Federal Register Vol. 80, No.126,

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for three years unless terminated by the Secretary, but may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of California, is assigned to this official agency.

Bounded on the North by the northern California State line east to the eastern California State line.

Bounded on the East by the eastern California State line south to the southern San Bernardino County line.

Bounded on the South by the southern San Bernardino and Orange County lines west to the western California State line.

Bounded on the West by the western California State line north to the northern California State line.

California Agri's assigned geographic area does not include the export port locations inside California Agri's area, which are serviced by GIPSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Indiana, is assigned to this official agency.

Bounded on the North by the northern Fulton County line.

Bounded on the East by the eastern Fulton County line south to State Route 19; State Route 19 south to State Route 114; State Route 114 southeast to the eastern Fulton and Miami County lines; the northern Grant County line east to County Highway 900E; County Highway 900E south to State Route 18; State Route 18 east to the Grant County line; the eastern and southern Grant County lines; the eastern Tipton County line; the eastern Hamilton County line south to State Route 32.

Bounded on the South by State Route 32 west to the Boone County line; the eastern and southern Boone County lines; the southern Montgomery County line.

Bounded on the West by the western and northern Montgomery County lines; the western Clinton County line; the western Carroll County line north to State Route 25; State Route 25 northeast to Cass County; the western Cass and Fulton County lines.

The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Titus Grain Inspection, Inc.: The Andersons, Delphi, Carroll County; Frick Services, Inc., Leiters Ford, Fulton County; and Cargill, Inc., Linden, Montgomery County, Indiana.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Virginia.

The entire State of Virginia.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2018. To apply for designation or for more information, contact Eric J. Jabs at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the California-Agri, Frankfort, and Virginia official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Eric J. Jabs at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for three years unless terminated by the Secretary, but may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Idaho, is assigned to this official agency.

The southern half of the State of Idaho up to the northern boundaries of Adams, Valley, and Lemhi Counties.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, is assigned to this official agency.

Daviess, Dubois, Gibson, Knox (except the area west of U.S. Route 41 (150) from Sullivan County south to U.S. Route 50), Pike, Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties.

Caldwell, Christian, Crittenden, Henderson, Hopkins (west of State Route 109 south of the Western Kentucky Parkway), Logan, Todd, Union, and Webster (west of Alternate U.S. Route 41 and State Route 814) Counties.

Cheatham, Davidson, and Robertson Counties.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Utah, is assigned to this official agency.

The entire State of Utah.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of South Carolina, is assigned to this official agency.

The entire State of South Carolina.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas for Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah is for the period beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 2018. Designation in the specified geographic area for South Carolina is for the period beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 2017. To apply for designation or for more information, contact Eric J. Jabs at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Eric J. Jabs at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

In the February 11, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 7564), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas presently serviced by Kansas, Mid-Iowa, Minot, and Tri-State. Applications were due by March 13, 2015.

Kansas, Mid-Iowa, Minot, and Tri-State were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Kansas, Minot, and Tri-State are qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the Federal Register on February 11, 2015. This designation action to provide official services in these specified areas is effective July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018.

After completing an initial quality management review of Mid-Iowa, GIPSA determined that a follow-up review should be conducted. Accordingly, GIPSA is designating Mid-Iowa to provide services in this specified area for one year, effective July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. During this timeframe, such a review will be conducted.

Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting these agencies at the following telephone numbers:

Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)).

Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than three years unless terminated by the Secretary; however, designations may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

I. Abstract

The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey collects monthly data on the value of shipments, inventories, and new and unfilled orders from manufacturing companies. The orders, as well as the shipments and inventory data, are valuable tools for analysts of business cycle conditions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Counsel of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board, the Conference Board, and members of the business community such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, and Bloomberg business analysts, use the data.

The monthly M3 Survey estimates are based on a relatively small sample that primarily reflects the month-to-month changes of large companies. There is a clear need for periodic benchmarking of the M3 estimates to reflect the manufacturing universe. The Economic Census covering the manufacturing sector and the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) provide annual benchmarks for the shipments and inventory data in this monthly survey. The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, the subject of this notice, provides an annual benchmark for unfilled orders.

The Census Bureau uses this data to develop universe estimates of unfilled orders as of the end of the calendar year and to adjust the monthly M3 data on unfilled orders to these levels on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) basis. The benchmarked unfilled orders levels are used to derive estimates of new orders received by manufacturers. The survey data are also used to determine whether it is necessary to collect unfilled orders data for specific industries on a monthly basis; some industries are not requested to provide unfilled orders data on the M3 Survey.

There are no changes to the MA-3000 form.

The Census Bureau will use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data with online reporting encouraged. Online response for the survey is typically just under 60 percent. Companies are asked to respond to the survey within 30 days of receipt. Letters encouraging participation are mailed to companies that have not responded by the designated time. Telephone follow-up is conducted to obtain response from delinquent companies.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0561.

Form Number(s): MA-3000.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Manufacturing Businesses, large and small, or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Time per Response: .50 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondents Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131, 182, 224 and 225.

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

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

Background

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied.

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 of the Department's regulations expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.4

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. Further, the Department intends to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC. The extremely wide variety of individual types of aluminum extrusion products included in the scope of the order on aluminum extrusions would preclude meaningful results in attempting to determine the largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by volume. Therefore, the Department will limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to the review to which the Department does not send a Q&V questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which the Department will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be received by the Department within 14 days of publication of this notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the CBP data used by the Department to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued. We intend to release the CBP data under APO to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2016.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

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

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.7 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 8 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

In accordance with Executive Order 11625, the Minority Business Development Agency is authorized provide federal financial assistance to public and private organizations so that they may render technical and business management services to minority business enterprises. MBDA provides federal financial assistance to organizations through grants and cooperative agreements. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide general information to prospective grant applicants interested in MBDA business development grant programs on writing a competitive grant application, preparing budgets and budget justifications, and generally reviewing single audit readiness and compliance regulations.

This meeting is open to the public.

The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities, including the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/committee.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Thursday, July 30, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, July 31, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public and held in the Executive Conference Room, Building 101 (Administration) at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purposes of this meeting are to discuss the Grid 3.0 Strategic Planning Effort and NIST Transactive Energy, Distributed Energy Resources, Microgrid, and Smart City activities. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by submitting their request to Cuong Nguyen at [email protected] or (301) 975-2254 no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 24, 2015. On Friday, July 31, 2015, approximately one-half hour will be reserved at the end of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at [email protected].

All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 24, 2015, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen's email address is [email protected] and his phone number is (301) 975-2254. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Mr. Nguyen or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) includes provisions concerning the identification and conservation of EFH (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). EFH is defined in 50 CFR 600.10 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NMFS must identify and describe EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH (§ 600.815(a)). EFH maps are presented online in the NMFS EFH Mapper (http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html). Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS, and NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding any such actions (§ 600.815(a)(9)).

In addition to identifying and describing EFH for managed fish species, a review of EFH must be conducted every 5 years, and EFH provisions must be revised or amended, as warranted, based on the best available scientific information. The EFH 5-Year Review evaluates published scientific literature, unpublished scientific reports, information solicited from interested parties, and previously unavailable or inaccessible data. NMFS announced the initiation of this review and solicited information for this review from the public in a Federal Register notice on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 15959). The initial public review/submission period ended on May 23, 2014. The draft EFH 5-Year Review was made available in March 2015 and public comments on the draft were solicited in a Federal Register notice on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11981). The public comment period for the draft EFH 5-Year Review ended on April 6, 2015.

The final EFH 5-Year Review for Atlantic HMS includes tunas (bluefin, bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack), oceanic sharks, swordfish, and billfishes (blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, roundscale spearfish, and longbill spearfish). The Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review considers data regarding Atlantic HMS and their habitats that have become available since 2009 that were not included in Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS (Amendment 1; June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); and the interpretive rule that described EFH for roundscale spearfish (September 22, 2010, 75 FR 57698).

NMFS analyzed the information gathered through the EFH review process in this final 5-year review and determined that revision of EFH is warranted, and an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP will be undertaken. In reviewing literature since 2009, new data emerged for certain Atlantic HMS that warrant revision to those species' EFH geographic boundaries. For other Atlantic HMS, new data were either unavailable or it was determined that the new data did not warrant revisions to their EFH geographic boundaries. However, in the upcoming amendment, new observer, survey, and tag/recapture data collected since 2009 will be used to revise EFH geographic boundaries for all species. The current EFH methodology to designate EFH geographic boundaries for Atlantic HMS was first applied in Amendment 1, and Atlantic HMS EFH geographic boundaries have not since been updated using this methodology. It is unknown how data that have been consistently collected since 2009 (e.g., observer, survey, tag/recapture) will impact EFH geographic boundaries. Therefore, all Atlantic HMS EFH geographic boundaries will be updated to see how these data will impact EFH geographic boundaries, even for species where there was limited or no new EFH data found in the literature review.

The upcoming EFH amendment will consider all 10 EFH components, including individual species EFH descriptions, EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations for fishing and non-fishing effects on EFH, and identification of HAPCs, as well as scientific feedback and public comment.

NOAA awarded the Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) a grant through the 2015 Atlantic sea scallop research set-aside program, in support of a project titled, “Optimizing the Georges Bank Scallop Fishery by Maximizing Meat Yield and Minimizing Bycatch.”

CFF submitted a complete application for an EFP on June 4, 2015. The project would look primarily at seasonal distribution of bycatch in relation to sea scallop meat weight yield while minimizing impacts to other stocks. Additional objectives include continued testing of a modified dredge bag design to reduce flatfish bycatch and collecting biological samples to examine scallop meat quality and yellowtail flounder liver disease. CFF is requesting exemptions that would allow eight commercial fishing vessels be exempt from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); Closed Area II scallop gear restrictions specified at § 648.81(b); access area program requirements at § 648.60(a)(4); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); and possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes only.

Eight vessels would conduct scallop dredging in a year-round seasonal study on a total of eight 7-day trips, for a total of 56 DAS. Each trip would complete approximately 70 paired tows per trip for an overall total of 560 tows for the project. Closed Area II tows would take place in the central portion situated below the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Closed Area II Rotational Closed Area. Open area tows would be conducted on the northern half of Georges Bank west of the boundary of Closed Area II. CFF proposed tow locations inside the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. NOAA Fisheries does not believe that access to this area should be granted until a final outcome from the Omnibus Habitat Amendment II is determined, which is currently under development.

NOAA Fisheries recognizes there is a potential for gear conflict with lobster gear in the central portion of CAII. In an effort to help mitigate gear interactions, the project coordinator would distribute the time and location of stations to the lobster industry, work only during daylight hours, post an extra lookout to avoid gear, and conduct fishing operations in a way that avoids tangling in stationary gear. The lobster industry in relation to other actions has also expressed concern about the potential harvest of egg-bearing female lobsters in this area during the months of June-October. We do not expect the DAS, crew size or possession limits and minimum size exemptions to generate any controversy or concern. We will send the EFP notice to the Offshore Lobster association to ensure they are provided adequate opportunity to provide comment.

All tows would be conducted with two tandem 15-foot (4.57-meter) turtle deflector dredges for a duration of 30 minutes using an average tow speed of 4.8 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a 7-row apron and twine top hanging ratio of 2:1, while the other dredge would be rigged with a 5-row apron and 1.5:1 twine top hanging ratio. Both dredge frames would be rigged with identical rock and tickler chain configurations, 10-inch (25.4-cm) twine top, and 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bag.

For all tows the entire sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected and the scallops would be measured in 5-mm increments to determine size selectivity. All finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted and measured. Weight, sex, and reproductive state would be determined for a random subsample (n=10) of yellowtail, winter, and windowpane flounders. Lobsters would be measured, sexed, and evaluated for damage and shell disease. Maximum catch estimates for lobster for the project would be approximately 283 individuals. With the exception of samples retained for further processing, no catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling and no catch would be landed for sale.

CFF needs these exemptions to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, as well as deploy gear in areas that are currently closed to scallop fishing. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel and possession waivers will enable them to conduct finfish sampling activities.

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.

On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, published its Action Plan for Implementing the Task Force Recommendations (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html).

The Action Plan articulates the steps that Federal agencies will take to implement the recommendations the Task Force made to the President in December 2014 on a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations, and create a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce, including the use of existing traceability mechanisms. The work initiated by the Task Force is now under the oversight of a National Ocean Council (NOC) Committee. The design of the traceability program will be led by an interagency working group.

This notice is among the first steps in implementing Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15, specifically, developing types of information and operational standards related to data collection. The data collected will establish a foundation for the risk-based seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud from harvest (wild-capture or aquaculture) to point of entry into U.S. commerce, as described in the Task Force Action Plan. This data is being collected for use by appropriate government officials.

With this notice, the Committee is soliciting comments on the minimum types of information that should be collected and the operational standards to be applied to this data. The data collected should include, but is not limited to, the following information:

(1) Who harvested or produced the fish?

• Name of harvesting vessel;

• Flag State of harvesting vessel;

• Name of farm or aquaculture facility;

• Name of processor; and

• Type of fishing gear.

(2) What fish was harvested and processed?

• Species of fish;

• Product description;

• Name of product;

• Form of the product; and

• Quantity and/or weight of the product.

(3) Where and when was the fish harvested and landed?

• Area of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest;

• Harvest date(s);

• Name and location of aquaculture facility;

• Point of first landing;

• Date of first landing;

The Committee also believes the following information logically should be considered:

(4) What was the chain of custody of the fish or fish product through the supply chain to point of entry into U.S. commerce including:

• Transshipment of product; and,

• Processing, re-processing, or co-mingling of product

The Committee seeks comment regarding the information needed to answer the four questions posed above, as well as any additional information necessary for the implementation of an effective risk-based seafood traceability program. An effective traceability system must be capable of capturing a complex supply chain which may involve reprocessing, mixed species, cold storage holding, trans-shipments, etc., as well as the simple harvest of a single species.

Given the scope of the traceability system anticipated in the Action Plan, additional data required for fish harvested in U.S. domestic fisheries is minimal because domestically harvested fish enters U.S. commerce at its first point of landing and, to a large extent, relevant data are already generated and reported through existing state and federal permitting, catch monitoring, and landing reports implemented under federal and state fishery management plans. At-risk species that are harvested domestically, exported for reprocessing, and then re-imported to the U.S. may require traceability throughout that entire supply chain.

The Operational standards to apply to the data collected may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• How the data are to be collected;

• Interoperability with existing traceability systems;

• Who has responsibility for collecting the data;

• How the data will be verified; and

• Data security.

This information establishes the starting point of the traceability process. Although this information is straightforward in many cases, operational characteristics of some fisheries present challenges. Traceability of an operation in which easily identified, individual vessels deliver directly to a buyer or processor may be relatively simple. However in a fishery with tender vessels taking deliveries from many smaller harvesting boats, collection of this information could become burdensome. In this instance, the Committee currently anticipates requiring only the name of the tender vessels making traceable deliveries to a buyer or processor. Comments are requested as to what information, if any, is necessary regarding the harvesting vessel name and flag state and authorization to harvest the species in question for the implementation of an effective traceability program.

Aquacultured species are easier to trace back to a particular pond or region, and the Action Plan states that the traceability process shall start at the point of harvest. It is therefore unlikely that facility information for the raising of the breeders or the fingerlings, depending upon the fishery, will be included in the traceability program. Also, the body of water for a farm-raised species could have several aquaculture facilities in place by different companies. The Committee requests comments addressing the whether the aquaculture facility or the body of water is appropriate point of origin in a traceability system for aquacultured species.

Processor and gear type are common elements in many fishery traceability systems. Processors may already be required to trace their products through some portion of the supply chain. The Committee considers information related to processing and/or reprocessing of product to be critical to tracking chain-of-custody, notes that this information is required for existing global traceability programs, and anticipates the requirement of such data as a part of this traceability program. This would include information about primary processors and secondary processors who maintained custody of the shipment prior to entering the United States.

In the context of seafood traceability, gear information helps to link specific vessels to the fishery in which they participate and the species they harvest. The Committee intends to require gear type information for the proposed traceability system and requests comments as to whether and what gear type information should be collected for traceability.

A traceability system to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud requires certain minimal information, including the species of the fish, the quantity and/or weight of the catch, and the form of the product. The state of the shipment (live, raw/fresh, or frozen) and the type of product informs the calculation of the actual amount of fish harvested, as well as the potential risk for fraud associated with the product. The Committee therefore intends to request this information and seeks comments regarding its use for traceability purposes as well as suggestions for alternative approaches to trace fish and seafood products in various forms.

The Committee is considering a range of options with respect to species identification, including scientific names, names on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved list, and common or market names. Use of scientific names may minimize confusion at the border. As common or market names tend to group similar species, requiring the scientific name could dramatically increase the number of species names listed, thereby increasing the possibility of reporting error. However, using common or market names could be used to mask the import of a species at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved list of fish names for labeling of fish in the United States may not cover all fish entering the United States and adding a market or common name to that list may take time. Comments are requested as to whether scientific names, common, usual, or market names, or some combination, should serve as the basis for species identification in the traceability program and be utilized for identifying imported product at the point of entry into U.S. commerce.

Collection of information identifying the area of harvest or the region in which an aquaculture facility is located, and the time at which the harvest took place, represents the initial “link” in the supply chain. It represents the action back to which the at-risk species entering U.S. commerce will be traced. For wild-capture fisheries, the Committee intends to identify area of harvest by FAO catch area designation or comparable designation of fresh-water sources. The Committee has identified area or body of water and facility as data required for establishing where and when fish was harvested from an aquaculture source. The Committee seeks comments on the adequacy of this information for identifying where and when fish is harvested, alternative data that may be useful in tracing product to time and place of harvest, and methods for verifying the accuracy of data used for this purpose.

As described above, identifying the point of harvest within an area or aquaculture facility is relatively straightforward. However, the global market for fish and seafood products supports complex supply chains, including transshipment to one or more locations prior to entry into U.S. commerce. Shipments may be co-mingled with similar species from other locations, complicating the process of traceability to point of harvest. An effective traceability system will require information on each point of landing, transshipment and processing throughout the fish or seafood product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S. commerce. This would include not only the harvest for each shipment, but information regarding any further processing and transshipment that occurred prior to entry into U.S. Commerce. Comments are requested as to the level of detailed information that should be required for country of harvest, transshipment, processing and re-processing, and co-mingling of product or species. The Committee requests comments regarding the appropriate data and standards for effective traceability at each stage of the supply chain from harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce.

The Committee recommends use of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) as the data collection portal for imports of species identified as at-risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In an effort to streamline the import and export process, President Obama signed an Executive Order in February 2014 that requires ITDS to be completed and fully utilized by government agencies by December 2016. ITDS is a “single window” system which allows businesses to communicate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) when importing and exporting goods, eliminating the often duplicative and paper-based processes used previously. With ITDS, companies submit their information electronically, and the data elements can then be quickly and efficiently retrieved and used by the Federal agencies that require them. More information on ITDS can be found at www.itds.gov.

Data at the border is currently collected both in electronic and hard copy formats. Hard copies are often scanned and then stored for future use. Use of the ITDS will not only simplify the collection of data by utilizing an electronic format, but interoperability of information is assured between all Federal agencies as only one data system is employed. The Committee anticipates the collection of data in electronic format using ITDS for ease of collection. With respect to interoperability of data captured and utilized by existing information systems, it is the Committee's intent to avoid, to the extent practicable, the establishment of redundant data collection processes or protocols that undermine the function and effectiveness of existing systems. While it is unlikely that ITDS will be capable of automatically “retrieving” data from existing databases, the Committee is interested in comments describing methods that will facilitate the use of existing systems to provide data identified in future traceability rule making. Comments are also requested regarding the proposed use of the ITDS, the potential use of other systems the Federal agencies should consider at the border, and if there are any barriers, known or perceived, in using the ITDS system.

Use of the ITDS system to collect proposed data elements for imports of species identified as at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud would require the importer (or exporter to the USA) to enter the information along with any necessary supporting documentation. The importer would be responsible for ensuring that the necessary data elements are collected along the supply chain and provided to CBP through ITDS at the point of entry.

A key element of these operational standards is data verification. The operational standards must provide relevant Federal agencies the ability to verify that documentation for at-risk seafood products is complete and accurate upon entry into U.S. commerce, and validate country-specific documents and certifications. The operational standards must also incorporate a system of data checks and periodic auditing. A system of trace-back audits would determine the quality and accuracy of the data submitted and identify missing information and discrepancies. Comments are requested regarding a system of audits of the documentation system for quality and accuracy.

As the additional data elements will be submitted through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/ITDS single window as part of an entry filing, the supplemental data will only be accessible to the entry filer, CBP, and Federal agencies with authorization to review entry filings for the designated commodities. Consequently, data security concerns are minimal. Comments regarding additional considerations with respect to data security are requested.

Following the public comment period, the NOC Committee will take the input received into consideration while finalizing recommendations that will be sent forward for appropriate agency action by September 2015, as outlined in the implementation plan for Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15.

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

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) to prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in Federal waters under their respective jurisdictions. NMFS and the Gulf Council manage the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS and the South Atlantic Council manage the fishery for rock shrimp in the South Atlantic under the Shrimp FMP. The vessel monitoring system (VMS) regulations for the Gulf reef fish fishery and the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery may be found at 50 CFR 622.28 and 622.205, respectively.

The FMPs contains several area-specific regulations where fishing is restricted or prohibited in order to protect habitat or spawning aggregations, or to control fishing pressure. Unlike size, bag, and trip limits, where the catch can be monitored on shore when a vessel returns to port, area restrictions require at-sea enforcement. However, at-sea enforcement of offshore area restrictions is difficult due to the distance from shore and the limited number of patrol vessels, resulting in a need to improve enforceability of area fishing restrictions through remote sensing methods. In addition, all fishing gears are subject to some area fishing restrictions. Because of the sizes of these areas and the distances from shore, the effectiveness of enforcement through over flights and at-sea interception is limited. An electronic VMS allows a more effective means to monitor vessels for intrusions into restricted areas.

The VMS provides effort data and significantly aids in enforcement of areas closed to fishing. All position reports are treated in accordance with NMFS existing guidelines for confidential data. As a condition of authorized fishing for or possession of reef fish or rock shrimp in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or South Atlantic EEZ, respectively, vessel owners or operators subject to VMS requirements must allow NMFS, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and their authorized officers and designees, access to the vessel's position data obtained from the VMS.

NMFS would like to move the collection of information requirement for VMS applicable to vessels with limited access endorsements for South Atlantic rock shrimp under OMB Control No. 0648-0205 to this collection. The burden estimates have changed due to inclusion of the applicable burden from OMB Control No. 0648-0205.

Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0544.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular (revision and extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 894.

Estimated Time Per Response: Installation, 4 hours; installation and activation checklist, 15 minutes; power-down exemption requests, 5 minutes; transmission of fishing activity reports, 1 minute; and annual maintenance, 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,719.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,011,121 in start-up, transfer, operations, and maintenance costs.

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

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

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 102-3.140 through 160, the Department of the Army announces the following committee meeting:

Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB) Summer Voting Session.

Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015.

Time: 0800-1630.

Locations:

Open portion: Antlers Hilton, Four South Cascade, Colorado Springs, CO 80903-1685 from 0830-1200.

Closed portion: Fort Carson Colorado, Room 107, Building 1435, 6150 Wetzel Ave, Fort Carson, CO 80913 from 1400-1630.

Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for ASB members to review, deliberate, and vote on the findings and recommendations presented for the Board's five Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) studies.

Agenda: The board will present findings and recommendations for deliberation and vote on the following five FY15 studies:

Army Cyber at the Tactical Edge. This study is classified and will be presented in the closed meeting. The purpose of this study is to further identify the challenges, both technical and doctrinal, unique to Army tactical edge cyber operations at the Corps-level and below, and to propose what technical capabilities, new processes, training and policy changes are required to ensure the Army is postured to fight and win in cyber space from the tactical edge.

Army Science & Technology for Army Aviation 2025-2040. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. The objective of this study is to identify and assess Science and Technology (S&T) enhancements capable of being fielded during the 2025-2040 timeframe that will increase Army Aviation's expeditionary capabilities to support full-spectrum military operations and reduce its sustainment tails and logistics footprint.

Strategies to Optimize Army Operating and Generating Forces for 2025 & Beyond. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. The purpose of the study is to develop strategies for rebalancing the Army operating and generating force to retain or gain capabilities in the mid-term (2025) and beyond (2030-2040). This study will identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of operating force combat service support and generating force capabilities to help provide the means to invest in core operational capabilities.

Human Interaction and Behavioral Enhancement. This study is not classified and will be presented in the open portion of the meeting. The purpose of this study is to identify and asses methods and techniques to understand, interact and influence human behavior in support of Army missions.

Force 2025 and Beyond. This study is not classified and will be presented in the open portion of the meeting. This study will provide findings and recommendations for operational concepts and advanced technologies along with the associated force designs for improving and maintaining readiness, designing and conducting training, and aligning the required logistics investments.

Filing Written Statement: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DFO at the address listed above. Written statements not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting may not be considered by the Board prior to its scheduled meeting.

The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Board's executive committee and ensure they are provided to the specific study members as necessary before, during, or after the meeting. After reviewing written comments, the study chairs and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during a future open meeting.

The DFO, in consultation with the executive committee, may allot a specific amount of time for members of the public to present their issues for discussion.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 3.165, and the availability of space, the open portion of this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Antlers Hilton is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact LTC Stephen Barker at the telephone number or email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

None.

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

Title of Collection: Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration.

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,360.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,386.

Abstract: The Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration, sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education (ED), is being conducted to test the effectiveness of a promising strategy to improve college-related outcomes in the federal college access program Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The demonstration will use a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design to test the effectiveness of sending customized messaging to students, first during the summer after high school graduation, and then in the fall and spring of their expected first year of college. Students within high schools that volunteer for the demonstration will be randomly assigned to either receive the messages or not. This ICR requests clearance for the collection of GEAR UP student rosters and administration of a baseline survey. In addition to the baseline survey data that will be collected from students, college-related outcome data will be extracted from national datasets (National Student Clearinghouse Data (NSC) and the Federal Student Aid (FSA) database). Impact and descriptive analyses will be conducted to answer the study research questions. The evaluation plans call for two reports. The first, published in summer 2018, will be based on data collected through 2017 that will look at college advising received in high school and early college-related outcomes (i.e., college enrollment and FAFSA completion). The second report will be available in early 2020, and will investigate college persistence.

I. Background

With the release of Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), the nation has started to focus in earnest on the resilience of our critical infrastructure. In the face of the increasing extreme weather events and other stresses or disturbances, the resilience of critical infrastructure, especially the energy infrastructure, has become paramount. Building upon the insights that have been gained through the development of the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model, the Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model, and the Smart Grid Maturity Model, DOE-OE would like to build a complementary capability regarding the resilience of electric distribution infrastructure.

For the purposes of this RFI, the definition of resilience is “the ability of an entity—e.g., asset, organization, community, region—to anticipate, resist, absorb, respond to, adapt to, and recover from a disturbance.” 1

This definition provides the framework for four domains that can be used to understand the current level of resilience of distribution system infrastructure. Through these domains, distribution utilities will be able to make informed decisions on strengthening resiliency, based on identifiable areas where future investments in new technologies and operating procedures could be made. The four domains are:

Preparedness: Activities undertaken by an entity in anticipation of the threats/hazards, and the possible consequences, to which it is subject.

Mitigation Measures: Characterize the facility's capabilities to resist a threat/hazard or to absorb the consequences from the threat/hazard.

Response Capabilities: Immediate and ongoing activities, tasks, programs, and systems that have been undertaken or developed to respond and adapt to the adverse effects of an event.

Recovery Mechanisms: Activities and programs designed to be effective and efficient in returning operating conditions to a level that is acceptable to the entity.

Underneath all four domains lie questions that contains specific information for each of the domains. Examples of questions that can be asked with specific reference to resilience are:

For each of these questions there will be a set of distinct answers. This method of construction allows consistent, objective information collection for all entities interested in using the model. In cooperation with the utility industry, a working group will be created to assist in determining the direction of the program.

In order to develop this pilot project, DOE would like input from resilience experts in the electric distribution industry to gauge the interest and usefulness of the proposed decision support tool. This RFI provides the public and industry stakeholders with the opportunity to provide their view on the development of a resilience tool. The intent of this RFI is to solicit information pertinent to the need and viability of the resilience assessment tool. The information obtained is meant to be used by DOE for tool design and strategy development purposes. In your comments, please reference the question(s) to which you are responding, as well as provide other pertinent information.

(1) Would a resilience assessment tool be of interest for electric distribution utilities?

(2) What would you like to see in such a model should it exist (i.e., functionality, presentation, accessibility?)

There are four key domains proposed for resilience: preparedness, mitigation measures, response and recovery. Each of these components has subcomponents as detailed below:

a. Preparedness: Awareness and Planning.

b. Mitigation Measures: Extreme Weather Mitigation, Utility Mitigation, and Dependencies Mitigation.

c. Response Capabilities: Internal Capabilities and External Capabilities.

d. Recovery Mechanisms: Resource Restoration Agreements and Utility Service Restoration.

(3) Do these components and subcomponents make sense as contributors to electric distribution system resilience?

(4) What is missing, or should be taken away?

(5) What are your concerns about data protection if asked to submit anonymous aggregate data for a national average for electric distribution resilience?

(6) Data protection is recognized as an important consideration for utility participation in such an assessment model. What are your opinions and recommendations on data protection?

(7) Would your utility be willing to participate in a working group intent on constructing the relative importance of the different components and subcomponents to the overall resilience of the system? Who would be the appropriate person within your utility to participate in such a working group?

(8) Are there others who you would suggest to provide early feedback on tool development?

(9) Is your utility interested in being part of a demonstration or pilot during early testing?

Additional comments that may not be captured in replies these questions, but are considered relevant by respondents are highly encouraged.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On May 29, 2015, DOE received an application from Targray for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for five years using existing international transmission facilities.

In its application, Targray states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. Targray states that it has applied for market-based rate authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to engage in the sale and purchase of electric energy to and from Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations. As such, the electric energy that Targray proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as power marketers, independent power producers, electric utilities, and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Targray have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning the Targray application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-411. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Ruta Kalvaitis Skucas, Pierce Atwood LLC, 900 17th St., NW., Suite 350, Washington, DC 20006 and to Karen Roberge, Targray Technology International Inc., 18105 Transcanadienne, Kirkland QC, H9J 3Z4 Canada.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On November 17, 2010, DOE issued Order No. EA-171-C to Powerex Corp., which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on November 17, 2015. On May 19, 2015, Powerex filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-171-C for an additional five-year term.

In its application, Powerex states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Powerex proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Powerex have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning Powerex's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-171-D. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Mike MacDougall and Karen McDonald, Powerex Corp., 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1300, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6C 2X8 and to both Deanna King and Tracey Bradley, Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, 2000 K Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Under EPA contract number GS-35F-486BA, order number EP-G15H-01095, contractor SAIC of 1701 SAIC Drive, McLean, VA; and Solutions by Design II, LLC of 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 870, Vienna, VA, are assisting OPPT in developing, enhancing, maintaining and operating a variety of EPA databases and applications. They will also assist in the interfaces and linkages to other applications.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-35F-486BA, order number EP-G15H-01095, SAIC and its subcontractor required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. SAIC and its subcontractor's personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided SAIC and its subcontractor access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until March 26, 2018. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

SAIC and its subcontractor's personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to TSCA CBI.

General Information: The conference call is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the conference call, or making a presentation during the conference call may contact Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: presentation and discussion of the subcommittee's draft responses to the charge questions and approval of the final draft letter report prior to its submission to the BOSC Executive Committee.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tim Benner at (202) 564-6769 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tim Benner, preferably at least ten days prior to the conference call, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

You may be affected by this action if you are a producer of pesticide products (NAICS 32532), antifoulants (NAICS 32551), antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 32561), or wood preservatives (NAICS 32519), importers of such products, or any person or company who seeks to register an antimicrobial, antifoulant coating, ballast water treatment, or wood preservative pesticide or to obtain a tolerance for such a pesticide. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 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.

A copy of the proposed guidance document is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302.

The Agency is making available for comment a proposed guidance document called the “Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index.” In the Federal Register on May 8, 2013 (78 FR 26936) (FRL-8886-5), the Agency published a final rule amending 40 CFR part 158, the section of the regulations setting forth the data requirements that support an application to register a pesticide product. The final rule, which is codified as 40 CFR part 158 subpart W (158W), contains the data requirements specifically applicable to antimicrobial pesticides. The rule became effective July 8, 2013.

The proposed guidance document serves as a compilation of the specific use sites that are commonly listed on antimicrobial labels. The specific use sites are further organized into categories of twelve general use patterns. The general use patterns are broad designations and are used as columns in the antimicrobial data requirements tables to identify which data requirements might be pertinent to the particular pesticide use site. The Agency has developed the proposed guidance document to provide additional information about these use patterns. This guidance document is intended to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and registrants by helping them to identify the data requirements that are necessary to register their product(s), and will likewise be used by Agency staff evaluating antimicrobial pesticide applications.

As a guidance document, the association of a particular antimicrobial use site with a general antimicrobial use pattern should be viewed as a recommendation only and is not to be construed as binding on either EPA or any outside parties. EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.

The posting of this proposed guidance document for public comment satisfies a condition of the March 2, 2015, settlement agreement between EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which followed ACC's July 2013 initiation of a legal challenge to the data requirements regulation (subpart 158W of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under that settlement agreement, the Agency committed to taking comment on this proposed guidance document within 4 months of the effective date of the settlement agreement.

I. Background on the Critical Use Exemption

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the international agreement aimed at protecting the ozone layer by reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances. Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment.

While the Protocol requires developed countries like the United States to phase out the production and consumption of Methyl Bromide in 2005, it also states that the Parties may exempt from that phaseout “the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses” (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to the Protocol included this language in the treaty's methyl bromide phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be available by the 2005 phaseout date for certain uses agreed by the Parties to be “critical uses.”

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a “critical use” determination and an exemption from the production and consumption phaseout:

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that:

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and

(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for a critical use should be permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide;

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide;

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5 Parties [which includes the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes.

In 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the Protocol and to allow EPA to provide a critical use exemption. These amendments were codified in Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide were phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol. EPA has defined “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3 based on the criteria in paragraph (a) of Decision IX/6.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a separate exemption. The use of methyl bromide that was produced or imported through the expenditure of production or consumption allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under EPA's phaseout regulations, is subject to the labeling restrictions under FIFRA as specified in the product labeling.

Entities requesting critical use exemptions should send a completed application to EPA on the candidate use by September 15, three years prior to the year of the intended use. This timing is necessary for the U.S. Government to complete its consideration for nomination to the United Nations Environment Programme and the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in a timely manner; for the Parties to reach a decision on the nomination; and for EPA to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking. For example, applications for the 2018 growing season must be submitted by September 15, 2015. Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not automatically renew. All users wanting to obtain an exemption must apply to EPA annually even if they have applied for critical uses in prior years. Because of the potential for changes to registration status, costs, and economic aspects of producing critical use crops and commodities, applicants must fill out the application form completely.

Upon receipt of applications, EPA will review the information and work with other interested Federal agencies as required in section 604 of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the candidate use satisfies Clean Air Act requirements, and whether it meets the critical use criteria adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and warrants nomination by the United States for an exemption.

All Parties, including the United States, choosing to submit nominations to the UNEP Ozone Secretariat must do so by January 24 to be considered by the Parties at their annual meeting later that year. The UNEP Ozone Secretariat forwards nominations to the Montreal Protocol's Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC). The MBTOC and the TEAP review the nominations to determine whether they meet the criteria for a critical use established by Decision IX/6, and to make recommendations to the Parties for critical use exemptions. The Parties then consider those recommendations at their annual meeting before making a final decision. If the Parties determine that a specified use of methyl bromide is critical and permit an exemption from the Protocol's production and consumption phaseout for that year, EPA may then take domestic action to allow the production and consumption to the extent consistent with the Clean Air Act.

In prior years, EPA issued an annual notice requesting applications for critical use exemptions. Through this action, EPA provides the information necessary to enable applications to be submitted for critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for all future control periods (calendar years). Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must complete the application form available at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html.

Applications requesting critical use allowances should include information that U.S. Government agencies and the Parties to the Protocol can use to evaluate the candidate use according to the criteria in Decision IX/6 described above. Applications that fail to include sufficient information may not be nominated.

Specifically, applications should include the information requested in the current version of the TEAP Handbook on Critical Use Nominations. The handbook is available electronically at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/MBTOC/Handbook%20CUN-version5-27Nov06.pdf. EPA requests that applications contain the following information, as described in the handbook, in order for the U.S. to provide sufficient information to the Montreal Protocol's technical review bodies within the nomination:

• A clear statement on the specific circumstances of the nomination which describe the critical need for methyl bromide and quantity of methyl bromide requested;

• Data on the availability and technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to the proposed methyl bromide use;

• A review of the comparative performance of methyl bromide and alternatives including control of target pests in research and commercial scale up studies; 1

• A description of all technically and economically feasible steps taken by the applicant to minimize methyl bromide use and emissions;

• Data on the use and availability of stockpiled methyl bromide;

• A description of efforts made to test, register, and commercially adopt alternatives;

• Plans for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide; and

• The methodology used to provide economic comparisons.

EPA's Web site (www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html) contains a list of current and potential alternatives. To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must demonstrate that none of the listed alternatives are technically and economically feasible for that use. In addition, applicants should describe research plans which include the pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to support their transition from methyl bromide.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this notice under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482.

Since neither the Protocol nor the Clean Air Act establish a specific end date for Critical Use Exemptions, anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may apply. However, the language and spirit of controls on ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol envision a phaseout of methyl bromide and for the critical use exemption to be a “temporary derogation” from that phaseout. Over the last decade, the research, registration, and adoption of alternatives has allowed many sectors to successfully transition from methyl bromide. The number of sectors nominated has declined from seventeen for 2006 to one for 2017. Below is information on how the agency evaluated recent applications for specific uses when considering nominations for critical uses, as well as specific information needed for the United States to successfully defend any future nominations for critical uses.

Data reviewed by EPA for commodities such as dried fruit and nuts indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market disruption has occurred. Rapid fumigation is not a critical condition for this sector and therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time without a significant economic impact.

To support a nomination, applicants should address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/temperature treatment systems.

Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants should provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity being treated/produced. Applicants should also provide information on changes in costs for any other practices or equipment used (e.g., sanitation and IPM) that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation, including information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of commodity treated daily at the harvest peak.

Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemption may not be applicable for this purpose. In addition, include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their commodity. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

Applicants should list how many facilities have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target concentration over time [CT] of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is important for applicants in this sector to specify research plans into alternatives and alternative practices that support the transition from methyl bromide, as well as information on the technical and economic feasibility of using recapture technologies. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide. This is particularly important for this sector given the low volume of methyl bromide usage.

EPA found in its review of applications for cucurbits, eggplant, pepper, and tomato that although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. oxysporum) and nematodes.

To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available).

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

Based on EPA's review of information as part of the 2016 nomination process, EPA believes alternatives are available as advances have been made: (1) In safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve efficacy in applying 1,3-dichloropropene, or mixtures of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, (3) in using the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, and (4) in transitioning from experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam, anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate production.

To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: Straight chloropicrin, the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available).

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and their region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

Data reviewed by EPA for orchard replant indicate that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are effective. Therefore, EPA has concluded that transitioning to the alternatives is feasible without substantial losses. Registered alternatives are available for individual-hole treatments, and soil preparation procedures are available to enable effective treatment with alternatives even in soils with high moisture content.

To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three way-mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

EPA found in its review of applications for ornamentals that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, multiple-year data indicate that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent results. To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and their region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

In considering this sector in the 2016 nomination process, EPA noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in accordance with certification standards for propagative material.2

To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

EPA has not found that a significant market disruption would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to quality when converting to alternatives, including: Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam sodium, or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM), and steam. Non-fumigant alternatives currently in use (e.g., additional pesticides, fertilizers, different cultural practices, and increased management) should also be described.

Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a transition to alternatives (e.g., downtime when resurfacing, years between fumigations); differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence could be included that would demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene Panel will hold public teleconferences to discuss its draft report regarding the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 External Review Draft). The EPA SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with subject matter experts to provide advice through the chartered SAB regarding this IRIS assessment.

The SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene Panel held a public meeting on April 15-17, 2015. The purpose of that meeting was to develop responses to the peer review charge on the agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 External Review Draft). The purpose of these public teleconferences is for the Panel to discuss its draft report peer reviewing the agency's draft toxicological review. The two public teleconferences will be conducted as one complete meeting, beginning on August 21, 2015 and if necessary, will continue on September 2, 2015.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, draft report, and other materials for the teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20BaP?OpenDocument

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the meeting materials or the group conducting this SAB activity. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Dr. Diana Wong, DFO (preferably via email), at the contact information noted above, by August 14, 2015 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements for these teleconferences should be received in the SAB Staff Office by the same deadlines given above for requesting oral comments. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Diana Wong at (202) 564-2049 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Wong preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconferences, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Water quality standards are provisions of state,1 tribal, and federal law that consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires states and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards, and to review and, if appropriate, revise their water quality standards once every three years. The Act also requires EPA to review and either approve or disapprove the new or revised standards, and to promulgate replacement federal standards if necessary. Section 118(c)(2) of the Act specifies additional water quality standards requirements for waters of the Great Lakes system.

The Water Quality Standards regulation (40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water quality standards program. The regulation describes requirements and procedures for states and authorized tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing and approving the water quality standards. The regulation requires the development and submission of information to EPA, including:

The regulation establishes specific additional requirements for water quality standards and their implementation in the waters of the Great Lakes system, contained in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132). This portion of the regulation includes the following requirements for information collection: Bioassay tests to support the development of water quality criteria; studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system; and information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request regulatory relief from Guidance requirements. The Guidance includes additional information collections that are addressed in separate Information Collection Requests for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: The Water Quality Standards regulation requires reporting at least once every three years from 96 jurisdictions: 56 states and territories, and Indian tribes with EPA-approved standards (40 tribes as of May 2015). The respondents affected by this collection activity are in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs,” formerly SIC code #9511. Additionally water dischargers subject to certain requirements related to the WQS in the Great Lakes System include dischargers in the following NAICS codes: Mining (except oil and gas) (212), Food manufacturing (311), Paper manufacturing (322), Chemical manufacturing (325), Petroleum refineries (32411), Primary metal manufacturing (331), Fabricated metal product manufacturing (332), Machinery manufacturing (333), Computer and electronic product manufacturing (334), Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing (335), Transportation equipment manufacturing (336), Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (2211), and Sewage treatment facilities (22132).

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of potential respondents: 96 jurisdictions plus 2,323 Great Lakes dischargers.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 286,981 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $13,359,089 (per year). There are no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 10,000 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects an increase in the estimated number of respondents to reflect EPA's approval of water quality standards for four additional tribes. These estimates could change further if, for example, EPA approves water quality standards for additional tribes, or if there are changes in the burden related to expected NPDES permit activities in the Great Lakes basin covered by the ICR.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Under EPA contract number GS-06F-0535Z, order number 0015, contractor Vision Technologies, Inc., of 530 McCormick Drive, Suite 6, Glen Burnie, MD, and CSC, 3170 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA, will assist EPA's Office of Research and Development by supporting the desktop systems on which the CBI will reside. The contractor will also provide information technology support and solutions to enhance science and research results.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-06F-0535Z, order number 0015, Vision Technologies and CSC will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Vision Technologies and CSC personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide Vision Technologies and CSC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until October 21, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

Vision Technologies and CSC personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Under EPA contract number EP-D-11-006, contractor ERG of 110 Hartwell Ave., Suite 1, Lexington, MA, will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in the performance of work related to source characterization. The contractor will also assist in identifying information to characterize lifecycle inventory unit process flows associated with certain chemical categories.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number EP-D-11-006, ERG will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ERG's personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ERG access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and ERG's site located at 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA, in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until March 31, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

ERG personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.