance guide.5 Based on FTC staff's continuing estimate that these smaller funeral homes arrange, on average, approximately twenty funerals per year and that it would take each of them about three minutes to record prices for each consumer on the standard form, FTC staff estimates that the total burden associated with the written documentation requirement is one hour per provider, for a total of 2,512 hours [(19,322 funeral providers × 13%) × (20 statements per year × 3 minutes per statement)].

3. The Funeral Rule also requires funeral providers to answer telephone inquiries about the provider's offerings or prices. Information received in 2002 from the NFDA indicates that only about 12% of funeral purchasers make telephone inquiries, with each call lasting an estimated ten minutes.6 Thus, assuming that the average purchaser within that subset makes one call per funeral to determine pricing,7 the estimated burden is 52,528 hours (2,626,418 funerals per year × 12% × 10 minutes per inquiry). This burden likely will decline over time as consumers increasingly rely on the Internet for funeral price information.

In sum, the burden due to the Rule's disclosure requirements totals 103,345 hours (48,305 + 2,512 + 52,528).

Training: In addition to the recordkeeping and disclosure-related tasks noted above, funeral homes may also have training requirements specifically attributable to the Rule. Staff believes that annual training burdens associated with the Rule should be minimal because Rule compliance is generally included in continuing education requirements for state licensing and voluntary certification programs. Staff estimates that, industry-wide, funeral homes would incur no more than 39,360 hours related to training specific to the Rule each year. This estimate is consistent with staff's assumption for the current clearance that an “average” funeral home consists of approximately five employees (full-time and part-time employment combined), but with no more than four of them having tasks specifically associated with the Funeral Rule. Staff retains its estimate that each of the four employees per firm would each require one-half hour, at most, per year, for such training.8 Thus, total estimated time for training is 38,644 hours (4 employees per firm × 1/2 hour × 19,322 providers).

Labor costs: Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below are averages.9

Clerical personnel, at an hourly rate of $11.33,10 can perform the recordkeeping tasks required under the Rule. Based on the estimated hours burden of 19,322 hours, estimated labor cost for recordkeeping is $218,918.

The two and one-half hours required of each provider, on average, to update price lists should consist of approximately one and one-half hours of managerial or professional time, at $42.82 per hour,11 and one hour of clerical time, at $11.33 per hour, for a total of $75.56 per provider [($42.82 per hour × 1.5 hours) + ($11.33 per hour × 1 hour)]. Thus, the estimated total labor cost burden for maintaining price lists is $1,459,970 ($75.56 per provider × 19,322 providers).

The incremental cost to the 13% of small funeral providers who would not otherwise supply written documentation of the goods and services selected by the consumer, as previously noted, is 2,512 hours. Assuming managerial or professional time for these tasks at approximately $42.82 per hour, the associated labor cost would be $107,564.

As previously noted, staff estimates that 52,528 hours of managerial or professional time is required annually to respond to telephone inquiries about prices.12 The associated labor cost at $42.82 per hour is $2,249,249.

Based on past consultations with funeral directors, FTC staff estimates that funeral homes will require no more than two hours of training per year of licensed and non-licensed funeral home staff to comply with the Funeral Rule,13 with four employees of varying types each spending one-half hour on training. Applying the assumptions stated above,14 FTC staff further assumes labor costing as follows for the affected employees' time for compliance training: (a) Funeral service manager ($42.82 per hour); (b) non-manager funeral director ($26.21 per hour); (c) embalmer ($20.31 per hour); and (d) a clerical receptionist or administrative staff member, at $11.33 per hour.15 This amounts to $972,573, cumulatively, for all funeral homes [($42.82 + $26.21 + $20.31 + $11.33) × 1/2 hour per employee × 19,322 funeral homes].

The total labor cost of the three disclosure requirements imposed by the Funeral Rule is $3,816,783 ($1,459,970 + $107,564 + $2,249,249). The total labor cost for recordkeeping is $218,918. The total labor cost for disclosure, recordkeeping, and training is $5,008,274 ($3,816,783 for disclosure + $218,918 for recordkeeping + $972,573 for training).

Capital or other non-labor costs: The Rule imposes minimal capital costs and no current start-up costs. The Rule first took effect in 1984 and the revised Rule took effect in 1994, so funeral providers should already have in place necessary equipment to carry out tasks associated with Rule compliance. Moreover, most funeral homes already have access, for other business purposes, to the ordinary office equipment needed for compliance, so the Rule likely imposes minimal additional capital expense.

Compliance with the Rule, however, does entail some expense to funeral providers for printing and duplication of required disclosures. Assuming, as required by the Rule, that one copy of the general price list is provided to consumers for each funeral or cremation conducted, at a cost of 25¢ per copy,16 this would amount to 2,626,418 copies per year at a cumulative industry cost of $656,605 (2,626,418 funerals per year 17 × 25¢ per copy). In addition, the funeral providers that furnish consumers with a statement of funeral goods and services solely because of the Rule's mandate will incur additional printing and copying costs. Assuming that those 2,512 providers (19,322 funeral providers × 13%) use the standard two-page form shown in the compliance guide, at twenty-five cents per copy, at an average of twenty funerals per year, the added cost burden would be $12,560 (2,512 providers × 20 funerals per year × 25¢). Thus, estimated non-labor costs total $669,165 ($656,605 + 12,560).

Request for Comment: You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 23, 2017. Write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/funeralrulepra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Funeral Rule PRA Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at https://www.ftc.gov/, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 23, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Administration for Community Living (ACL) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests clearance for a 3-year period of the revised Annual Performance Report (APR) and Final Report forms to be completed by all NIDILRR grantees.

The Web-based system used for Reporting Year 2016 reporting incorporated a number of features to meet NIDILRR's information needs while minimizing burden. To further reduce burden, the proposed form is designed so that, instead of describing their accomplishments, grantees simply select their most important accomplishments from among the outputs they report. Data from grant applications, such as contact and budget information, are preloaded for efficiency. To facilitate grantee and NIDILRR staff review of information submitted, the system includes system-generated tables that summarize information entered in specific sections. The Web-based system also carries forward information from one section of the form to the next; for example, information on outcome-oriented goals is carried forward for convenient linkage with projects/activities and publications.

NIDILRR and HHS will use the information gathered annually from these data collection efforts to provide Congress with the information mandated in GPRA, provide OMB information required for assessment of performance on GPRA indicators, and support its evaluation activities. Data collected from the 10 grant programs will provide a national description of the research activities of approximately 275 NIDILRR grantees per year in fiscal years 2017-2019.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. The average annual burden associated with these activities over a three-year period is summarized below. While the number of grantees will vary from year to year, all grantees will be required to submit an annual performance report and a final report at the completion of the project. Based on our experience with reporting burden, we estimate that it will take an average of 52 hours to complete the reporting form in a grantee's first year of award. In subsequent years, the estimated response burden is approximately 22 hours. The estimated response burden includes time to review the instructions, gather existing data, and complete and review the form. The number of respondents is based on the average number of grants administered by NIDILRR over time.

This notice collects comments on the information collection requirements relating to the revision of a currently approved collection (ICR Rev) covering ten NIDILRR programs (current approval number 1820-0675).

The forms included in this package are revised versions of those used by grantees in the following 10 programs to submit their Annual and Final Performance Reports for Reporting Year 2016 under OMB collection number 1820-0675:

The APR includes common information and information specific to individual programs. The final report is a subset of items from the annual report and provides a summary of progress and outcomes for the full project period.

A 60-day Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2017, Vol. 82, Number 14; pp. 8191-8192. No comments were received in response to the 60-day Federal Register notice.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. Burden estimates are based on historical patterns in data collection reported by the NIDILRR data collection contractor. The average annual burden associated with these activities over a three-year period is summarized below. The proposed NIDILRR Annual Performance Report (APR) and final report forms can be found on the ACL Web site at: https://www.acl.gov/about-acl/policy-and-regulations.

ACL estimates the burden hours for this collection of information as follows:

I. Background and Authority

The ISMICC is established in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to report to the Secretary, Congress, and any other relevant federal department or agency on advances in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of SMI, SED, and advances in access to services and support for adults with SMI or children with SED. In addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the effect that federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will make specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with SMI or children with SED. Not later than 1 (one) year after the date of enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) years after such date of enactment, the ISMICC shall submit a report to Congress and any other relevant federal department or agency.

The ISMICC will consist of federal members listed below or their designees and non-federal public members.

Federal Membership: The ISMICC will be composed of the following federal members or their designees:

• The Secretary of Health and Human Services;

• The Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use;

• The Attorney General;

• The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs;

• The Secretary of the Department of Defense;

• The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

• The Secretary of the Department of Education;

• The Secretary of the Department of Labor;

• The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and

• The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

In accordance with the Committee's authorizing statute, the Committee shall also “include not less than 14 non-Federal public members appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.” 21st Century Cures Act, section 6031(e)(2).

All non-Federal public members are appointed as Special Government Employees for their service on the ISMICC, of which:

(A) At least 2 members shall be an individual who has received treatment for a diagnosis of a serious mental illness;

(B) At least 1 member shall be a parent or legal guardian of an adult with a history of a serious mental illness or a child with a history of a serious emotional disturbance;

(C) At least 1 member shall be a representative of a leading research, advocacy, or service organization for adults with a serious mental illness;

(D) At least 2 members shall be—

(i) A licensed psychiatrist with experience in treating serious mental illnesses;

(ii) A licensed psychologist with experience in treating serious mental illnesses or serious emotional disturbances;

(iii) A licensed clinical social worker with experience treating serious mental illnesses or serious emotional disturbances; or

(iv) A licensed psychiatric nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant with experience in treating serious mental illnesses or serious emotional disturbances;

(E) At least 1 member shall be a licensed mental health professional with a specialty in treating children and adolescents with a serious emotional disturbance;

(F) At least 1 member shall be a mental health professional who has research or clinical mental health experience in working with minorities;

(G) At least 1 member shall be a mental health professional who has research or clinical mental health experience in working with medically underserved populations;

(H) At least 1 member shall be a State certified mental health peer support specialist;

(I) At least 1 member shall be a judge with experience in adjudicating cases related to criminal justice or serious mental illness;

(J) At least 1 member shall be a law enforcement officer or corrections officer with extensive experience in interfacing with adults with a serious mental illness, children with a serious emotional disturbance, or individuals in a mental health crisis; and

(K) At least 1 member shall have experience providing services for homeless individuals and working with adults with a serious mental illness, children with a serious emotional disturbance, or individuals in a mental health crisis.

The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of women, all ethnic and racial groups, sexual and gender minorities and people with disabilities are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees and, therefore, the Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee. Appointment to the ISMICC shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Requests for reasonable accommodation to enable participation on the Committee should be indicated in the nomination submission.

Nominations for non-federal public members are encouraged, and self-nominations are permitted as well. Only one nomination per individual is required. Multiple nominations for the same individual will not increase likelihood of selection. The Secretary may select non-federal public members from the pool of submitted nominations or other sources as needed to meet statutory requirements and to form a balanced committee that represents the diversity within the population of individuals with SMI or SED. Those eligible for nomination include representatives of leading major SMI or SED research, advocacy and service organizations, parents or guardians of individuals with a serious mental illness or serious emotional disturbance, individuals who have received treatment for a diagnosis of a serious mental illness, a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, licensed professional counselor, psychiatric nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant with experience in treating SMI or SED, other licensed mental health professionals, criminal justice professionals, researchers and other individuals with professional or personal experience with a SMI or SED. Those eligible for nomination also include mental health professionals with research or clinical experience with minorities or underserved populations, certified peer support specialists, judges with experience related to criminal justice or SMI, law enforcement or corrections officers with experience in SMI and SED, and individuals with experience providing services for homeless individuals, adults with SMI and children with SED. In accordance with White House Office of Management and Budget guidelines (FR Doc. 2014-19140), federally-registered lobbyists are not eligible.

As specified in the Committee's authorizing statute (section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act), the Committee, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 5 years after such date of enactment, shall submit to Congress and any other relevant Federal department or agency a report including: (1) A summary of advances in serious mental illness and serious emotional disturbance research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of serious mental illnesses, serious emotional disturbances, and advances in access to services and support for adults with a serious mental illness or children with a serious emotional disturbance; (2) an evaluation of the effect that Federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of serious mental illnesses, serious emotional disturbances, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary; and; (3) specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with a serious mental illness or children with a serious emotional disturbance.

A member of the Committee appointed under subsection (e)(2), non-federal, shall serve for a term of 3 years, and may be reappointed for 1 or more additional 3-year terms. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor has been appointed.

The ISMICC shall meet not fewer than 2 times each year.

Nominations should include: A cover letter and a current curriculum vitae or resume. Cover letters should be no longer than 3 pages, indicate which slot/slots the individual is applying for, describe relevant personal and professional experience with serious mental illness or serious emotional disturbance, and indicate their contact information. Up to 2 letters of support are permitted in addition to the nomination, with a page limit of 3 pages per letter. Please do not include other materials unless requested.

Nominations are due June 2, 2017, by midnight eastern daylight time, and may be sent to Pamela Foote, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 14E53C, Rockville, MD 20857; email: [email protected] by standard or express mail, or via email:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (“Section 106”), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of undertakings they carry out, license, permit, or fund to historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which federal agencies comply with these responsibilities. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”).

Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, federal agencies can request the ACHP to issue a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting reviews for each individual undertaking in the category. An agency can meet its Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of those undertakings by implementing an applicable Program Comment that has been issued by the ACHP.

At the request of the DHS, the ACHP has issued a Program Comment that provides a new efficiency in the Section 106 review for the deployment of communications projects. A program alternative was initially proposed by the White House Office of Science and Technology and an interagency Working Group comprised of representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of Defense; the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and Rural Utilities Service (RUS); and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The purpose of this Working Group was to explore how best to accelerate the deployment of communications projects, particularly broadband activities, on federal lands and properties by evaluating the Section 106 program alternatives outlined in 36 CFR 800.14. Many members of the Working Group had previously participated in another Interagency Working Group for Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment, established in 2012. This Interagency Working Group published a report with recommendations to expedite reviews and implement efficiencies for the deployment of broadband infrastructure on federal lands. Since this effort had not directly resulted in revisions based on the existing Section 106 regulations, in 2016 the Broadband Interagency Working Group, formerly known as the Broadband Opportunity Council, was established. This group reaffirmed the need to tailor the Section 106 review process so it could expedite broadband deployment, especially in rural and underserved communities.

The Working Group initially pursued a Standard Treatment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(d) consisting of a series of “best practices” in the deployment of broadband. If followed, these practices were likely to result in determinations of “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse effect” on historic properties. However, the Working Group was particularly interested in incorporating select provisions of the two FCC Nationwide Programmatic Agreements (NPAs) executed in 2001 and 2005, respectively, among FCC, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), and the ACHP for tower siting and collocation activities on existing towers. The NPAs have been successfully used by applicants for more than a decade for streamlining the Section 106 review of tower siting and collocation activities. Use of the Standard Treatment alone would not have allowed federal land and property managing agencies to implement the efficiencies in the NPAs. Further, by their own terms, the NPAs state that they do not apply on federal lands and tribal lands.

After meeting several times and receiving feedback on the draft Standard Treatment, it was recognized that the best practices proposed in the Standard Treatment would not achieve the review efficiencies that were being sought by the federal agencies. The Working Group, therefore, agreed to convert the Standard Treatment into a Program Comment under 36 CFR 800.14(e). The Program Comment would enable Property Managing Agencies (PMAS) and Land Managing Agencies (LMAs) to alter the standard Section 106 review process to achieve the desired process efficiencies, such as establishing limits to areas of potential effects (APEs), limiting the level of effort needed to identify historic properties in certain areas, and utilizing FCC's NPAs' exemptions, as appropriate.

While the Program Comment presents a change in the type of program alternative initially sought by the LMAs and PMAs, the structure and provisions are substantively similar to those included in the draft Standard Treatment. The Program Comment includes new administrative clauses such as reporting, amendment, and duration. Nonetheless, the overall purpose of the program alternative remains the same: assist LMAs and PMAs in expediting project delivery of broadband infrastructure to underserved communities, rural areas, and tribal communities. Further, the Program Comment is structured to cover the effects of all types of communication deployment undertakings, including constructing and placing antennae, towers, and associated equipment and facilities on federal property, and running buried and aerial fiber optic lines across federal lands. In order to expedite the review of broadband activities, the Program Comment defines the APE for certain undertakings to establish more consistent reviews by LMAs and PMAs on federal lands; specifies the process for collocation on federal buildings and federal lands; and clarifies review and installation procedures for buried and aerial fiber optic lines.

By utilizing the Program Comment, LMAs/PMAs can allow project proponents to coordinate the review of broadband deployment on both private and federal lands without experiencing unanticipated delays in the Section 106 process. Assistance agencies, such as FirstNet (Commerce), the Appalachian Regional Commission, and RUS, can use the Program Comment when they fund broadband activities that may involve the use of federal lands and properties. Other LMAs/PMAs and federal agencies not specifically identified in the Program Comment who wish to use the Program Comment to satisfy their Section 106 responsibilities must first notify the ACHP in writing of their interest and clarify the nature of their communications program. The ACHP will be responsible for acknowledging these notifications and posting them on the ACHP Web site.

The Program Comment is not applicable to undertakings that would occur on or affect the following federal lands: National Historic Landmarks (or the portion thereof that is located on federal land), National Monuments, National Memorials, National Historical Parks, National Historic Trails, National Historic Sites, National Military Parks, and National Battlefields. Should federal agencies or applicants propose communication deployment undertakings that may affect these properties, the responsible federal agency must follow the standard Section 106 process or another applicable program alternative. The LMAs/PMAS also must consult with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs), and other consulting parties when coordinating the standard Section 106 process.

In accordance with the 36 CFR 800.14(e), in developing the Program Comment the ACHP, in coordination with DHS and the Working Group, arranged for public participation appropriate to the scope of the category of undertakings it would cover and in accordance with the standards outlined in the Section 106 regulations. Due to the breadth and scale of the communications activities related to the Next Generation programs, ACHP, DHS, and the Working Group agreed that all stakeholders should be afforded an opportunity to review the draft Program Comment. It was posted on the ACHP's Web site with an explanation of the changes that were made to modify it from the proposed Standard Treatment.

On January 13, 2017, the draft Program Comment was distributed to SHPOs, THPOs, Indian tribes, NHOs, federal agencies, and broadband industry representatives for a three-week review period. The ACHP received 16 comments during this initial period. Because of the limited response, the comment period was extended for an additional two weeks until February 24, 2017. The ACHP hosted a webinar specifically for tribes, from which an additional three comments were received.

In response to the publication of the draft Program Comment on January 13, 2017, comments were received from a total of 24 organizations and federal agencies. None of the commenters opposed the issuance of the Program Comment. However, all of the commenters shared their observations regarding changes needed to make it less ambiguous or offered revisions to meet their program needs. SHPOs and THPOs both recommended revisions to clarify the procedures for conducting records checks, completing the identification and evaluation of properties, exempting activities from Section 106 reviews, as well as the use of the defined terms in the Program Comment.

Responses from nine SHPOs were received on the draft Program Comment, with most expressing concern about the continued applicability of Section 110(a) of the NHPA to federal LMAs/PMAs. SHPOs also questioned how the Program Comment would relate to the FCC NPAs, which they thought was not clear in the document. Many SHPOs were concerned about the identification and evaluation of historic properties under the Program Comment and wanted the following issues addressed: (1) The degree of flexibility given to federal land and property managing agencies to identify historic properties; (2) clarity regarding when or if field surveys would be needed; (3) clarity regarding how a “records check would be conducted;” (4) the level of SHPO review required for exemptions; and (5) clarity regarding the definition of the term “low probability.” SHPOs also could not determine the difference between “rights of-way” and “previously disturbed right-of-way” based on the language in the draft.

One SHPO recommended that the ACHP clarify whether new tower construction would be exempted and distinguish between a replacement tower and an additional tower. Further, the effect thresholds in the Program Comment elicited several SHPO comments. Concerns were expressed that the draft did not consider a situation in which the scale and nature of the previous undertaking could be significantly different from that created by a large cellular tower, that the draft erroneously concluded that new telecommunications towers would typically not result in an “adverse effect,” and that it did not adequately consider other types of adverse effects such as noise, visual, and cumulative effects. Finally, SHPOs believed it was important to take into account the passage of time when assessing effects on properties previously considered ineligible. SHPOS indicated that LMAs/PMAs should not only consult with the SHPO/THPO to confirm the APE, but should also reveal to the SHPO/THPO and Indian tribes the sources (records) and methods used to identify historic properties. Finally, a concern was raised that the draft narrowed the definition of “historic properties” and was inconsistent with the definition in the NHPA.

Five THPOs and Indian tribes responded to the draft Program Comment during the period it was available for review. Comments regarding the applicability of the Program Comment on tribal lands were noted, and several THPOs and Indian tribes expressed concern about the Program Comment applying off tribal lands, preferring that LMAs/PMAs adhere to the standard Section 106 process instead. Further, one THPO indicated that it was unclear if or when it would be possible to develop an agreement with the LMA/PMA to utilize the Program Comment on tribal lands. THPOs and Indian tribes recommended that the list of properties to which the Program Comment would not apply be expanded to include National Historic Landmarks, National Natural Landmarks, areas of critical environmental concern, and other federally owned localities and lands that have earned official recognition for their significance. With regard to the definitions, THPOs and Indian tribes recommended that the list of defined terms include other terms they believed were vague or inconsistently used throughout the document. THPOs and Indian tribes recommended that activities exempt from Section 106 review be limited to those that would not affect “undisturbed areas.” They also suggested that the radius for the “presumed APE for visual effects” in cases where the undertaking may affect properties or landscapes of significance to tribes should be expanded. The THPOs and Indian tribes believed that the identification process is the most important step of the Section 106 process and therefore, recommended that “. . . great care is taken when limiting this step in order to establish efficiencies.” One THPO took exception to the use of blanket “no adverse effects” determinations for the construction of lines from the road or utility right-of-way to a facility if there are no known historic properties within the APE. The THPO said this would work only when there are sufficient identification efforts completed such as survey or testing to support any previous “no historic properties affected” findings.

THPOs and Indian tribes also questioned the concept of “records check” as an adequate identification tool if it did not include consultation with the THPOs and Indian tribes as it did with the SHPOs. Likewise, they said that Federal LMAs/PMAs must involve the tribes in consultation regarding avoidance plans for historic properties. The THPOs and Indian tribes asserted that the Program Comment did not address the importance of ancestral homelands or areas through which a tribe has migrated or on which tribes have participated in past or present activities. The THPOs and Indian tribes stressed the importance of being clear on these issues. Regarding collocation on non-tower structures, the THPOs commented that the LMA/PMA must take into account historic properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes, and therefore consultation with tribes should occur prior to making a finding of “no adverse effect.” THPOs and Indian tribes also recommended including further consideration of the cumulative effects of telecommunication facilities on sites and landscapes eligible for listing in the National Register. In addition, the THPOs and Indian tribes suggested that the Program comment should acknowledge that many telecommunications facilities can have auditory and olfactory effects as well as mechanical and visual effects on historic properties.

The THPOs and tribes commented that annual reports from LMAs/PMAs should be submitted directly to affected THPOs and Indian tribes. Further, they suggested that the ACHP and LMAs/PMAs should consult with THPOs and Indian tribes before amending the Program Comment. They reiterated that the Program Comment should clearly state that it does not alter the roles or responsibilities of THPOs and Indian tribes in the Section 106 review process. For example, they commented that the Program Comment does not negate the right of THPOs and Indian tribes to request government-to-government consultation with LMAs/PMAs and other federal agencies. Finally, THPOs and tribes stated that the sole purpose of the Program Comment was to expedite and limit the scope of Section 106 review and asserted that this was problematical because it violated both the spirit and language of the NHPA.

The American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) was concerned that the Program Comment would limit consultation on APEs to SHPOs and THPOs only. They recommended that it include other parties since they said that towers have large APEs and could impact traditional cultural properties, view sheds, etc. ACRA also objected to the exemption for previous surveyed areas, arguing it presupposes that earlier surveys were adequate. To that end, they noted that the term “adequate was frequently used in throughout the Program Comment” and asked the ACHP to clarify why.

Federal agencies were notified that a draft Program Comment had been developed to assist with the review of broadband deployment. Five agencies submitted comments during the review period, including some that were members of the Working Group, such as FCC. FCC indicated that it would be helpful if the Program Comment absolved the agency from complying with Section 106 when a LMA/PMA with related authority for the same undertaking already utilized the Program Comment on Federal lands and property for its Section 106 review. If this efficiency were not possible, FCC asked to be removed from participation in the Program Comment.

The US Postal Service (USPS) asked why agencies interested in using the Program Comment would be required to inform the ACHP and other government agencies. The agency wanted to know if notice to just the ACHP would be sufficient. Also, they expressed concerns about the definitions in the Program Comment and suggested that USPS would want to verify the references. USPS requested the Program Comment include a “more detailed” definition of “undisturbed soils.” USPS also clarified that it has its own policy that defines terms used in the Program Comment which can be found at 39 U.S.C. 401, “General Powers of the Postal Service.” With regard to the reference to “delegation of authority” the Program Comment should specify that it would be to the “Applicant” to avoid confusion. On a similar note, USPS requested that the “responsibilities of applicants” section include the following language at the end, “the federal LMA/PMA shall be deemed to be in compliance under this PC if such compliance is carried out by an Applicant on behalf of such Federal LMA/PMA.” USPS recommended that the APEs for new communication towers be increased by 0.5 to 1 mile given what it perceived to be the potential to construct stealth towers without appropriate review.

NPS requested that the ACHP include a definition of “agency official” to the general definitions section to explain who represents the agency. In addition, NPS indicated that the ACHP should clarify how undertakings occurring on or affecting National Parks would be handled under the exemptions outlined in Sections VI to XI of the Program Comment.

The telecommunications industry shared its views on the potential effectiveness of the Program Comment in the review of deployment of telecommunications activities. Many of their comments had previously been shared with FCC and Federal LMAs/PMAs over the years. However, industry representatives stated that they have not seen a number of efficiencies for deployment of telecommunication activities, particularly broadband, on federal lands and properties. Industry noted that although the Program Comment addressed a number of the comments previously shared with FCC, the NPAs were not helpful as they did not apply on federal lands and properties. As such, FCC was unable to establish procedures for applicants.

Industry recommended that the ACHP require all LMAs/PMAs to use the Program Comment to satisfy their Section 106 responsibilities, and avoid leaving it to the discretion of agencies. While many applicants have had success in working with the Federal LMAs/PMAs, they expressed concern that the agencies did not operate in a consistent and predictable manner when conducting Section 106 reviews. They also wanted a lead federal agency for Section 106 purposes whenever multiple federal agencies are involved in reviewing deployment activities.

In addition, industry took exception to the Program Comment not being applicable to activities on all federal lands. They did not support the Program Comment excluding the review of undertakings occurring on or affecting National Parks, National Monuments, Trails, Battlefields, etc. It was recommended that the Program Comment consider effects to all historic properties.

Industry also asked for clarification regarding how the Program Comment would apply to the FCC's Collocation NPA. As drafted, industry believed that the Program Comment was ambiguous and used undefined terms about the actions agencies and applicants would take. Industry concluded that the term “records check” as a strategy for applicants to identify potentially affected historic properties was unnecessarily broad and ambiguous. They recommended that a “records check” be limited to: Searching available records for information about: properties listed on or formally determined eligible for the National Register; properties the SHPO/THPO certifies are in the process of being nominated to the National Register; and properties previously determined eligible as part of a consensus determination of eligibility. Since the Program Comment did not say how a site is determined eligible, industry suggested that the language should be revised to cross reference the definition of “records check” when determinations of eligibility are made. Another comment about existing records stated that if carriers (applicants) had access to these records, they could avoid historic properties all together and streamline the review even further.

Industry indicated that the Program Comment applied to a far broader range of collocations than those referenced in the definition for “collocation of antennas on existing wireless towers.” As such, they asserted that the title of Section I should be revised to align with the actual scope of the Program Comment. It also was recommended that two types of projects be deleted from the review process section of the Program Comment: The removal of towers or other structures housing wireless facilities and tower construction that occurs in conjunction with road maintenance projects that do not extend the area of previous ground disturbance. Industry stated that these projects would typically be considered to have “no adverse effect” to historic properties and thus should be categorically exempted. Likewise, it was recommended that tower replacement and new towers will not adversely affect historic properties and should be categorically exempted as well.

Industry recommended that if project applications were not approved or rejected in 180 days, or 90 days for collocations, they should be deemed approved. Industry also recommended that the Program Comment include rules governing application denials. Concerns about timing were expressed with a recommendation that the Program Comment needed strict time limits for consulting parties' review. Further, industry suggested that federal LMAs/PMAs should be required to provide review status updates to applicants. Additionally, they recommend that any fees charged for implementing the Program Comment should be public information and standardized.

Industry stated that the Program Comment did not explain why facilities under streamlined review are limited to those located in rights-of-way. They asserted that there was no basis to limit this efficiency, particularly in remote areas where coverage and rights-of-way may be farther apart and where providing broadband service may require deployment of facilities outside of the rights-of-way.

The comments and recommendations submitted by commenters were comprehensive. In order to adjudicate the comments, the ACHP reviewed and organized them into the following categories: Applicability of the Program Comment; relationship to the FCC NPAs; Federal LMA/PMA Section 110 responsibilities; definitions; roles and responsibilities; identification and eligibility of historic properties; effect findings; and time limits and transparency.

Concerns were expressed by representatives from each of the stakeholders that the applicability of the Program Comment was not clear and that its scope did not go far enough. In response, the Program Comment now clarifies that it can apply to communications undertakings located on federal lands and properties, or funded through loans and grants to private parties whose undertakings will involve public lands or properties. The Program Comment also clarifies that other federal agencies can use the Program Comment if they notify the ACHP of their intent to do so and upon receipt of ACHP's acknowledgment in response. Section XVIII was revised to clarify that the ACHP will acknowledge such notifications within 30-days and post them on its Web site. Other federal agencies do not need to be notified. The Program Comment was revised to exclude National Historic Landmarks or the portion thereof that is located on federal land. Because of the national significance of these historic properties, they would benefit from undertakings going through the standard Section 106 review process in consultation with diverse consulting parties. Furthermore, the exemptions outlined in Sections VI to XI would not apply to undertakings affecting these federally owned historic properties. Expansion of this list of excluded properties would require further identification and evaluation of other types of nationally significant properties by the Federal LMAs/PMAs.

Some commenters were unclear about how the Program Comment will use the efficiencies set forth in the FCC's NPAs. This is now clarified in the Introduction Section of the Program Comment. The NPAs have expedited tower siting and collocations on private properties due in large measure to the exemptions they include and other review efficiencies. Should FCC pursue future amendments to the NPAs similar to the 2016 amendment to the collocation NPA, which addresses small telecommunications towers and the distributed antennae system, the Program Comment may need to be amended. Any potential amendment to the Program Comment would be discussed with the Federal LMAs/PMAs and other consulting parties under the Section XVII, Reporting, and Section XVIII, Amendment.

Some commenters noted that the Program Comment deviated from the process set forth in the Section 106 regulations. This is true, because the purpose of a Program Comment is to provide an alternative method for complying with Section 106 in lieu of the standard process. It does not alter the statutory requirements of Section 106 (to “take into account” and “afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment”), nor does it modify federal agency stewardship responsibilities as set out in Section 110(a) of the NHPA. It does not relieve the Federal LMAs/PMAs and other agencies of the responsibility to complete Section 110(a) surveys, as appropriate. Likewise, the records check requirement in Section IV of the Program Comment does not alter any Section 110 responsibilities as they relate to identification and evaluation of historic properties. As to the comment that this Program Comment violates the letter and spirit of the NHPA, the ACHP disagrees. The purpose of a Program Comment is to provide an alternate method for complying with Section 106, in lieu of the standard process.

The definitions in Section III prompted widespread concerns among the commenters and numerous recommendations for revisions. Many of the stakeholders found the definitions to be vague and ambiguous, and too narrowly focused. All of the definitions have been fact checked again. Since many reference or are found in the ACHP's regulations, they cannot be modified. Minor revisions to the language have been made to other definitions as appropriate for clarity. For example, the term “undisturbed soils” is now defined to make it clear how this concept should be applied, and the definition of “right-of-way” has been clarified to include the types of rights-of-way that are specifically addressed in the Program Comment.

The majority of comments regarding the identification and evaluation of historic properties were submitted by SHPOs, THPOs, and Indian tribes. Serious concerns were expressed about the use of the term “records check.” The concept was revised to clarify what should be searched and how to determine if historic properties were known to exist within the APE. In those instances where the records check reveals no information on the presence of properties within the APE, the Federal LMA/PMA shall have a qualified professional consult further with the SHPO, THPO, Indian tribes, or NHO to determine if there are areas within the APE with a high probability of containing National Register eligible properties. If so, the area will be avoided. If it cannot be avoided, the Federal LMA/PMA will determine whether a survey or monitoring program is appropriate. Thus, the process has now been further detailed to address the concerns received. The Program Comment includes other criteria that can be applied by the Federal LMA/PMA to proposed undertakings to exempt them from further Section 106 review when clearly articulated circumstances exist. Applicants would follow these procedures and document for the Federal LMA/PMA the proposed determination of effect for their approval. Section II was added to require the Federal LMA/PMA to consider using the standard Section 106 process for an undertaking should a dispute arise over the use of the Program Comment for that undertaking, and notify all consulting parties of its decision.

Comments submitted about the roles and responsibilities described in Section IV suggested that the activities carried out by Federal LMAs/PMAs should also involve consultation with THPOs and Indian tribes, as appropriate. This Program Comment does not modify the federal trust responsibilities of any agency in regard to Indian tribes. The ACHP believes the Program Comment finds the right balance of consultation and streamlining for review of this category of undertakings. This section was also revised to clarify that when FCC and a Federal LMA/PMA have Section 106 responsibility for a communications undertaking involving private lands and federal lands and property, the Federal LMA/PMA shall be responsible for compliance with Section 106 and FCC shall have no further Section 106 responsibility for that undertaking.

Several SHPOs questioned the appropriateness of relying on previous determinations of eligibility without considering the passage of time. The Program Comment was revised to clarify a time limit for previous determinations of non-eligibility in order to utilize the stated efficiency. Several commenters expressed concerns that the Program Comment focused exclusively on visual effects. Section XIV, Unanticipated Discoveries, was revised to include language clarifying that unanticipated effects include cumulative, atmospheric, and audible effects. This allows consulting parties to notify the Federal LMAs/PMAs of activities that should not be exempted or conditionally exempted under Sections VI to XI.

Concerns were expressed that the Program Comment did not specify timelines or the rules governing denial of applications for communications deployment. It was also suggested that time limits be attached to approving or rejecting applications. Section IV was revised to clarify that Federal LMAs/PMAs, SHPOs, THPOs, Indian tribes, and NHOs should carry out their Section 106 responsibilities consistent with the Section 106 regulations and the FCC NPAs. Section II explains that Federal LMAs/PMAs will review disputes and consider the feasibility of adhering to the standard Section 106 process in lieu of applying the Program Comment for a particular undertaking. The issue of fees is not addressed in the Program Comment as this is a question that will be decided by Federal LMAs/PMAs and FCC, as appropriate.

The Program Comment will be monitored by consulting parties on a regular basis, and the ACHP will evaluate the effectiveness of the Program Comment in consultation with the Federal LMAs/PMAs and other consulting parties as part of the annual reporting process. Likewise, the ACHP will convene a follow up meeting in December 2018 to reexamine the Program Comment's use and implementation to determine whether any amendments are necessary to continue deploying communications projects without procedural delays.

The following is the text of the Program Comment as issued by the ACHP:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106), requires federal agencies to “take into account” the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued regulations that set forth the process through which federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (Section 106 regulations).

Under section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to provide a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting separate reviews of each individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7. Federal Land Managing Agencies (LMAs) and Federal Property Managing Agencies (PMAs) can meet their Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of particular undertakings by taking into account this Program Comment and following the steps set forth therein.

The purpose of issuing this Program Comment is to assist Federal LMAs/PMAs in permitting and approving the deployment of next generation technologies of communications infrastructure, e.g. 5G, more efficiently. This Program Comment establishes uniform procedures for addressing Section 106 compliance for the collocation of antennae on existing communications towers, including the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building, or structure; installation of aerial communications cable; burying communications cable in existing road, railroad, and utility rights-of-way (ROW); construction of new communication towers (facilities), and removal of obsolete communications equipment and towers (hereinafter, communication deployment undertakings). These undertakings would typically not result in adverse effects to historic properties. Federal LMAs/PMAs may elect to follow the efficiencies set forth in this Program Comment in lieu of the procedures in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 for individual undertakings falling within its scope. Public involvement remains a critical aspect of the Section 106 process; therefore, it is the responsibility of the Federal LMAs/PMAs to determine their method for public engagement based on the agency's established protocols for their communications programs. In addition, for the purpose of this Program Comment, Federal LMAs/PMAs are encouraged to identify a single point of contact and a Lead Federal Agency for the purpose of carrying out Section 106 reviews when communications projects involve multiple federal agencies.

This Program Comment builds upon the precedent of two Nationwide Programmatic Agreements (NPAs) for wireless communications projects executed in 2001 and 2004, respectively, among the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the ACHP, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO). These NPAs have been successful in establishing efficiencies in the Section 106 review of tower construction and collocations, approaches which the Federal LMAs/PMAs are interested in following for their communications activities, including broadband deployment. The FCC NPAs apply on private lands where an applicant must obtain licenses or registrations. However, when an applicant deploys communications projects that involve private and federal lands, FCC and the applicant or licensee may coordinate with the Federal LMAs/PMAs to apply the terms of the NPAs as well as the provisions in this Program Comment.

Many State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) have been accustomed to reviewing applications for wireless communications facilities under the terms of the NPAs. As such, the NPAs were expanded to cover communications activities funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, through the ACHP's issuance of a Program Comment for the Broadband Initiatives Program and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. The 2009 Program Comment allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service; the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, to rely on the FCC's review of tower and collocation undertakings under the NPAs, thereby eliminating duplicative reviews for undertakings subject to FCC licensing or registration. In 2015, the ACHP extended the Broadband Program Comment for an additional 20 years and expanded it to allow additional agencies that fund communication facilities, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and it components, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and FirstNet, to utilize its terms to comply with Section 106 for those undertakings.

Since the FCC NPAs do not apply on federal lands, Federal LMAs/PMAs can benefit from the use of this Program Comment for the deployment of communications infrastructure and facilities. The recommendation for developing such a program alternative on federal lands derived from the implementation of Executive Order 13616, Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment (77 FR 36903, June 20, 2012). Once Executive Order 13616 was issued, a Federal Property Working Group (Working Group) was established to expedite reviews and implement efficiencies for the deployment of broadband infrastructure on federal property. Subsequently the Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) was established to produce specific recommendations to increase broadband deployment, competition, and adoption through actions within the scope of existing agency programs, missions, and budgets. The efforts of the BOC aligned with those of the Working Group, reaffirming the commitment to implement activities and policies that support increased broadband deployment, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Finally, the importance of broadband infrastructure deployment was reaffirmed with the issuance of Executive Order 13766, Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects (82 FR 8657, January 30, 2017). This Executive Order requires infrastructure decisions to be accomplished with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, while also respecting property rights and protecting public safety. Further, all infrastructure projects, especially projects that are high priority for the nation, such as improving U.S. electric grids and telecommunications systems and repairing and upgrading critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges, and highways are the focus of this executive order.

This Program Comment provides an alternate method for the Federal LMAs/PMAs to meet their Section 106 responsibilities in a flexible manner for communications undertakings. It does not modify the responsibilities of Federal LMAs/PMAs to comply with Section 110(a) of the NHPA. Nor does it relieve Federal LMAs/PMAs and other federal agencies who utilize the Program Comment from completing Section 110(a) surveys when they are appropriate on federal lands.

This Program Comment applies to communication deployment undertakings that are carried out, permitted, licensed, funded, or assisted by the following LMAs: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS); the Department of the Interior's (DOI) National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and the following PMAs: The Department of Homeland Security and its components, Department of Commerce; Department of Veterans Affairs; and the General Services Administration. Other federal agencies responsible for carrying out, permitting, licensing, funding, or assisting in the deployment of communications activities, such as FCC and the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS), may utilize this Program Comment to satisfy their Section 106 responsibilities on federal lands after completing the process set forth in Section XVIII.B. below.

Federal LMAs/PMAs may have existing procedures in place, such as a Memorandum of Understanding with a SHPO, THPO, Indian tribe, or NHO to coordinate consultation or to expedite Section 106 reviews, or a program alternative developed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14 that addresses agency compliance with Section 106 for certain types of undertakings. If such procedures exist, the Federal LMAs/PMAs may coordinate with the signatories of those agreements or program alternatives to determine whether applying the terms of this Program Comment can substitute for those procedures.

This Program Comment is not applicable to undertakings proposed to be carried out, permitted, licensed, funded, or assisted by any federal agency that would occur on or affect the following federally owned lands: National Historic Landmarks (or the portion thereof that is located on federal land), National Monuments, National Memorials, National Historical Parks, National Historic Trails, National Historic Sites, National Military Parks, and National Battlefields. Should federal agencies or applicants want to deploy communications facilities that will affect these properties, the responsible federal agency must follow the standard Section 106 process under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 (or another applicable Program Alternative under 36 CFR 800.14) for the review of such undertakings in consultation with the applicant, SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, NHOs, and other consulting parties.

This Program Comment is not applicable to undertakings proposed to be carried out, licensed, permitted, or assisted by any federal agency that would occur on or affect historic properties located on tribal lands without the prior, written agreement between that Indian tribe and the federal agency, and notification by the relevant Federal LMA/PMA to the ACHP, NCSHPO, and NATHPO.

Should a dispute arise over applicability of this Program Comment, or its use for any particular undertaking, the Federal LMA/PMA will resolve the dispute and should consider following the standard Section 106 process under 36 CFR 800.3-800.7. The Federal LMA/PMA shall notify all consulting parties regarding its preferred approach to complying with Section 106 for a communications undertaking that is the subject of a dispute.

A. Agency Official—It is the statutory obligation of the federal agency to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 and to ensure that an agency official with jurisdiction over an undertaking takes legal and financial responsibility for Section 106 compliance in accordance with 36 CFR part 800. The agency official has approval authority for the undertaking and can commit the federal agency to take appropriate action for a specific undertaking as a result of Section 106 compliance. The agency official may be a state, local, or tribal government official who has been delegated legal responsibility for compliance with Section 106 in accordance with federal law.

B. Antenna—An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location, for the transmission of writing, signs, signals, data, images, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including the transmitting device and any on-site equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with that antenna and added to a tower, structure, or building as part of the original installation of the antenna.

C. Applicant—The party submitting an application for communications permitting, licensing, or lease on federally managed lands or federally managed property.

D. Area of Potential Effects (APE)—The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (source: 36 CFR 800.16(d)). For purposes of this Program Comment the APE includes the ROW, access routes, and staging areas as defined below.

E. Collocation—The communications industry's term for the construction of a new antenna or tower, or the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building, or structure, for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. It includes any fencing, equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with that antenna or tower.

F. Consulting Parties—The parties with whom federal agencies consult in the Section 106 process. Consulting parties “by right” are those parties a federal agency must invite to consult and include the ACHP, and the relevant SHPO; THPO; Indian tribes, including Alaskan Native villages, Regional Corporations, or Village Corporations; and NHOs; representatives of local governments; and applicants for federal assistance, permits, license and other approvals. “Certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking” may, at the discretion of the relevant agency, also participate as consulting parties “due to their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties” (source: 36 CFR 800.2(c)).

G. Effect and Adverse Effect—“Effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places” (source: 36 CFR 800.16(i)). “An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association” (source: 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)).

H. Facility—Means the secured area including the building, tower, and related incidental structures or improvements, located on federal land.

I. Ground Disturbance—Any activity that moves, compacts, alters, displaces, or penetrates the ground surface of previously undisturbed soils. “Undisturbed soils” refers to soils that possess significant intact and distinct natural soil horizons. Previously undisturbed soils may occur below the depth of disturbed soils.

J. Historic Property—Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe, Alaskan Native village, Regional Corporation or Village Corporation, or NHO that meet the National Register criteria (source: 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)).

K. Indian Tribe—An Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. It includes a Native village, Regional Corporation, or Village Corporation, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).

L. Property Managing Agency—Executive branch agencies and independent agencies that have authority to hold smaller swaths of land to support facilities that are necessary to the agency's mission and vision.

M. Land Managing Agency—Executive branch agencies that have the authority to hold broad swaths of land for the agency's mission and other particular purposes such as management and administration of activities undertaken to support the agency.

N. Tribal Lands—Defined in 36 CFR 800.16(x) as including “all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities.”

O. Pole—A pole is a non-tower structure that can hold utility, communications, and related transmission lines.

P. Right of Way—An easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands (source: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, As Amended 2001, Title V). For the purposes of this Program Comment, ROW includes a construction, maintenance, road, railroad, or utility ROW.

Q. Records Check—For the purpose of this Program Comment, a “Records Check” means searching SHPO/THPO, tribal, and relevant federal agency files, records, inventories and databases, or other sources identified by the SHPO/THPO, for any information about whether the following kinds of properties are known to exist within the APE: Properties listed on or formally determined eligible for the National Register; Properties that the SHPO/THPO certifies are in the process of being nominated to the National Register; Properties previously determined eligible as part of a consensus determination of eligibility between the SHPO/THPO and a federal agency or local government representing the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Properties listed and identified in the SHPO/THPO Inventory that the SHPO/THPO has previously evaluated and found to meet the National Register criteria; and Properties in their files that the SHPO/THPO considers eligible.

R. Staging Area—For the purpose of this Program Comment, a staging area is an area designated for short term use, not to exceed the duration of the project, and is often used for storing and assembling building materials equipment, and machinery, and for parking vehicles, temporary mobile offices, and staging area entrance/exit.

S. Substantial Increase in Size—This occurs when there is an existing antenna on a tower and:

1. Mounting of the proposed additional or replacement antenna would result in an increase of the existing height of the tower by more than 10 percent, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph, if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennae; or

2. Mounting of the proposed additional or replacement antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved (not to exceed four), or more than one new equipment shelter; or

3. Mounting of the proposed additional or replacement antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater), except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable.

T. Native Hawaiian Organizations—Defined as “any organization which serves or represents the interests of Native Hawaiians; has as a primary and stated purpose the provision of services to Native Hawaiians; and has demonstrated expertise in aspects of historic preservation that are significant to Native Hawaiians” (source: 36 CFR 800.16(s)(1)). “Native Hawaiian” means any “individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the state of Hawaii” (source: 36 CFR 800.16(s)(2)).

U. State Historic Preservation Officer—The state official appointed or designated pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the NHPA to administer the state historic preservation program or a designated representative.

V. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer—The tribal official appointed by the tribe's chief governing authority or designated by a tribal ordinance who has assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO for purposes of Section 106 compliance on tribal lands in accordance with Section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA.

W. Tower—Any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennae, including the on-site fencing, equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with that tower, but not installed as part of an antenna as defined herein (source: Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission, September 2004).

A. For each proposed undertaking subject to this Program Comment, the Federal LMAs/PMAs shall:

1. Consult with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, or NHO to confirm the APE for each individual undertaking and provide notification to the appropriate SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, or NHO of intent to follow this Program Comment. See Sections IX, X, and XI of this Program Comment regarding the determination of APEs for installation of buried communications cable, communications tower replacement, and new communications tower construction.

2. Identify known eligible or listed historic properties within the relevant APE that may be affected by the proposed communications undertaking by completing a Records Check. If a Records Check reveals no information on the presence of historic properties within the APE, the qualified professional (see Section XIII below) will consult with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, or NHO to determine whether, based on professional expertise, familiarity with the area, and similar geomorphology elsewhere, the APE includes areas that have a high probability of containing National Register-eligible properties. If so, those areas within the APE will be avoided and the Federal LMA/PMA shall have no further Section 106 responsibility for the undertaking. If they cannot be avoided, the Federal LMA/PMA and applicant will consult with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, or NHO to determine whether a survey or monitoring program should be carried out to identify historic properties, and to determine if any of the conditional exemptions listed in Sections VI-XI apply.

3. Consider whether any of the below criteria apply to a proposed undertaking and if so, notify consulting parties that no further Section 106 review will be required for any undertaking subject to this Program Comment that is proposed to occur within an APE:

a. That has been previously field surveyed (acceptable to current state standards or within the past 10 years) and there are no known historic properties located within the APE whose National Register qualifying characteristics would be adversely affected; or

b. that has been previously disturbed to the extent and depth where the probability of finding intact historic properties is low; or

c. that is not considered to have a high probability for historic properties by qualified professionals and based on professional expertise, familiarity with the area, and similar geomorphology elsewhere.

If none of these criteria apply to the undertaking, proceed to consider whether the conditional exemptions listed in Sections VI-XI are applicable.

4. Use existing agency procedures for implementation of this Program Comment which may include procedures for delegation of authority to the applicant, as appropriate.

5. Use qualified professionals for the disciplines under review in accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA and Section XIII of this Program Comment.

6. Document use of this Program Comment in the Section 106 review, and how it reached its decisions about the scope and level of effort for any historic property identification, for the undertaking's administrative record.

7. Where a Lead Federal Agency has been designated, and the Lead Federal Agency is in compliance with its responsibilities under this Program Comment, the other non-lead Federal LMAs/PMAs responsible for the subject undertaking shall also be deemed to be in compliance with Section 106 under this Program Comment.

B. The Applicant, on behalf of the Federal LMA/PMA, shall:

1. Notify the Federal LMA/PMA of its proposed application or request for assistance at the earliest possible opportunity in project planning.

2. Carry out and comply with the procedures for any delegation of authority to the applicant if established by the Federal LMA/PMA.

3. Assist the Federal LMA/PMA to determine the APE in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO.

4. Conduct a Records Check to identify known historic properties within the APE, when requested by the Federal LMA/PMA.

5. Notify the Federal LMA/PMA if the undertaking is not proposed to be located within or immediately adjacent to a known historic property.

6. Document the recommended determination of effect to historic properties for and subject to the Federal LMA/PMA's approval when requested by the Federal LMA/PMA.

7. Where appropriate to avoid adverse effects to historic properties, ensure the site avoidance plan has been approved by the Federal LMA/PMA and SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO. In addition avoidance areas should be clearly marked during staging and construction activities, so construction crews are properly notified.

C. The Federal LMAs/PMAs, SHPOs, THPOs, Indian tribes, and NHOs shall carry out their Section 106 responsibilities in a timely manner and adhere to the timeframes outlined in the FCC NPAs or 36 CFR 800.3 to 800.7. This will avoid delays in the deployment of communications undertakings on federal lands and property.

D. Where FCC has Section 106 responsibility over a proposed communication deployment undertaking that also requires a license, permit, approval, or assistance from a Federal LMA/PMA, the Federal LMA/PMA shall be responsible for the Section 106 compliance for that undertaking and may utilize the terms of this Program Comment, including any applicable exemptions. FCC shall have no further Section 106 responsibilities for that undertaking.

A. The Applicant shall coordinate early with the Federal LMA/PMA regarding project planning activities. In the event the Applicant proposes a public-private project, the carrier, tower company, or others who may be recognized as the Applicant shall involve the Federal LMA/PMA in pre-application meetings to (1) decide whether this Program Comment will be used; (2) consider the scope of work for the identification of historic properties; (3) discuss protocols for consulting with Indian tribes or NHOs; and (4) discuss alternatives and alternative routes for the undertaking.

B. Noninvasive techniques are encouraged for identification and evaluation of all property types, if feasible, and for testing, including geotechnical testing, at archaeological sites, TCPs, and other sites important to Indian tribes.

C. Siting projects in previously disturbed areas is encouraged.

A. A Federal LMA/PMA may elect to use applicable exclusions established in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, as amended August 2016.

B. A tower collocation requires no further Section 106 review so long as:

1. It will not result in a substantial increase 1 in size of the existing tower; and

2. There are no Section 106 requirements in an existing special use permit, easement, or communications use lease for that site.

C. Collocations on non-tower structures on federal land require no further Section 106 review so long as one of the following conditions apply to the undertaking:

1. The structure is less than 45 years old; or

2. If more than 45 years old, the structure has been previously evaluated and determined not eligible for listing on the National Register; and

a. The structure is not adjacent to or within the boundary of a National Register-listed or previously determined eligible historic district; and

b. The structure is not designated as a National Historic Landmark or State Historic Landmark; and

c. Indian tribes or NHOs have not indicated there are known historic properties of traditional religious and cultural significance within the APE and there will be no cumulative effects to such historic properties.

A. A Federal LMA/PMA may elect to use applicable exclusions established in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, as amended August 2016, for collocations on federal buildings and non-federal buildings located on federal lands.

B. Communications connections to buildings that have been determined not eligible for listing on the National Register via a previous Section 106 consultation completed in the past 15 years require no further Section 106 review.

C. Communications connections to and collocations on buildings listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register require no further Section 106 review, so long as:

1. All construction complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; for example, when a new building entry is required because no entry points exist; and

a. Communications connections and collocations are placed on buildings behind parapets or the roof's edge in such a manner so that the connections and collocations are not visible from ground level; and existing communications or utility entry points and infrastructure are used to the greatest extent feasible, in and on the historic building; or

b. If existing communications or utility entry points and infrastructure cannot be used for the subject collocation, any additional entry points and infrastructure required in or on the historic building are installed in such a way as to minimize adverse effects to historic materials.

A. The placement of above-ground communications and cable lines on existing poles or structures requires no further Section 106 review, as long as:

1. No new structures or poles need to be added to accommodate the new lines; and

2. The structure or pole is not a historic property and does not contribute to the significance of a historic district.

B. When replacement of structures or poles is planned, the undertaking requires no further Section 106 review, as long as:

1. The replacement structures or poles can be located within the same hole as the original structure and there is no new ground disturbance outside of previously disturbed areas associated with temporary support of the lines; and

2. The replacement structures or poles are within an existing ROW or easement which has been surveyed; and

3. The replacement structures or poles are consistent with the quality and appearance of the originals; and

4. Any proposed height increase of the replacement structures or poles is no more than 10 percent of the height of the originals; and

5. The original pole or structure is not a historic property and does not contribute to a historic district.

C. When infill structures or poles need to be added along an extant line, the undertaking requires no further Section 106 review, as long as:

1. The addition of new structures or poles within existing ROWs or corridors is not proposed within the boundary of a known historic property as identified by the Federal LMA/PMA; and

2. The additional structures or pole(s) are 100 feet or more beyond the boundary of any National Register listed or previously determined eligible historic districts significant for their visual setting; and

3. The additions are of generally consistent quality and appearance with the originals; and

4. The height of any added structure or pole is no greater than 10 percent taller than the height of the originals.

A. The APE for installation of buried cable will be the width of the construction ROW plus any additional areas for staging or access.

B. The installation and maintenance of new or replacement communications cable and new or replacement associated vaults for cable access along or solely in previously disturbed areas or in existing communications or utilities trenches within existing road, railroad, and utility ROWs requires no further Section 106 review.

C. The installation of new or replacement vaults for cable access that are outside of existing road, railroad, and utility ROWs but located solely in previously disturbed soils requires no further Section 106 review so long as there are no known historic properties within the APE for the vaults.

D. The installation of new or replacement buried communication connections from road, railroad, and utility ROWs or vaults to a facility requires no further Section 106 review, so long as:

1. There are no known historic properties within the APE for the connection; or

2. The new or replacement communication connections are solely buried in previously disturbed existing rights-of-way up to the existing facility or building or to an overhead line that connects to the facility or building.

E. If the road, railroad, and/or utility ROW, or nearby previously disturbed area, or the area from the ROW to the individual user includes a known archaeological site(s), the undertaking requires no further Section 106 review so long as the depth and extent of the property's intact and undisturbed deposits within the APE can be predicted with relative certainty such that the cable can be directionally bored below the site(s).

A. For the purpose of this section, the APE for direct effects for a tower, compound, and associated construction is the area of potential ground disturbance, any areas for staging or access, and any property, or any portion thereof that will be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking (source: 2004 NPA, as amended).

B. For the purpose of this section, the APE for indirect visual effects is the geographic area in which the undertaking has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the integrity (source: 2004 NPA, as amended).

1. Unless otherwise established, or previously established through consultation and agreement between the Federal LMA/PMA and SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO the APE for visual effects for construction of new facilities or structures is the area from which the tower will be visible:

a. Within a 0.5 mile radius from the tower site if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in overall height;

b. Within a 0.75 mile radius from the tower site if the proposed tower is more than 200 but no more than 400 feet in overall height; or

c. Within a 1.5 mile radius from the proposed tower site if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height.

2. These distances are a guideline that can be altered based on an otherwise established agreement and on individual circumstances addressed during consultation with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO and consulting parties.

C. Replacement of a tower within an existing facility boundary that was previously reviewed pursuant to Section 106, and mitigated as necessary, requires no further Section 106 review so long as:

1. The proposed replacement tower does not represent a substantial increase 2 in size relative to the existing tower; and

2. The installation of the proposed replacement tower does not involve ground disturbance outside the facility's boundary; and

3. No new mitigation is required to address reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects.

A. For the purpose of this section, the direct APE for a tower, compound, and associated construction (staging area, access roads, utility lines, etc.) is the area of potential ground disturbance and any property, or any portion thereof, which would be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking.

B. For the purpose of this section, the indirect APE for visual effects is the geographic area in which the undertaking has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the integrity of a historic property, including the landscape.

1. Unless otherwise established, or previously established through consultation and agreement between the Federal LMA/PMA and SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO the APE for visual effects for the construction of a new tower is the area from which the tower will be visible:

a. Within a 0.5 mile radius from the tower site if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in overall height;

b. Within a 0.75 mile radius from the tower site if the proposed tower is more than 200 but no more than 400 feet in overall height; or

c. Within a 1.5 mile radius from the proposed tower site if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height.

2. These distances are a guideline that can be altered based on an otherwise established agreement or following consultation with SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, and NHO and consulting parties.

C. For the purpose of this section, new construction of up to three towers within an existing communications compound that has previously been reviewed pursuant to Section 106, and will not adversely affect any identified historic properties within the compound, requires no further Section 106 review so long as the proposed new tower is not substantially larger in size 3 than the largest preexisting tower within the existing communications compound boundary.

A. Federal LMAs/PMAs may authorize the removal of obsolete existing communications equipment and towers (the undertaking) and may remove the existing communications equipment or tower with no further Section 106 review as long as the removal undertaking would not create an adverse effect to known historic properties.

B. Should a SHPO, THPO, Indian tribe, or NHO object within 30 days after receiving notification that the Federal LMA/PMA proposes to authorize removal of obsolete communications equipment and towers, the Federal LMA/PMA shall comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.3 to 800.7 for the proposed removal undertaking.

A. All tasks implemented pursuant to this Program Comment shall be carried out by, or under the direct supervision of, a person or person(s) meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44716, 44738-39, September 29, 1983) in the appropriate disciplines. However, nothing in this section may be interpreted to preclude Federal LMAs/PMAs from using the properly supervised services of persons who do not meet the qualifications standards.

B. These qualification requirements do not apply to individuals recognized by THPOs, Indian tribes and NHOs to have expertise in the identification, evaluation, assessment of effects, and treatment of effects to historic properties of religious and cultural significance to their tribes.

A. If previously unidentified historic properties or unanticipated effects, including audible, atmospheric, and cumulative effects, to historic properties are discovered during project implementation, the contractor shall immediately halt all activity within a 50 foot radius of the discovery and implement interim measures to protect the discovery from looting and vandalism. Within 48 hours, the Federal LMA/PMA shall notify the relevant SHPO, THPO, Indian tribe, or NHO of the inadvertent discovery, and determine whether a Discovery Plan is necessary.

B. Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony found on federal or tribal land will be handled according to Section 3 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 10), and consistent with the Discovery Plan.

C. The Federal LMA/PMA shall ensure that in the event human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are discovered during implementation of an undertaking, all work within 50 feet of the discovery will cease, the area will be secured, and the Federal LMA/PMA's authorized official will be immediately contacted.

D. The Discovery Plan for inadvertent discoveries will include the following provisions.

1. Immediately halting all construction work involving subsurface disturbance in the area of the find and in the surrounding area where further subsurface finds can be reasonably expected to occur, and immediately notify SHPO, THPO, Indian tribes (as appropriate), and NHO of the find;

2. A qualified professional will immediately inspect the site and determine the area and nature of the affected find. Construction work may then continue in the area outside the find as defined by Federal LMA/PMA;

3. Within five working days of the original notification, the Federal LMA/PMA, in consultation with SHPO, THPO, Indian tribes, as appropriate, and NHO, will determine whether the find is eligible for the National Register;

4. If the find is determined eligible for listing in the National Register, the Federal LMA/PMA will prepare a plan for its avoidance, protection, or recovery of information in consultation with the SHPO, THPO, Indian tribes, as appropriate, and NHO. Any dispute concerning the proposed treatment plan will be resolved by the Federal LMA/PMA.

5. Work in the affected area will not proceed until either:

a. The plan is implemented; or

b. The determination is made that the unanticipated find is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Any disputes over the evaluation of unanticipated finds will be resolved in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2) as appropriate.

Should the Federal LMAs/PMAs determine that an emergency or natural disaster has occurred during the implementation of any communications deployment activities covered under this Program Comment, the Federal LMAs/PMAs shall notify the appropriate SHPO, THPO(s), Indian tribes, and NHO(s) within seven days as to how they intend to repair or replace the communications equipment or facilities, or undertake other relevant actions in response to the emergency or natural disaster. Federal LMAs/PMAs shall ensure that any approvals, licenses, or permits issued for these emergency response activities refer to compliance with the terms of this Program Comment.

This Program Comment shall go into effect on May 8, 2017.

A. Federal LMAs/PMAs individually will submit an annual report to the ACHP, NCSHPO, and NATHPO that summarizes the number of projects reviewed under the Program Comment within a calendar year as well as the number of activities that resulted in adverse effects to historic properties. The annual report also will indicate whether any agreements regarding the applicability of this Program Comment on tribal lands have been developed in the past calendar year, and which Indian tribe(s) is a signatory. Annual reports will be submitted December 1 of each year, commencing in 2018.

B. The ACHP shall reexamine the Program Comment's effectiveness based on the information provided in the annual reports submitted by the Federal LMAs/PMA, and by convening an annual meeting with the Federal LMAs/PMAs, NCSHPO, NATHPO, tribal representatives, NHOs, and industry representatives. In reexamining the Program Comment's effectiveness, the ACHP shall consider any written recommendations for improvement submitted by stakeholders prior to the annual meeting.

A. The Chairman of the ACHP may amend this Program Comment after consulting with the Federal LMAs/PMAs and other relevant federal agencies, NCSHPO, NATHPO, tribal representatives, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and industry representatives, as appropriate. The ACHP will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of any amendments that are made to the Program Comment.

B. Should other federal agencies that propose to carry out, permit, license, fund, or assist in communications activities intend to utilize this Program Comment to satisfy their Section 106 responsibilities on federal lands, they must first notify the ACHP in writing of their intention. The ACHP will acknowledge in writing the agency's notification within 30 days following receipt of a request, and will put an announcement on its Web site when it receives such a notification. Upon receipt of the ACHP's acknowledgement, and without requiring an amendment to this Program Comment, the federal agency may utilize the Program Comment.

This Program Comment will expire December 31, 2027, unless it is amended prior to that date to extend the period in which it is in effect.

The Chairman of the ACHP may withdraw this Program Comment, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6), by publication of a notice in the Federal Register 30 days before the withdrawal will take effect.

The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2017at 82 FR 14908, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2006-0062 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of information collection request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the form/collection: Inter-Agency Alien Witness and Informant Record; Agency Alien Witness and Informant Adjustment of Status.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-854A; Form I-854B; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. Form I-854 A—Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) use Form I-854A to request an alien witness and/or informant receive classification as an S nonimmigrant. Form I-854B—LEAs use Form I-854B to request an alien in S nonimmigrant status be permitted to apply for adjustment of status to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status under section 245(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Form I-854A—150 responses at 3 hours per response, and Form I-854B—150 responses at 1 hour per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 600 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $0.

Table of Abbreviations BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals DHS—Department of Homeland Security DOS—Department of State EAD—Employment Authorization Document FNC—Final Nonconfirmation IJ—Immigration Judge INA—Immigration and Nationality Act IER—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section SAVE—USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security TNC—Tentative Nonconfirmation TPS—Temporary Protected Status TTY—Text Telephone USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

The extension allows TPS beneficiaries to maintain TPS through January 22, 2018, so long as they continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. The Secretary has determined that an extension is warranted because the conditions in Haiti that prompted the TPS designation, while significantly improved, continue to be met. There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitian nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) from returning to Haiti in safety. The Secretary also has determined that permitting such Haitian nationals to continue to remain in the United States, at this time, is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.

TPS beneficiaries are reminded that, prior to the conclusion of this six-month extension period, the Secretary will re-evaluate Haiti's TPS designation and decide anew whether extension, redesignation, or termination is warranted. Because the designation of TPS was intended by Congress to be temporary in nature, and because the Government of Haiti has expressed a desire for its nationals to return to Haiti, the Secretary will fully re-evaluate the country conditions and any other factors he deems necessary to determine whether Haiti's TPS designation should continue. Among those factors, the Secretary will consider whether permitting Haitian nationals to remain in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.

Thus, during this limited six-month period, beneficiaries are encouraged to prepare for their return to Haiti, including requesting updated travel documents from the Government of Haiti. The Secretary is committed to working with the Government of Haiti to ensure an orderly transition should Haiti's TPS designation be terminated at the conclusion of this limited six-month extension.

Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Haiti and whose applications have been granted. Certain nationals of Haiti (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) who have not previously applied for TPS may be eligible to apply under the late initial registration provisions if they meet (1) at least one of the late initial filing criteria in 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2), which are also described on the TPS Web page at https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status, and (2) all TPS eligibility criteria (including continuous residence in the United States since January 12, 2011, and continuous physical presence in the United States since July 23, 2011).

For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Haiti's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from May 24, 2017 through July 24, 2017. USCIS will issue EADs with a January 22, 2018 expiration date to eligible Haiti TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on July 22, 2017. But provided a Haiti TPS beneficiary timely re-registers and properly files an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period, his or her employment authorization will be automatically extended for an additional period not to exceed 180 days from the date the current EAD expires, i.e., January 18, 2018. This notice explains how TPS beneficiaries and their employers may determine whether a beneficiary's employment authorization has been automatically extended and the impact on the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify processes. There are approximately 46,000 current Haiti TPS beneficiaries who are expected to file for re-registration under the extension.

• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.

• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.

• TPS beneficiaries may also be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.

• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.

• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.

On January 21, 2010, the Secretary designated Haiti for TPS based on extraordinary and temporary conditions within the country, specifically the effects of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake that occurred on January 12, 2010. See Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status, 75 FR 3476 (Jan. 21, 2010). In 2011, the Secretary both extended Haiti's designation and redesignated Haiti for TPS for 18 months through January 22, 2013. See Extension and Redesignation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status, 76 FR 29000 (May 19, 2011). This announcement is the fourth extension of TPS for Haiti since the 2011 redesignation. The Secretary last extended Haiti's designation on August 25, 2015. See Extension of the Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status, 80 FR 51582 (Aug. 25, 2015).

Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary finds that certain country conditions exist.1 The Secretary may then grant TPS to eligible nationals of that foreign state (or eligible aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country). See INA section 244(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(A).

At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). If following this review the Secretary determines that a foreign state continues to meet the conditions for TPS designation (or makes no determination at all), the designation must be extended for an additional period of 6 months or, in the Secretary's discretion, for an additional 12 or 18 months. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A), (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), (C). If the Secretary determines that the foreign state no longer meets the conditions for TPS designation, the Secretary must terminate the designation. See INA section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B).

Since the last extension was announced, DHS has reviewed conditions in Haiti. Based on this review and after consulting with DOS, the Secretary has determined that a limited, 6-month extension is warranted because, although Haiti has made significant progress in recovering from the January 2010 earthquake that prompted its initial designation, conditions in Haiti supporting its designation for TPS persist.

Although lingering effects of the 2010 earthquake remain, Haiti has made significant progress in addressing issues specific to the earthquake, as its economy continues to recover and grow. For example, 96% of people displaced by the earthquake and living in internally displaced person (IDP) camps have left those camps. Over 98% of the IDP camps have closed. However, over 55,000 Haitians who lost their homes in the earthquake are still living in 31 camps for internally displaced persons without viable options to leave. Gender-based violence in these camps continues to be a serious concern, and personal security is a serious and pervasive issue. Some people who were displaced by the earthquake, although no longer in camps, have moved back to unsafe homes or relocated to informal settlements located in hazardous areas. However, demonstrating improvement in Haiti's security situation, in March 2017, the United Nations announced that the mandate of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Haiti will end in October 2017, to be replaced by a new police-only mission focused on rule of law.

Hurricane Matthew made landfall in Haiti on October 4, 2016, causing extensive damage to crops, housing, livestock, and infrastructure across Haiti's southwest peninsula. The Government of Haiti confirmed 546 fatalities from the storm, and over 175,000 people were left without housing. The most significant impact from the storm was concentrated in 3 of Haiti's 10 departments—Nippes, Grand'Anse, and Sud. Minimal damage was inflicted on the rest of the country, including the capital, Port-au-Prince, and the second largest city, Cap-Haïtien. Still, significant losses of crops and livestock in the regions damaged by Hurricane Matthew impacted the entire country.

Heavy rains in late April 2017 caused flooding and landslides in South, South East, Grand'Anse, and Nippes departments, with South department most impacted. At least four people were killed, nearly 10,000 homes may have been damaged, and at least 350,000 people may have been affected. According to a Haitian government official, an estimated 80% of the spring harvest in South department may have been destroyed. The damage from Hurricane Matthew and the recent heavy rains are compounding the existing food insecurity experienced by an estimated 3.2 million people (approximately 30 percent of the population) in September 2016.

Haiti's weak public health system is further strained due to an ongoing cholera epidemic, whose inception was traced to U.N. peacekeepers assisting with earthquake recovery. Since October 2010, close to 800,000 Haitians have contracted cholera, and nearly 10,000 people have died from the disease. However, progress has been made in combatting cholera, and Haiti has made some progress in the health sector in recent years. Nevertheless, Haiti faces longstanding public health challenges, where 40% of the population lacked access to basic health services before the 2010 earthquake. As of 2016, this figure remains the same—40% of the population lacks access to fundamental health and nutrition services. While the lack of access to safe drinking water and Haiti's weak sanitation infrastructure remain significant concerns, these are not new problems. Extreme poverty, corruption, and low levels of education in Haiti challenge its resilience and have contributed to the government's longstanding inability to adequately provide for the security, health, and safety of its citizenry.

Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:

• The conditions that prompted the July 23, 2011 redesignation of Haiti for TPS continue to be met. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A) and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A) and (C).

• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitian nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) from returning to Haiti in safety. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C).

• It is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Haitians (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) who meet the eligibility requirements of TPS to remain in the United States temporarily. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C).

• The designation of Haiti for TPS should be extended for a 6-month period from July 23, 2017, through January 22, 2018. See INA section 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

• It is in the best interest of TPS beneficiaries to prepare for their return to Haiti in the event that Haiti's TPS designation is not extended again, including requesting updated travel documents from the Government of Haiti.

By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, that the conditions that prompted the redesignation of Haiti for TPS on July 23, 2011, continue to be met. See INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). On the basis of this determination, I am extending the existing designation of Haiti for TPS for 6 months, from July 23, 2017, through January 22, 2018. See INA section 244(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2).

To register or re-register for TPS based on the designation of Haiti, an applicant must submit each of the following two applications:

1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821).

• If you are filing an application for late initial registration, you must pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821). See 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2) and 244.6 and information on late initial filing on the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps.

• If you are filing an application for re-registration, you do not need to pay the fee for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821). See 8 CFR 244.17.

2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).

• If you are applying for late initial registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) only if you are age 14 through 65. No fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) is required if you are under the age of 14 or are age 66 or older and applying for late initial registration.

• If you are applying for re-registration, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) only if you want an EAD, regardless of age.

• You do not pay the fee for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) if you are not requesting an EAD, regardless of whether you are applying for late initial registration or re-registration.

• If you do not want to request an EAD now, you may also file Form I-765 later to request an EAD, and pay the fee (or request a fee waiver), provided that you still have TPS or a pending TPS application. Your EAD application will be considered timely filed even if the date on your current TPS-related EAD has expired. But until you timely re-register and properly file an EAD application, your current employment authorization will end on July 22, 2017. Accordingly, you must also properly file your EAD application during the 60-day re-registration period in order for your current employment authorization to be automatically extended for 180 days (i.e., Janaury 18, 2018). You are strongly encouraged to file your EAD application as early as possible during the 60-day re-registration period to avoid lapses in your employment authorization.

You must submit both completed application forms together, even if you are not currently requesting an EAD. If you are unable to pay for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) and/or biometric services fee, you may apply for a fee waiver by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and by providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps. Fees for the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821), the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), and biometric services are also described in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i).

Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age or older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may apply for a fee waiver by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or by submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please see the Instructions to Form I-821 or visit the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov. If necessary, you may be required to visit an Application Support Center (ASC) to have your biometrics captured. In such case, USCIS will send you an ASC scheduling notice.

USCIS urges all re-registering applicants to file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so that USCIS can process the applications and issue EADs promptly. Filing early will also allow those applicants who may receive denials of their fee waiver requests to have time to re-file their applications before the re-registration deadline. If, however, an applicant receives a denial of his or her fee waiver request and is unable to re-file by the re-registration deadline, the applicant may still re-file his or her application. This situation will be reviewed to determine whether the applicant has established good cause for late re-registration. However, applicants are urged to re-file within 45 days of the date on their USCIS fee waiver denial notice, if at all possible. See INA section 244(c)(3)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(3)(C); 8 CFR 244.17(c). For more information on good cause for late re-registration, visit the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps.

Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.

If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate address in Table 1. When submitting a re-registration application and/or requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA.

To meet the basic eligibility requirements for TPS, you must submit evidence that you:

• Are a national of Haiti or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti. Such documents may include a copy of your passport if available, other documentation issued by the Government of Haiti showing your nationality (e.g., national identity card, official travel documentation issued by the Government of Haiti), and/or your birth certificate with English translation accompanied by photo identification. USCIS will also consider certain forms of secondary evidence supporting your Haitian nationality. If the evidence presented is insufficient for USCIS to make a determination as to your nationality, USCIS may request additional evidence. If you cannot provide a passport, birth certificate with photo identification, or a national identity document with your photo or fingerprint, you must submit an affidavit showing proof of your unsuccessful efforts to obtain such documents and affirming that you are a national of Haiti. However, please be aware that an interview with an immigration officer will be required if you do not present any documentary proof of identity or nationality or if USCIS otherwise requests a personal appearance. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 244.9(a)(1);

• Have continuously resided in the United States since January 12, 2011. See INA section 244(c)(1)(A)(ii); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(ii); 8 CFR 244.9(a)(2); and

• Have been continuously physically present in the United States since June 23, 2011. See INA sections 244(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i).

The filing instructions on the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) list all the documents needed to establish basic eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying for TPS on the USCIS Web site at www.uscis.gov/tps under “Haiti.”

If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation. Depending on the nature of the question(s) you are addressing, additional documentation alone may suffice, but usually a written explanation will also be needed.

To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833). If your Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) has been pending for more than 90 days and you still need assistance, you may request an EAD inquiry appointment with USCIS by using the InfoPass system at https://infopass.uscis.gov. However, we strongly encourage you first to check Case Status Online or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center for assistance before making an InfoPass appointment.

Provided that you currently have a Haiti TPS-based EAD, you may be eligible to have your employment authorization automatically extended to January 18, 2018 if you:

• Are a national of Haiti (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti);

• Received an EAD under the designation of Haiti for TPS;

• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of July 22, 2017, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category”;

• Timely re-registered for TPS during the 60-day re-registration period; and

• Properly filed an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period.

Although you may be eligible to automatically extend your employment authorization through January 18, 2018, you must timely re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice if you would like to maintain your TPS. You are strongly encouraged to file your EAD renewal application as early as possible during the 60-day re-registration period to avoid lapses in your employment authorization.

You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9. You can find additional detailed information about Form I-9 on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/I-9Central. Employers are required to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees by using Form I-9. Within 3 days of hire, an employee must present proof of identity and employment authorization to his or her employer.

You may present any document from List A (which reflect both identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (which reflects your identity) together with one document from List C (which reflects employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.

If your EAD has an expiration date of July 22, 2017, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” and you timely filed an EAD renewal application during the 60-day re-registration period, you may choose to present your EAD to your employer together with the Form I-797C Notice of Action (showing the qualifying eligibility category of either A12 or C19) as proof of identity and employment authorization for Form I-9 through January 18, 2018 (see the subsection titled “How do my employer and I complete the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) on the basis of automatically extended employment authorization for a new job?” for further information). To minimize confusion over this extension at the time of hire, you should explain to your employer that your employment authorization has been automatically extended through January 18, 2018. As an alternative to presenting evidence of your automatically extended employment authorization, you may choose to present any other acceptable document from List A, a combination of one selection from List B and one selection from List C, or a valid receipt.

Even though you may be eligible to have your employment authorization automatically extended, your employer will need to ask you about your continued employment authorization once July 22, 2017, is reached to meet its responsibilities for Form I-9. Your employer will need a new document to re-verify your employment authorization. Once presented, you and your employer must make corrections to the employment authorization expiration dates in Section 1 and Section 2 of Form I-9 (see the subsection titled “What corrections should my current employer and I make to Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) if my employment authorization has been automatically extended?” for further information). In addition, you may also show this Federal Register Notice to your employer to explain what to do for Form I-9.

If you file your Form I-765 to renew your current EAD, and you receive a USCIS receipt notice (Form I-797C) stating that your current “A-12” or “C-19” coded EAD is automatically extended for 180 days, you may show that receipt notice to your employer along with your EAD to confirm automatic extension of employment authorization through January 18, 2018, unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied. To avoid delays in receiving the Form I-797C and a lapse in your employment authorization, you should file your EAD renewal application as early as possible during the re-registration period.

By January 18, 2018, the expiration date of the automatic extension, your employer must re-verify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 to re-verify employment authorization, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Your employer should complete either Section 3 of the Form I-9 originally completed for you or, if this section has already been completed or if the version of Form I-9 has expired (check the date in the bottom left-hand corner of the form), complete Section 3 of a new Form I-9 using the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document employees must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.

No. When completing Form I-9, including re-verifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9 that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Haitian citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or re-verifying the employment authorization of current employees. If the expired EAD with category A12 or C19 is presented with the Form I-797C Notice of Action as described herein, an employer should accept this document combination as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Refer to the Note to Employees section of this Notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin.

To evidence the automatic extension of your employment authorization, you may present your expired EAD with category A12 or C19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action showing that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A12 or C19. This document combination is considered an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766) under List A. When completing Form I-9 for a new job before January 18, 2018, you and your employer should do the following:

1. For Section 1, you should:

a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (January 18, 2018) as the “employment authorized until mm/dd/yyyy” date; and

b. Enter your Alien Number/USCIS number or A-Number where indicated (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS Number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix).

2. When completing Section 2, employers should:

a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:

• It is in category A12 or C19;

• the “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and

• the category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A12 and C19 to be the same category code;

b. Write in the document title;

c. Enter the issuing authority;

d. Provide the document number; and

e. Insert the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires (January 18, 2018).

By January 18, 2018, employers must re-verify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Form I-9.

If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and your employment authorization has now been automatically extended when you timely filed a new application for employment authorization during the 60-day re-registration period, you may present your expired EAD with category A12 or C19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action. The Form I-797C should show that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A12 or C19. Your employer may need to re-inspect your current EAD if your employer does not have a copy of the EAD on file. You and your employer should correct your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:

1. For Section 1, you should:

a. Draw a line through the expiration date in Section 1;

b. Write the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (January 18, 2018) above the previous date (July 22, 2017); and

c. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.

2. For Section 2, employers should:

a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:

• It is in category A12 or C19;

• the “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and

• the category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A12 and C19 to be the same category code;

b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;

c. Write the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires (January 18, 2018) above the previous date (July 22, 2017); and

d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.

E-Verify automated the verification process for employees whose TPS-related EAD was automatically extended in a Federal Register Notice. If you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. After completing the Form I-9 in accordance with the instructions above, the employer may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee using the information provided on Form I-9 and Form I-797C. The receipt number entered as the document number on Form I-9 should be entered into the document number field in E-Verify. By January 18, 2018, employment authorization must be re-verified in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.

Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at [email protected]. Calls and emails are accepted in English and many other languages. For questions about avoiding discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process (Form I-9 and E-Verify), employers may also call the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, Employer Hotline at 800-255-8155 (TTY 800-237-2515), which offers language interpretation in numerous languages, or email IER at [email protected].

For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email at [email protected]. Calls are accepted in English, Spanish, and many other languages. Employees or applicants may also call the IER Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515) for information regarding employment discrimination based upon citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, including discrimination related to Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify. The IER Worker Hotline provides language interpretation in numerous languages.

To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.

Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship or immigration status, or based on national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER Web site at https://www.justice.gov/ier and the USCIS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/E-verify.

While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples of such documents are:

(1) Your current EAD;

(2) A copy of this Federal Register Notice;

(3) A copy of your receipt notice (Form I-797C) for your application to renew your current EAD providing an automatic extension of your current expired or expiring EAD;

(4) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration; and

(5) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS.

Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept.

Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but, occasionally, verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at the following link: https://save.uscis.gov/casecheck/, then by clicking the “Check Your Case” button. CaseCheck is a free service that lets you follow the progress of your SAVE verification using your date of birth and one immigration identifier number. If an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE verification and you do not believe the response is correct, you may make an InfoPass appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office. Detailed information on how to make corrections, make an appointment, or submit a written request to correct records under the Freedom of Information Act can be found on the SAVE Web site at http://www.uscis.gov/save, then by choosing “For Benefits Applicants” from the menu on the left, selecting “Save Resources,” followed by “SAVE Fact Sheet for Benefit Applicants.”

The FHA Down Payment Simplification Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-326, approved December 4, 2002) amended the National Housing Act by adding a new Section 206A (12 U.S.C. 1712a). Under Section 206A, the following are affected:

The Dollar Amounts in these sections are the base per unit statutory limits for FHA's multifamily mortgage programs collectively referred to as the ‘Dollar Amounts,’ they are adjusted annually (commencing in 2004) on the effective date of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's adjustment of the $400 figure in the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) (Pub. L. 103-325, approved September 23, 1994). The adjustment of the Dollar Amounts shall be calculated using the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as applied by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection for purposes of the above-described HOEPA adjustment.

HUD has been notified of the percentage change in the CPI-U used for the HOEPA adjustment and the effective date of the HOEPA adjustment. The percentage change in the CPI-U is 0.7% and the effective date of the HOEPA adjustment is January 1, 2016. The Dollar Amounts have been adjusted correspondingly and have an effective date of January 1, 2016.

The adjusted Dollar Amounts for Calendar Year 2016 are shown below:

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

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

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF Form 3 (5320.3).

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Business or other for-profit.

Other: Individuals or households.

Abstract: This form is used to transfer National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated items between Federal firearms licensees (FFL)/Special Occupational Tax (SOT) payers to be exempted from the transfer tax incurred for each item.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 10,500 respondents will utilize the form, and it will take each respondent approximately 30 minutes to complete the form.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 88, 750 hours, which is equal to (177,500 (total # of annual responses) * .5 (30mins).

(7) An Explanation of the Change in Estimates: The adjustments for this information collection are an increase in the number of respondents by 4,500, and an increase in the number of responses by 107,000. As a result of these increases, the annual burden hours has increased by 53,500 hours.

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

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

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

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act Registration Form.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: ATF F 5070.1.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Business or other for-profit.

Other: None.

Abstract: The form is required for any person who sells, transfers, or ships for profit cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in interstate commerce, whereby such cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are shipped into a State, locality, or Indian country of an Indian tribe taxing the sale or use of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, or who advertises or offers cigarettes or smokeless tobacco for such a sale, transfer, or shipment, shall file first with the Attorney General of the United States.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 400 respondents will utilize the form, and it will take each respondent approximately 1 hour to complete the form.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 400 hours, which is equal to (400 (# of respondents) * 1 (hourly rate to complete the form).

(7) An Explanation of the Change in Estimates: This revision is due to ATF's most recent figures regarding the number of affected businesses annually, which have resulted in a decrease of respondents from 3,000 to 400, and a reduction in burden hours from 3,000 to 400. The wage rate is also updated to the September 2016 BLS wage rate, and also reflects a reduction in the burden costs for this collection from $42,000 to $9,396.

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

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways NARA could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it collects; (d) ways NARA could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether this collection affects small businesses. We will summarize any comments you submit and include the summary in our request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, we solicit comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Presidential Library Facilities.

OMB number: 3095-0036.

Agency form number: None.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Presidential library foundations or other entities proposing to transfer a Presidential library facility to NARA.

Estimated number of respondents: 1.

Estimated time per response: 40 hours.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 40 hours.

Abstract: The information collection is required for NARA to meet its obligations under 44 U.S.C. 2112(a)(3) to submit a report to Congress before accepting a new Presidential library facility. The report contains information that can be furnished only by the foundation or other entity responsible for building the facility and establishing the library endowment.

To facilitate review, revised text has been highlighted in yellow throughout the document to identify significant changes. A brief comment explanation of the change also is provided.

After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting OMB clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.

In addition to the type of comments identified above, comments also 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title of Collection: “National Science Foundation Proposal/Award Information—NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide”

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0058.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2019.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an information collection for three years.

Proposed Project: The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Pub. L. 81-507) sets forth NSF's mission and purpose:

“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. . . .”

The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:

• Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;

• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;

• Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;

• Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and

• Other activities to promote these ends.

NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: Promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last six decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.

Use of the Information: The regular submission of proposals to the Foundation is part of the collection of information and is used to help NSF fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 50,000 proposals annually for new projects, and makes approximately 11,000 new awards.

Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to approximately 2,000 colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The awards are based mainly on merit evaluations of proposals submitted to the Foundation.

The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the operations of its information collection to identify and address excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).

Burden on the Public: The Foundation estimates that an average of 120 hours is expended for each proposal submitted. An estimated 50,000 proposals are expected during the course of one year for a total of 6,000,000 public burden hours annually.

I. Background

On July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45312), the NRC published for public comment a proposed revision of Section 14.3.12, “Physical Security Hardware—Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” The public comment period closed on August 12, 2016. A summary of comments received and the staff's disposition of the comments are available in a separate document, “Response to Public Comments on Draft Standard Review Plan, Section 14.3.12, “Physical Security Hardware—Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16320A193). Subsequent to revising the text of SRP Section 14.3.12 to address public comments, the staff made an editorial change to the introductory paragraph on page 1 of this SRP Section. This edit did not change the staff's approach to reviewing physical security information in licensing applications.

Chapter 14 of the SRP provides guidance to the staff for initial test program and ITAAC-design certification under part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Section 14.3.12 of the SRP provides guidance for reviewing an application for an early site permit, a standard design approval, a standard design certification, a combined license, and a manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52 with respect to systems associated with physical security.

Issuance of this SRP section revision does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) nor is it inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following considerations.

1. The SRP positions would not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff.

The SRP provides internal guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.

2. The NRC staff has no intention to impose the SRP positions on existing licensees either now or in the future.

The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the SRP to existing licenses and regulatory approvals. Hence, the issuance of this SRP—even if considered guidance within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—does not need to be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

3. Backfitting and issue finality do not—with limited exceptions not applicable here—protect current or future applicants.

Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions—were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.

The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The NRC staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the SRP in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP section in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

This action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0125 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0125.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0125 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC is considering a request for approval of an application for transfer of a license, under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50, approving the direct transfer of control of Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, for the VYNPS, as well as the general license for the VYNPS Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), currently held by ENO, to NorthStar NDC. The request is also for the indirect transfer of control of ENVY from ENVY's Entergy parent companies to NorthStar Decommissioning Holdings, LLC, and its parents NorthStar, LVI Parent Corp. and NorthStar Group Holdings, LLC. The NRC is also considering the request for amending the facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

The application now being considered is dated February 9, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17045A140), and was jointly filed by ENO, ENVY and NorthStar NDC (together, applicants). The applicants requested that the NRC consent to the transfers of the licensed possession, maintenance, and decommissioning authorities by December 31, 2017, to implement expedited decommissioning of the VYNPS.

Following approval of the proposed direct transfer of control of the license, NorthStar NDC would assume licensed responsibility for VYNPS through the direct transfer of ENO's responsibility for licensed activities at VYNPS to NorthStar NDC. NorthStar VY would also enter into an operating agreement with NorthStar NDC, which provides for NorthStar NDC to act as NorthStar VY's agent and for NorthStar VY to pay NorthStar NDC's costs of operation, including all decommissioning costs. If the proposed indirect transfer of control is approved, ENVY would change its name to NorthStar VY, but the same legal entity would continue to exist before and after the proposed transfer. NorthStar VY would own the VYNPS facility as well as its associated assets and real estate, including its nuclear decommissioning trust fund, title to spent nuclear fuel, and rights pursuant to the terms of its Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste with the U.S. Department of Energy. Certain off-site assets and real estate of ENVY are excluded, such as administrative offices, off-site training facilities, etc.

Upon the proposed license transfer, NorthStar NDC would assume responsibility for compliance with the current licensing basis, including regulatory commitments that exist at closing, and would implement any changes under applicable regulatory requirements and practices.

As discussed in ENVY's 2014 Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (2014 PSDAR, ADAMS Accession No. ML14357A110), under the December 23, 2013, settlement agreement with State of Vermont agencies (Attachment 2 to the 2014 PSDAR), ENVY committed to initiate radiological decommissioning when it had made a reasonable determination that it had sufficient funds to complete decommissioning and remaining spent fuel management obligations. Under the assumptions and circumstances described in the 2014 PSDAR, ENVY could commence radiological decommissioning under the agreement with the State of Vermont agencies in approximately 2053 and complete such activities in approximately 2060. However, ENVY's current decommissioning plans, as described in the 2014 PSDAR, assume that the completion of radiological decommissioning will be by the maximum allowed (under 10 CFR 50.82) date of 2073, with site restoration by 2075. In contrast, if the transfer to dry storage of the spent fuel proceeds as described in the ENO notification of schedule change for dry fuel loading dated April 12, 2017 (ADAMS accession number ML17104A050), transfer of the remaining spent fuel in the spent fuel pool would commence in 2017 and be complete in late 2018. Upon the proposed license transfer date at the end of 2018, NorthStar NDC would become responsible for an ISFSI that contains all of the VY spent fuel. NorthStar NDC then would begin VYNPS decommissioning activities promptly and would plan to complete radiological decommissioning and restoration of the non-ISFSI portions of the VYNPS site by the end of 2030 (and potentially as early as 2026). NorthStar VY and NorthStar NDC would then restore the site in accordance with standards approved by the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB). Under Vermont state law, the PSB must also approve the transaction and issue an amended Certificate of Public Good. In parallel with NRC's review of the application, NorthStar NDC submitted an updated proposed PSDAR, dated April 6, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17096A394), to become effective after license transfer, which would reflect NorthStar NDC's plans for accelerated decommissioning following the proposed transfers of the license.

Before making a decision on the transfer, and before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will evaluate the request against the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The NRC's regulations at § 50.80 and § 72.50 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or to the license of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration and no genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. An Environmental Assessment will not be performed because, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21), license transfer approvals and the associated license amendments are categorically excluded from the requirements to perform an environmental assessment.

Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

In addition, the NRC staff will be participating in a public meeting of the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (NDCAP) on May 25, 2017, in Brattleboro, VT. The time, location, and agenda for the meeting will be posted on the NDCAP Web site at: http://publicservice.vermont.gov/electric/ndcap. The NRC personnel will give a presentation on the license transfer application review process at the NDCAP meeting and will take any public oral or written comments on the application for the proposed license transfer and the associated proposed updated PSDAR. The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation by NorthStar and Entergy on the proposed license transfer; (2) a presentation by NRC on the review of the application for the proposed license transfer; and, (3) a discussion with the public on the proposed license transfer and the proposed updated PSDAR. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or submitted by the comment deadline identified in the DATES section of this document. For additional information regarding the meeting, see the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule Web site at http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg. The agenda will be posted no later than 10 days prior to the meeting.

Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by June 13, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated February 9, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17045A140).

Any person who desires access to proprietary, confidential commercial information that has been redacted from the application should contact the applicant by telephoning Gregory G. DiCarlo, Vice President & General Counsel, NorthStar Group Services, Inc., at 203-222-0584 x3051, for the purpose of negotiating a confidentiality agreement or a proposed protective order with the applicant. If no agreement can be reached, persons who desire access to this information may file a motion with the Secretary and addressed to the Commission that requests the issuance of a protective order.

I. Purpose

This notice is to advise the public, NRC licensees, and other interested stakeholders of the issuance of an MOU between the FBI and the NRC regarding the accomplishment of firearms background checks on armed security personnel of NRC licensees, pursuant to Section 161A of the AEA, “Use of Firearms by Security Personnel,” (42 U.S.C. 2201a). This MOU is entitled “Memorandum of Understanding on Implementation of Firearms Background Check Provisions Under Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Revision 0.”

Under Section 161A of the AEA and Revision 1 to the Firearms Guidelines, security personnel whose official duties require access to covered weapons and who are engaged in the protection of Commission-designated facilities, radioactive material, or other property owned or operated by an NRC licensee shall be subject to a firearms background check. Revision 1 to the Firearms Guidelines was published by the NRC, with the approval of the U.S. Attorney General, on June 25, 2014 (79 FR 36100). The Firearms Guidelines provide direction to three Federal agencies (FBI, NRC, and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) on the implementation of Section 161A of the AEA.

This MOU addresses issues separate from two previous MOUs between the FBI and the NRC regarding “Cooperation Regarding Threat, Theft, or Sabotage in U.S. Nuclear Industry,” dated December 20, 1979 (44 FR 75535); and “Nuclear Threat Incidents Involving NRC-Licensed Facilities, Materials, and Activities,” dated May 16, 2000 (65 FR 31197). This MOU also addresses issues separate from a previous MOU between the DOJ and the NRC regarding “Coordination of Enforcement Activities and Exchange of Information Between the NRC and the Department of Justice,” dated December 14, 1988 (53 FR 50317).

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

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

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

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

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

1. Docket No(s).: CP2016-145; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Amendment to Priority Mail Contract 204, with Portions Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: May 18, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: May 26, 2017.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-134 and CP2017-191; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 320 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: May 18, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: May 26, 2017.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2017-135 and CP2017-192; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 77 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: May 18, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: May 26, 2017.

4. Docket No(s).: CP2017-193; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 7 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: May 18, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: May 26, 2017.

This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition, or when the agency establishes a new system of records. The Postal ServiceTM has determined that two Customer Privacy Act Systems of Records (SORs) should be revised to modify categories of records in the system, purposes, and routine uses of records in the system.

The Postal Service is proposing minor modifications to SORs 810.200 and 900.000. Certain of the SORs' stated categories of records in the system, purposes, and routine uses, as currently written, suggest that certain information is collected and shared only for enforcement of U.S. customs, export control, and export statistics laws, and not necessarily for other activities that relate to the administration of those laws. Compliance, licensing, and other agency personnel besides law enforcement personnel may legitimately access information from these SORs in order to make informed decisions that help the Postal Service provide effective customer service and maintain mail security. Therefore, the SORs are being revised to more clearly indicate the appropriate range of these legitimate disclosures. In addition, routine uses for disclosure to customs authorities and foreign postal operators are being revised to clarify the purposes for such disclosures. SOR 810.200 is also being revised to clarify the applicability of various routine uses and more closely align purposes between the two SORs.

Finally, administrative updates pertaining to the system manager for SORs 810.200 and 900.000 have been made.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed modifications has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluations. The Postal Service does not expect this amended system of records to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes changes in the existing system of records as follows:

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 77 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-135, CP2017-192.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 320 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-134, CP2017-191.