Federal Register Vol. 80, No.165,

The Census Bureau conducts the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) to collect and maintain information about the inventory of legal boundaries and legal actions affecting the boundaries of counties and equivalent entities, incorporated places, minor civil divisions (MCDs), and federally recognized legal American Indian and Alaska Native areas. This information provides an accurate identification of geographic areas for the Census Bureau to use in conducting the Decennial and Economic Censuses and ongoing surveys, preparing population estimates, and supporting other statistical programs of the Census Bureau and the legislative programs of the Federal government.

Through the BAS, the Census Bureau asks each government to review materials for its jurisdiction to verify the correctness of the information portrayed. The Census Bureau requests that each government update the boundaries, supply information documenting each legal boundary change, and provide changes in the inventory of governments. The Census Bureau has a national implementation of the BAS, but each state's laws are reviewed for inclusion in the processing procedures. In addition, if it comes to the Census Bureau's attention that an area of non-tribal land is in dispute between two or more jurisdictions, the Census Bureau will not make annexations or boundary corrections until the parties come to a written agreement, or there is a documented final court decision regarding the matter and/or dispute. If there is a dispute over an area of tribal land, the Census Bureau will not make additions or boundary corrections until supporting documents are provided, or the U.S. Department of the Interior issues a comment. If necessary, the Census Bureau will request clarification regarding current boundaries, particularly if supporting documentation pre-dates 1990, from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor.

The BAS universe and mailing materials vary depending both upon the needs of the Census Bureau in fulfilling its censuses and household surveys, and upon budget constraints. Counties or equivalent entities, federally recognized American Indian reservations (AIRs), Off-Reservation Trust Lands (ORTLs), and Tribal Subdivisions are included in every survey.

In the years ending in 8, 9 and 0, the BAS includes all governmentally active counties and equivalent entities, incorporated places, legally defined MCDs, and legally defined federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native areas (including the Alaska Native Regional Corporations). Each governmental entity surveyed will receive materials covering its jurisdiction and one or more forms. These three years coincide with the Census Bureau's preparation for the Decennial Census. There are fewer than 40,000 governments in the universe each year.

In all other years, the BAS reporting universe includes all legally defined federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native areas, all governmental counties and equivalent entities, MCDs in the six New England States and those incorporated places that have a population of 2,500 or greater. The reporting universe is approximately 14,000 governments due to budget constraints. The Census Bureau only follows up on a subset of governments designated as the reporting universe.

In the years ending in 1 through 7, the Census Bureau may enter into agreements with individual states to modify the universe of MCDs and/or incorporated places to include additional entities that are known by that state to have had boundary changes, without regard to population size. Each year, the BAS will also include a single respondent request for municipio, barrio, barrio-pueblo, and subbarrio boundary and status information in Puerto Rico and Hawaiian Homeland boundary and status information in Hawaii.

In the years ending in 6 through 9, state participants in the Redistricting Data Program (RDP) may request coordination between the BAS and RDP submissions for the Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP) and Voting District Project (VTDP). The alignment of the BAS with the BBSP and VTDP will facilitate increased cooperation between state and local governments and provide the opportunity to align their effort with updates from state and local government officials participating in the BAS.

No other Federal agency collects these data nor is there a standard collection of this information at the state level. BAS is a unique survey providing a standard result for use by federal, state, local, and tribal governments and by commercial, private, and public organizations.

The Census Bureau has developed and continues to use several methods to collect information on status and updates for legal boundaries. These methods are:

• State Certification

• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

• Consolidation Agreements

• Annual Response

• Paper BAS

• Digital BAS

• Boundary Quality Assessment Reconciliation Project (BQARP)

• Research Projects

Through the BAS State Certification program, the Census Bureau invites the Governor-appointed State Certifying Official (SCO) from each state, to review the boundary and governmental unit information collected during the previous BAS cycle. The purpose of the State Certification program is to verify the accuracy and validate the BAS information with state governments for incorporated places received from the previous BAS cycle. The Census Bureau requests the SCOs review data files, including the attribute data, legal boundary changes, as well as the legal names and functional statuses of incorporated places and MCDs, and any new incorporations or disincorporations reported through the BAS. A SCO may request that the Census Bureau edit the attribute data, add missing records, or remove invalid records if their state government maintains an official record of all effective changes to legal boundaries and governmental units as mandated by state law. State Certification packages contain a letter to the Governor, a State Certifying Official Letter, a Discrepancy Letter, and a State Certification Respondent Guide.

In states with legislation requiring local governments to report all legal boundary updates to a state agency, state officials may enter into a MOU with the Census Bureau. States have the option to report to the Census Bureau the list of governments with known legal boundary changes and the Census Bureau will include in the BAS only those governments with known boundary changes or the state may report the legal boundary changes directly to the Census Bureau on behalf of the governments. The Census Bureau will not survey the local governments if the state reports for them. The Census Bureau will send a reminder email notification to the governments requesting them to report to the state contact, per MOU. The MOU, as agreed upon by the state and the Census Bureau, will outline the terms of the survey and reporting for governments.

Consolidation agreements allow state and county government officials, in states where there are no legislative requirements for local governments to report their legal updates to the state or county, the opportunity to reduce the response burden for their local governments. Under a consolidation agreement, a state or county responds to the BAS for the local governments that agree to allow the state or county to respond on their behalf. The Census Bureau sends the BAS materials to the state or county, as appropriate, and sends a reminder notification to the local government to report their updates to their BAS consolidator.

Annual Response involves an announcement email letter and a one-page form for the state and county governments that do not have a consolidation agreement. Through Annual Response, county, tribal, and local governments indicate whether they have boundary changes to report and provide a current contact person. The Census Bureau requests governments to reply online or through email. The Annual Response method reduces cost and respondent burden through savings on materials and effort. All governments receive this notification regardless of population size. The Census Bureau will conduct telephone follow-up only to governments in the reporting universe due to budget constraints.

If a government requests materials through Annual Response, they may choose to download digital materials or have the materials shipped as a traditional paper package or digital media types.

For the traditional paper package, the respondent completes the BAS form and draws the boundary updates on the maps using pencils provided in the package. The package contains large format maps, printed forms and supplies to complete the survey.

The typical BAS package contains:

1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau;

2. Appropriate BAS Form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information;

a. BAS-1: incorporated places and consolidated cities;

b. BAS-2: counties, parishes, and boroughs;

c. BAS-3: MCDs;

d. BAS-5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas.

3. BAS Respondent Guide;

4. Set of maps;

5. Return postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes;

6. Postcard to notify the Census Bureau of no changes to the boundary; and

7. Supplies for updating paper maps.

Digital BAS includes options to receive software and spatial data to make boundary updates or to make boundary updates electronically by submitting a digital file. A local contact from each government verifies the legal boundary, and then provides boundary changes and updated contact information. An official signs the materials, verifies the forms, and returns the information to the Census Bureau.

The typical Digital BAS package contains:

1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau;

2. Appropriate BAS Form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information;

a. BAS-1: incorporated places and consolidated cities;

b. BAS-2: counties, parishes, and boroughs;

c. BAS-3: MCDs; and

d. BAS-5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas.

3. CD or DVD and software CD for Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS); and

4. Postcard to notify the Census Bureau of no changes to the boundary.

The key dates for governments are as follows:

1. Annual Response emailed or mailed to the local contact in December of each year.

2. BAS package/materials shipped during the months of December, January, February, March, and April of each year.

3. Requests to change the method of participation (i.e., paper to digital submission and vice versa) are due by April 15th of each year.

4. Responses for inclusion in the American Community Survey (ACS) and Population Estimates Program (PEP) are due by March 1st of each year, with an effective date of January 1st of the year in question or earlier.

5. Responses for inclusion in the following year's BAS materials are due by May 31st of each year and will include any annexation received from the previous or current year.

6. In year 2020, all legal documentation for inclusion in the 2020 Census must be effective as of January 1, 2020 or earlier. All legal boundary changes will be placed on hold and updated during the 2021 BAS if effective January 2, 2020 or later.

To improve boundary quality in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System, the Census Bureau is introducing the Boundary Quality Assessment Reconciliation Project (BQARP) to support the BAS program. BQARP is a project to assess, analyze, and improve the spatial quality of legal and administrative boundaries within MAF/TIGER. Ensuring quality boundaries is a critical component of the geographic preparations for the 2020 Census and the Census Bureau's ongoing Geographic Partnership Programs (GPPs) and surveys. In addition, the improvement of boundary quality is an essential element of the Census Bureau's commitment as the responsible agency for legal boundaries under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. The goal of BQARP is to establish a new, accurate baseline for boundaries within an entire state or county, which the BAS would then continue the collection of annexations and de-annexations on a transaction basis as they occur over time. The estimated work burden for participation is 25 hours per participant.

BAS continues to work to improve the survey based on feedback received from local governments. The Census Bureau plans to conduct two research projects during 2016. The first research project is for BAS form redesign for potential use for the 2017 BAS Forms. The second research project is to test an option for local governments to provide a list of addresses associated with an annexation to continue to improve data quality in MAF/TIGER. Participation is voluntary for these research projects. The estimated work burden for participation is 3 hours per participant.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0151.

Form Number: BAS 1, BAS 2, BAS 3, BAS 5, BAS 6, BASSC-1, BASSC-2, BASSC-3, and BASSC-4.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: All active, functioning counties or statistically equivalent entities, incorporated places (including consolidated cities), MCDs, all federally recognized AIRs and ORTLs entities in the United States, and municipios, barrios and subbarrios in Puerto Rico.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

Annual Response Notification: 39,400.

No Change Response: 25,000.

Telephone Follow-up: 14,000.

Packages with Changes: 5,000.

State Certification Review: 49.

State Certification Local Review: 1,000.

Boundary Quality Assessment Reconciliation Project: 16.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation State Review: 50.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation Local Review: 2,000.

Research Projects: 40.

Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 86,555.

Estimated Time per Response:

Annual Response Notification: 30 minutes.

No Change Response: 4 hours.

Telephone Follow-up: 30 minutes.

Packages with Changes: 8 hours.

State Certification Review: 10 hours.

State Certification Local Review: 2 hours.

Boundary Quality Assessment Reconciliation Project: 25 hours.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation State Review: 20 hours.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation Local Review: 2 hours.

Research Projects: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours per Year:

Annual Response Notification: 19,700.

No Change Response: 100,000.

Telephone Follow-up: 7,000.

Packages with Changes: 40,000.

State Certification Review: 490.

State Certification Local Review: 2,000.

Boundary Quality Assessment Reconciliation Project: 400.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation State Review: 1,000.

Redistricting Data Program Reconciliation Local Review: 4,000.

Research Projects: 120.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 174,710.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 6.

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.

Summarization of comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. Comments will also become a matter of public record.

Background

The Department published a notice of initiation of this investigation on February 18, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is uncoated paper from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For discussion of those comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

On May 15, 2015, the petitioners 4 made timely requests for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e).5 On June 1, 2015, we postponed the preliminary determination by 50 days, to August 19, 2015.6

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. There is one mandatory respondent participating in this investigation, Asia Symbol (Guangdong) Paper Co., Ltd., (AS Guangdong), Greenpoint Global Trading (Macao Commercial Offshore) Ltd., (Greenpoint), and Asia Symbol (Shandong) Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd. (AS Shandong (collectively, Asia Symbol). Export price for this company is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c). Specifically, the Department preliminarily selected South Africa as the surrogate country, which is at the same level of economic development as the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Thus, we calculated NV using South African prices, when available, to value the respondent's factors of production (FOPs). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Because mandatory respondents Shandong Sun Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Inc. (Sun Paper), and UPM (China) Co., Ltd. (UPM) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to these respondents, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. As a part of the application of AFA, we are treating these mandatory respondents as part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, because the PRC-wide entity also failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with our requests for information,7 we determined an estimated weighted-average dumping margin based on adverse facts available for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the mandatory respondents. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Sun Paper and UPM did not demonstrate that they are entitled to a separate rate. Accordingly, we consider Sun Paper and UPM to be part of the PRC-Wide Entity. Further, because the Department did not receive a Q&V response from the following companies, the PRC-wide entity also includes: (1) Shandong Tralin; (2) MCC Paper; (3) Shandong Chenming; (4) Shandong Huatai; and (5) Shandong Taishan.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of uncoated paper from the PRC, as described in Appendix I of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, adjusted for export subsidies found in the preliminary determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation.8 Therefore, for cash deposit purposes, we are subtracting from the applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination. Accordingly, the export subsidy offsets are as follows: 0.13 percent for Asia Symbol, and 0.13 percent for PRC-wide entity.9 After this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 97.35 percent for Asia Symbol,and 193.17 percent for the PRC-wide entity.

Further, pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits10 equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed above will be the dumping margin that the Department determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must normally be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 12

Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

Asia Symbol requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.13 In addition, the petitioners also requested that, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, the Department postpone its final determination to 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.14

In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.15

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

The Department initiated this investigation on February 10, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is uncoated paper from Indonesia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For discussion of those comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

The AD order on calcium hypochlorite was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015.1 On July 20, 2015, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b), the Department received a NSR request from Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. (“Haixing Jingmei”).2 Haixing Jingmei certified that it is the exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request is based and that its affiliate, Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd., is the producer of the subject merchandise.3

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii), Haixing Jingmei certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).4 Further, Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd. certified that it is the producer of the subject merchandise upon which the request is based. In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Haixing Jingmei certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the investigation.5 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Haixing Jingmei also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the government of the PRC.6

In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Haixing Jingmei submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment and subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.7

Finally, the Department conducted a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database query and confirmed the price, quantity, date of sale, and date of entry of Haixing Jingmei's sales.8

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(b), and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on the evidence provided by Haixing Jingmei, we find that its request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of the NSR for shipments of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC produced by Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd. and exported by Haixing Jingmei.9 The POR is July 25, 2014, through June 30, 2015.10 If the information supplied by Haixing Jingmei is found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this proceeding, the Department may rescind the review for Haixing Jingmei or apply facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, depending on the facts on record.

Absent a determination that the new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this NSR within 180 days from the date of initiation and the final results within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued.11

It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies (“NMEs”), to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the NME entity-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Haixing Jingmei that will include a section requesting information concerning its eligibility for a separate rate. The NSR will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Haixing Jingmei is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of subject merchandise.

We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of this review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the requesting companies in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Haixing Jingmei certified that its affiliate Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd. produced the subject merchandise which Haixing Jingmei exported, the sales of which are the basis for the NSR request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for subject merchandise which Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd produced and Haixing Jingmei exported.

Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

Background

On January 30, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Determination. 2 Between May 6 and June 6, 2015, we conducted verifications of the questionnaire responses of Nanjing ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd. (“ETDZ”), Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Topsun”), and a customer.3 On May 21, 2015, the Department issued the Post-preliminary Determination.4 Between June 24 and June 29, 2015, interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs. A full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination may be found in the I&D Memo, which is hereby adopted by this notice.5 The I&D Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed I&D Memo and the electronic versions are identical in content.

The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (“boltless steel shelving”). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) necessary to assemble a completed shelving unit (with or without decks) are packaged together for ultimate purchase by the end-user. The scope also includes add-on kits. Add-on kits include, but are not limited to, kits that allow the end-user to add an extension shelving unit onto an existing boltless steel shelving unit such that the extension and the original unit will share common frame elements (e.g., two posts). The term “boltless” refers to steel shelving in which the vertical and horizontal supports forming the frame are assembled primarily without the use of nuts and bolts, or screws. The vertical and horizontal support members for boltless steel shelving are assembled by methods such as, but not limited to, fitting a rivet, punched or cut tab, or other similar connector on one support into a hole, slot or similar receptacle on another support. The supports lock together to form the frame for the shelving unit, and provide the structural integrity of the shelving unit separate from the inclusion of any decking. The incidental use of nuts and bolts, or screws to add accessories, wall anchors, tie-bars or shelf supports does not remove the product from scope. Boltless steel shelving units may also come packaged as partially assembled, such as when two upright supports are welded together with front-to-back supports, or are otherwise connected, to form an end unit for the frame. The boltless steel shelving covered by this investigation may be commonly described as rivet shelving, welded frame shelving, slot and tab shelving, and punched rivet (quasi-rivet) shelving as well as by other trade names. The term “deck” refers to the shelf that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports (beams or braces) to provide the horizontal storage surface of the shelving unit.

The scope includes all boltless steel shelving meeting the description above, regardless of (1) vertical support or post type (including but not limited to open post, closed post and tubing); (2) horizontal support or beam/brace profile (including but not limited to Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam and cargo rack); (3) number of supports; (4) surface coating (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc and other metallic coating); (5) number of levels; (6) weight capacity; (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, and corner units); (8) decking material (including but not limited to wire decking, particle board, laminated board or no deck at all); or (9) the boltless method by which vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to keyhole and rivet, slot and tab, welded frame, punched rivet and clip).

Specifically excluded from the scope are:

• Wall-mounted shelving, defined as shelving that is hung on the wall and does not stand on, or transfer load to, the floor; 6

• wire shelving units, which consist of shelves made from wire that incorporates both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create the finished shelving unit;

• bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units; and

• made-to-order shelving systems.

Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0020, 9403.20.0025, and 9403.20.0026, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from numerous interested parties, which we have summarized and addressed in the accompanying I&D Memo.7

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the I&D Memo. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the I&D Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix.

For purposes of this final determination, we relied on facts available, and have drawn an adverse inference, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), in determining the countervailability of the GOC's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (“LTAR”), the GOC's provision of hot-rolled coiled steel for LTAR, and for certain companies which did not respond to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire. The Department also relied on facts available in determining the countervailability of the following programs: Exhibition Subsidy, Foreign Trade Bureau Award, Export Credit Insurance and Export Subsidy for High-tech Merchandise, and the Innovative Growth Subsidy. The Department notes that because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the I&D Memo.

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the I&D Memo.

In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated.9 We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 30, 2015, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after May 30, 2015, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from January 30, 2015, through May 29, 2015.

If the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and we will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (“APO”), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 18, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is uncoated paper from Portugal. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For discussion of those comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

On May 18, 2015, Petitioners 4 submitted a timely request for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e).5 On June 1, 2015, we postponed the preliminary determination by 50 days.6 As a result of the postponement, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now August 19, 2015.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. There is one mandatory respondent participating in this investigation, Portucel S.A. (“Portucel”). Export price for this company is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Portucel is the only respondent for which the Department calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all others” rate and pursuant to section 735(d)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Portucel, as referenced in the “Preliminary Determination” section below.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of uncoated paper from Portugal, as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the preliminary weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above.7 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.9 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On July 30, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), Portucel requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for Portucel, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.10 In addition, Petitioners requested that the Department postpone its final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i).11

Background

On April 1, 2015, the Department published its Preliminary Determination. 1 On April 17, 2015, we published an Amended Preliminary Determination and postponement of the final determination.2 We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV and Amended Preliminary Determination. For a list of the parties that filed case and rebuttal briefs, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

Background

On May 15, 2015, in accordance with sections 751(b) and 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216(b), 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), Ashland Specialty Ingredients, G.P. (Ashland), the petitioner and sole domestic producer of CMC, requested revocation of the Order with respect to Finland as part of an expedited CCR. On June 8, 2015, CP Kelco Oy and its U.S. affiliate, CP Kelco U.S. Inc., (collectively, CP Kelco), the sole manufacturer of CMC in Finland and its affiliated U.S. importer, requested that the Department grant Ashland's CCR request and revoke the AD order on CMC from Finland, due to the lack of interest in continuation of the Order. On July 8, 2015, the Department preliminarily determined to revoke the Order and invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results

We received no further comments from interested parties.

The merchandise covered by these orders is all purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) & (vi), provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) on an expedited basis if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order, in whole or in part. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), we find that the petitioner's affirmative statement of no interest constitutes good cause to conduct this review. On June 8, 2015, CP Kelco also filed a letter in support of Ashland's CCR request.

Ashland stated that, as the sole U.S. producer of CMC, it accounts for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. Ashland also stated that it has no interest in the continuation of the Order. 3 Therefore, at the request of Ashland and in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) & (vi), we are revoking the Order on CMC from Finland. As stated in the Preliminary Results, the revocation will be effective July 1, 2014, which is the first day of the most recent period not subject to administrative review.

Because we determine that there are changed circumstances that warrant the revocation of the Order, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 1, 2014 and to release any cash deposit or bond on all unliquidated entries of the merchandise covered by the revocation that are not covered by the final results of an administrative review or automatic liquidation. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and AD deposit requirements.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221(c)(3), and 351.222(g)(vii).

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 18, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is uncoated paper from Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For discussion of those comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

On May 15, 2015, the Petitioners 4 made a timely request for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e).5 On June 1, 2015, we postponed the preliminary determination by 50 days, to August 19, 2015.6

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. There is one respondent in this investigation, Paper Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australian Paper). Constructed export price and export price for this company are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Australian Paper is the only respondent for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Australian Paper, as referenced in the “Preliminary Determination” section below.

On July 15, 2015, the Petitioners filed timely a critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration from Australia.7 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), when a critical circumstances allegation is submitted more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist no later than the date of the preliminary determination. We conducted analyses of critical circumstances for Australian Paper in accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, and preliminarily determined that: (1) Importers of uncoated paper from Australian Paper knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the merchandise under consideration at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act; and (2) imports of the subject merchandise from these companies have not been massive over a relatively short period in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Further, for the companies subject to the “all others” rate, it is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis for these companies based on the experience of investigated companies.8 Accordingly, we find that the critical circumstances determination for Australian Paper should also be applied to all others, given that Australian Paper is the only known, identified producer in the petition and the initiation.9 For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain uncoated paper from Australia, as described in Appendix I of this notice, for Australian Paper and the companies covered by the all others rate which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. However, because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to Australia, we will not instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of covered entries from those companies entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption up to 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.10

Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits 11 equal to the dumping margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondents listed above will be the respondent-specific rate we determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified above, but the producer is, the rate will be the specific rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be the all others rate. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.13 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

Australian Paper requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.14

In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.15

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of uncoated paper from Australia before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Summary of Report

Climate-related changes in ocean and coastal ecosystems such as warming oceans, rising seas, loss of sea ice, ocean acidification and coastal droughts are impacting the nation's valuable living marine resources and the many people, businesses and communities that depend on them. These changes are expected to increase with continued changes in the planet's climate and ocean system affecting jobs, impacting economies and disrupting traditional ways of life. There is much at risk. For example, in the United States ocean related commercial and recreational fisheries generate approximately $200 billion in sales and support 1.7 million jobs each year.1 These current and future climate-related changes also affect the information, tools and actions needed to fulfill the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) stewardship mandates for marine resources and the communities that depend on them.

The NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy (Strategy) is part of a proactive approach to increase the production, delivery, and use of climate-related information needed to fulfill the agency's mandates in a changing climate, including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act and others. The Strategy responds to growing demands and directives for information and tools to prepare for and respond to climate impacts on marine and coastal resources, including the National Fish Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (http://wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/). It provides a nationally consistent blueprint to address the following seven science objectives:

1. Identify appropriate, climate-informed reference points for managing living marine resources.

2. Identify robust strategies for managing living marine resources under changing climate conditions.

3. Design adaptive decision processes that can incorporate and respond to changing climate conditions.

4. Identify future states of marine and coastal ecosystems, living marine resources, and resource-dependent human communities in a changing climate.

5. Identify the mechanisms of climate impacts on ecosystems, living marine resources and resource-dependent human communities.

6. Track trends in living marine resources and resource-dependent human communities and provide early warning of change.

7. Build and maintain the science infrastructure needed to fulfill NOAA Fisheries mandates with changing climate conditions.

Implementing the Strategy is crucial for fulfilling NOAA Fisheries mandates, reducing climate-related impacts and increasing the resilience of living marine resources and resource-dependent communities in a changing climate. The Strategy recommends specific near- and medium-term actions that address common information needs across NOAA Fisheries mandates and regions.

The draft Climate Science Strategy underwent public review from January thru March 2015 (80 FR 3558, January 23, 2015) and received approximately 35 stakeholder comments from fishery management councils, states, tribes, academics, Non-Governmental Organizations and members of the public. The comments were generally positive with agreement on the need for action and support for both the content of the strategy and its implementation.

The Strategy is designed to be customized and implemented through Regional Action Plans that focus on building regional capacity and partnerships to address the Strategy's seven objectives. In 2015-2016, NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and Regional Offices will develop Regional Action Plans to identify strengths, weaknesses, priorities, and actions to address the Strategy over the next 5 years. Development of the Regional Action Plans will include opportunity for input from science and management partners and others. The Strategy is a key part of NOAA Fisheries efforts to respond to growing demands for information to help reduce impacts and increase the resilience of living marine resources and the communities that depend on them in a changing climate.

A permit application has been submitted by CalAm for construction and operation of its proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP or Project). The purpose of the MPWSP is to replace existing water supplies for CalAm's Monterey District service area.

The MPWSP comprises various facilities and improvements, including: A sub-surface seawater intake system; a 9.6-million-gallons-per-day (mgd) seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination plant; desalinated water storage and conveyance facilities; and expanded Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities.

The desalination facility would be capable of producing 10,627 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water on a 46-acre site located north of the City of Marina on unincorporated Monterey County property. The MPWSP proposes ten subsurface slant wells to draw seawater from beneath the ocean floor in Monterey Bay to produce the source water for the desalination plant. The subsurface slant wells would be located primarily within the City of Marina, in the active mining area of the CEMEX sand mining facility. The slant wells would be approximately 700 to 1000 feet in length, with well tips located at approximately 200 to 220 feet below mean sea level. Up to 24.1 mgd of source water would be needed to produce 9.6 mgd of desalinated product water.

The desalination plant would generate approximately 13.98 mgd of brine, including 0.4 mgd of decanted backwash water. The brine would be discharged into Monterey Bay via a 36-inch diameter pipeline to a new connection with the existing Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency's (MRWPCA) outfall and diffuser located at the wastewater facility.

This notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and conduct scoping is published in accordance with: Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ NEPA Regulations).

The Project was subject to a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in April 2015. The NEPA environmental documentation will include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which may be issued as a stand-alone document or as a joint draft CEQA/NEPA (EIR/EIS) document with the CPUC.

The environmental document will identify and assess potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and a range of alternatives. Federal agencies would use the EIS to consider related permits or other approvals for the Project as proposed. Possible alternatives could include not approving the Project, approving a reduced size Project, or approving the Project with additional modifications identified as part of the terms and conditions of a permit or other approval.

Publication of this notice initiates the public scoping process to solicit public and agency comment, in writing or at the public meeting, regarding the full spectrum of environmental issues and concerns relating to the scope and content of the EIS, including:

• Analyses of the human and marine resources that could be affected;

• the nature and extent of the potential significant impacts on those resources;

• a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action; and

• mitigation measures.

This NOI is published by NOAA/MBNMS, the lead federal agency. MBNMS has requested CPUC to re-issue the Project EIR as part of a joint draft CEQA/NEPA document. If the CPUC, as CEQA lead agency, determines that a joint CEQA/NEPA document is appropriate, the two agencies will prepare a joint draft EIR/EIS after completion of the federal scoping process. The NEPA scoping session begins at 2:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 10, 2015 at Sally Griffin Active Living Center in Pacific Grove, CA.

This notice also advises the public that NOAA will coordinate its consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470), and Federal Consistency review under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), along with its ongoing NEPA process including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings to also meet the requirements of other federal laws.

In fulfilling its consultation responsibility under the ESA, MSA, NHPA, CZMA and NEPA, NOAA intends to identify consulting parties and involve the public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures, and develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on endangered species, essential fish habitat, historic properties, or coastal zone management issues, and describe them in any environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Questionnaire of Local Inhabitants, DD Form 1074; Disposition of Civilian Remains, DD Form 3004; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and document information from local inhabitants on the location and circumstances surrounding the death of U.S. personnel for whom the Department has responsibility to recover and provide mortuary services and to obtain and document the election of the person authorized to effect disposition of civilian remains for whom the Department provides mortuary services. If the person authorized to effect disposition does not sign this form, then the Department cannot provide mortuary and transportation services in accordance with their elections or instructions to the extent allowed by statute or DoD policy. This collection is authorized by 10 U.S. Code sections 1481 through 1488. In addition, the Secretary of Defense directed the addition of these forms to ensure transparency and standardization of the mortuary procedures as defined in the Final Report of the Dover Port Mortuary Independent Review Subcommittee Implementation Plan and 180-day study. Currently there is a lack of standardization across the Military Services, as each Service currently utilizes different forms for this election and they do not all capture the same information even on similar forms. Standardizing the information collected is essential in maintaining the transparency and integrity of the mortuary affairs process.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Person Authorized to Effect Disposition (PAED); family members of the deceased; local inhabitants.

Annual Burden Hours: 60.

Number of Respondents: 120.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

The respondents are the person authorized to effect disposition of the civilian decedent for whom mortuary services as described on DD Form 3004 is recommended or required, and the DoD witness to that election. The person authorized to effect disposition documents their election on DD Form 3004, and signs the form. The election and signature are witnessed by a military service member or DoD civilian to formalize this process and document the election. This form becomes a part of the Official Individual Deceased Personnel File. If the person authorized to effect disposition does not sign this form, then the Department cannot provide the authorized mortuary and transportation services.

The respondents for DD Form 1074 are the Military Service Member and the local inhabitant being interviewed. The Service Member is the individual completing the form, however in the process information is collected on the person interviewed. This form becomes a part of the Official Individual Deceased Personnel File. This form documents the location and circumstances surrounding a deceased individual as applicable.

Currently there is a lack of standardization across the Military Services, as each Service currently utilizes different forms for these elections and documentation and they do not all capture the same information even on similar forms. Standardizing the information collected is essential in maintaining the transparency and integrity of the mortuary affairs process.

The final rule published in the Federal Register on September 30, 1994 (59 FR 49818) sets forth rules to implement the CHCBP required by 10 U.S.C. 1078a. Included in this final rule were provisions for updating the CHCBP premiums for each federal fiscal year. As stated in the final rule, the premiums are based on Federal Employee Health Benefit Program employee and agency contributions required for a comparable health benefits plan, plus an administrative fee. Premiums may be revised annually and shall be published annually.

The Defense Health Agency has updated the quarterly premiums for Fiscal Year 2016 as shown below:

The above premiums are effective for services rendered on or after October 1, 2015.

1. Proposed Action. The Corps in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsors (The Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the City of Woodland) is conducting a cost-shared feasibility study on alternative flood risk reduction measures to the city of Woodland, Yolo County, CA, adjacent unincorporated areas, and agricultural lands. The study is authorized by section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874). A reconnaissance study of flooding problems in the westside tributaries, including Putah and Cache Creeks, and the Yolo Bypass was conducted in 1993-1994 under the authorization of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1993. Recommendations from the reconnaissance study resulted in the pursuit of the present feasibility study.

2. Alternatives. The feasibility study's SDEIS will evaluate a combination of one or more flood control measures including setback levee along Cache Creek, stream channel improvements, a north Woodland floodway, a northern bypass into the Colusa Drain, and a no-action alternative. Mitigation measures for any significant adverse effects on environmental resources will be identified and incorporated into the alternatives in compliance with various Federal and State statutes.

3. Scoping Process.

a. A public scoping meeting will be held on September 3, 2015, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Woodland Community Center at 2001 East Street in Woodland, CA. An overview of the study and the NEPA process will be presented, and an opportunity will be afforded to all interested parties to provide comments regarding the scope of the SDEIS analysis as well as potential alternatives.

b. The study plan provides for public scoping, meetings, and comment. The Corps has initiated a process of involving concerned Federal, State, and local agencies and individuals. The City of Woodland has held periodic public meetings to discuss issues and solicit public comment. Also, an initial public scoping meeting was held by the Corps on May 30, 2000. Comments received focused on flooding along Cache Creek, land subsidence, gravel mining, and effects of alternatives on the Cache Creek Settling Basin. In addition, comments received on the draft EIS submitted for review on March 21, 2003 are also being considered in the SDEIS. Finally, public awareness of the development of a proposed array of alternatives is being pursued through individual meetings between sponsors and key stakeholders. An initial public information meeting was held in November 2013.

c. Issues that will be analyzed in depth in the SDEIS include effects on vegetation and wildlife, special-status species, water quality, air quality, socio-economic conditions, and cultural resources. Other issues may include geology, soils, topography, noise, esthetics, climate and recreation. Also to be considered is the city ordinance adopted by the City of Woodland restricting any flood solution that would similarly produce deep floodplains north of the city (City Code Section 10.1, Flood Control Policy).

d. The Corps will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Endangered Species and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts. The Corps will also consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and coordinate with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish consultation requirements with tribes having trust assets and tribal interests that could be affected by the feasibility study's outcome.

e. A 45-day review period will be allowed for all interested agencies and individuals to review and comment on the draft FR/SDEIS. All interested persons are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be contacted about the draft FR/SDEIS.

4. Availability. The FR/SDEIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment in May 2016.

DOE/FE Evaluation

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

• Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 4 and

• Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).5

Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-97-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-97-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

DOE/FE Evaluation

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

• Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 4 and

• Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).5

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental document: Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014).5 Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR Part 590.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-78-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-78-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

Type of Meeting: Open and Closed.

Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to meet in open session on September 18, 2015 from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is scheduled to discuss its studies on the future of cities and on technology for older Americans. They will also hear from speakers who will remark on science, technology, and standards. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST may hold a closed meeting of approximately one hour with the President on September 18, 2015, which must take place in the White House for the President's scheduling convenience and to maintain Secret Service protection. This meeting will be closed to the public because such portion of the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

The public comment period for this meeting will take place on September 18, 2015 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2015. Phone or email reservations will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of up to 15 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the PCAST members.

Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted continuously, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2015 so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to this meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Dr. Ashley Predith at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

• Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 1 and

• Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).2

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-96-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-96-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

Western and the Service, as joint lead agencies, prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Draft and Final PEIS (DOE/EIS-0408), the Final PEIS being issued May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24915), in response to an increase in wind energy development and interconnection requests. Western and the Service have interests in streamlining their procedures for conducting environmental reviews of wind energy applications by implementing standardized evaluation procedures and identifying measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects in the Upper Great Plains Region (UGP Region), which encompasses all or parts of the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Since formalizing the process and procedures for environmental reviews would be Federal actions, Western and the Service prepared the PEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Rural Utilities Service have participated in the development of the PEIS as cooperating agencies.

Western and the Service have cooperatively prepared the PEIS to: (1) Assess the potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects within the UGP Region that may interconnect to Western's transmission system, or that may propose placement of project elements on grassland or wetland easements managed by the Service; and (2) evaluate how environmental impacts would differ under alternative sets of environmental evaluation procedures, best management practices, avoidance strategies, and mitigation measures that the agencies would request project developers to implement, as appropriate, for specific wind energy projects.

The objective of the PEIS is to proactively strengthen and streamline the environmental review process by having already analyzed and addressed general environmental concerns while specifically providing for Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) compliance for wind development projects that incorporate design elements to reduce impacts. The PEIS analyzes, to the extent practicable, the impacts resulting from development of wind energy projects and the effectiveness of best management practices, avoidance of sensitive areas, and mitigation measures in reducing potential impacts. Impacts and mitigation have been analyzed for each environmental resource, and all components of wind energy projects have been addressed, including turbines, transformers, collector lines, overhead lines, access roads, substation installations, and operational and maintenance activities. Many of the potential impacts resulting from constructing and operating these types of wind energy infrastructure are well known from existing wind energy generation projects. The environmental procedures and mitigation strategies developed have been structured to be consistent with Western's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s (SPP) Open Access Transmission Tariff, both of which include environmental review provisions.1

In addition to the PEIS, Western and the Service engaged in informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536, in support of the PEIS process. A programmatic biological assessment (Programmatic BA) was prepared for listed and candidate species occurring in the UGP Region. Development of the Programmatic BA was closely coordinated with the Service's North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. That office issued a letter of concurrence with the Programmatic BA on July 7, 2015, as a result of this consultation.

The agencies also investigated a programmatic approach to Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108. Since Section 106 consultation is highly site-specific, it was determined that effective consultation could only be accomplished once an individual project location was defined. However, general avoidance and protection measures for cultural resources and historic properties that would be implemented were identified and included in the analysis.

Western's purpose and need for Federal action was presented in the Draft and Final PEIS: Western needs to streamline the environmental review process for wind energy project interconnection requests to help expedite wind energy resource development in the UGP Region while maintaining environmental protections.

Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the PEIS and are briefly described below. More detailed information on the alternatives may be found in the Final PEIS, which can be accessed from the Web site provided above.

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, Western would continue to consider wind energy project interconnection requests under the procedures currently used to evaluate and address the environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects. Requests would be processed, reviewed, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including separate NEPA, ESA Section 7, and NHPA Section 106 reviews performed for each specific project.

Alternative 1—Preferred Alternative: Under Alternative 1, Western would adopt a standardized process for collecting information and evaluating and reviewing environmental impacts of wind energy interconnection requests. Best management practices and mitigation measures developed in the PEIS programmatic process would be employed to minimize the potential environmental impacts of wind energy interconnection projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses, either environmental assessments (EAs) or streamlined EISs, would tier off (eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues) the analyses in the Final PEIS as long as the appropriate identified conservation measures were implemented as part of proposed projects. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.20, these project-specific NEPA documents would summarize the information and issues covered in the Final PEIS or incorporate relevant discussions by reference. This approach would allow for more efficient NEPA documents that would properly focus on local or site-specific issues. The decision to pursue a tiered EA or EIS would be made similar to any other proposal. If the potential for new significant impact appeared low, then an EA process could be initiated, with the understanding that the identification of any potentially new significant impact would require transition to an EIS process. It is anticipated that the tiered NEPA document in most instances will be an EA. If there appeared to be a potential for new significant environmental impact, based on the project description and site location, then a tiered EIS process would be initiated. Western may minimize the risk of project and schedule impacts from such a transition by conducting public scoping—informing the public about a federal action and soliciting public comments—when using a tiered EA process.

Project-specific ESA Section 7 consultations would utilize the Programmatic BA so long as the applicable best management practices, minimization measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements established in the Programmatic BA were implemented. Project proponents who could not agree to the requirements in the Programmatic BA would be required to conduct a separate ESA Section 7 consultation with the Service. NHPA Section 106 and related tribal consultation would continue unchanged from the present practices; since cultural resources issues are very site-specific, it was not possible to address them programmatically beyond including general avoidance and protection measures and committing to the established processes and procedures.

The primary objective of Alternative 1 was to collect relevant natural resources information; evaluate the typical impacts of wind energy projects and associated facilities on those resources; identify effective best management practices, minimization measures, and mitigation measures that could reduce impacts; provide information about areas that would be more sensitive to development impacts and encourage avoidance of siting projects in these areas; and have all this material available to support site-specific tiered environmental reviews. The parallel Programmatic BA would similarly expedite the ESA Section 7 consultation by having previously established minimization measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements, by species, that if committed to and implemented would constitute compliance with ESA Section 7 without a separate consultation.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would be exactly the same as Alternative 1 for Western. However, under Alternative 2 the Service would not allow easement exchanges to accommodate the development of wind energy facilities. By comparison, Alternative 1 would provide a standardized process for the Service to allow easement exchanges, and facilitate wind energy development while retaining or enhancing the habitat and wildlife values the easement program was designed to provide. The differences in the Service's approach to siting on easements do not affect Western's decision, and Western's actions would be the same under both alternatives.

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, separate project-specific NEPA evaluations would be required for each interconnection request. Western would not request additional best management practices or mitigation measures of wind energy developers beyond those mandated under applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. More effort would be required to produce site-specific NEPA documents because of the reduced scope of the PEIS, and time frames for the site-specific documents would be extended accordingly. In essence Alternative 3 is a minimalist programmatic approach that would incorporate all mandated environmental review requirements, but would not extend beyond them. Any mandated or required provisions included in either Alternative 1 or 2 are also incorporated in Alternative 3.

Since the proposed action is programmatic in nature and did not include on-the-ground activities, no direct impacts to the human environment would occur under any of the PEIS alternatives. However, the PEIS analysis identified generic wind energy development impacts and evaluated a large number of best management practices and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferred alternative because it develops comprehensive procedures and mitigation measures, results in consistency of the application and authorization process, and supports wind energy development by facilitating the understanding of the requirements for approval by potential wind energy project developers. The development of renewable energy resources is a priority national policy, and Alternative 1 supports that objective. One of the objectives of the proposed action was to avoid or minimize environmental harm from future wind energy projects, and that objective is best met byAlternative 1.

Western has determined that Alternative 1, the agency preferred alternative, best meets the agency's needs. Alternative 1 is also the environmentally preferred alternative, and would afford the greatest protection for environmental resources that would be impacted by future wind energy projects. Therefore, it is Western's decision to implement Alternative 1, and use the program defined by that alternative for all applicable future wind energy project interconnection requests in the UGP Region.2

This decision is based on the information contained in the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS. This ROD was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA § 1505.2 and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR 1021 et seq.

In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs), as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs.

The EPA hereby announces the designation of two new equivalent methods for measuring pollutant concentrations in the ambient air: One for PM2.5 and one for ozone. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54326-54341).

The new PM2.5 Class III equivalent method is nearly identical to a corresponding Met One sampler (EQPM-1013-209) that had been previously designated by EPA as an equivalent method sampler for PM2.5. The significant difference is that the newly designated PM2.5 equivalent method sampler is configured to use an URG-2000-30EGN PM2.5 as the principle size separator (fractionator) for the sampler rather than the WINS impactor or the BGI VSCCTM used in the corresponding PM2.5 equivalent method sampler. The newly designated Class III equivalent method is identified as follows:

EQPM-0715-266, Met One Instruments, Inc. BAM-1020 Beta Attenuation Mass Monitor—PM2.5 FEM Configuration,” configured for 24 1-hour average measurements of PM2.5 by beta attenuation, using a glass fiber filter tape roll (460130 or 460180) and a sample flow rate of 16.67 liters/min and with the standard (BX-802) EPA PM10 inlet (meeting 40 CFR 50 Appendix L specifications) and with an URG-2000-30EGN PM2.5 (BX-809) cyclonic separator, BX-596 combo T/RH sensor, BX-827(110V) or BX-830(230V). Instrument must be operated in accordance with the BAM 1020 Particulate Monitor operation manual, revision k or later. This PM2.5 equivalent method designation only applies to the BAM-1020 configured with the URG-2000-30EGN cyclone.

In the particular case of the new Met One Class III PM2.5 equivalent method, a corresponding Met One PM2.5 equivalent method sampler (RFPS-1013-209) may be converted to the equivalent method configuration by replacement of the WINS impactor or the VSCCTM cyclone with the URG-2000-30EGN cyclone specified in the equivalent method description. The URG-2000-30EGN cyclone should be purchased from the sampler manufacturer, who will also furnish installation, conversion, operation, and maintenance instructions for the URG-2000-30EGN cyclone, as well as a new equivalent method identification label to be placed on the sampler. If the conversion is to be permanent, the original designation equivalent method label should be removed from the sampler and replaced with the new designated equivalent method label.

The application for equivalent method determination for the PM2.5 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on June 18, 2015. This monitor is commercially available from the applicant, Met One Instruments, Inc., 1600 Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 97526.

The new Ozone equivalent method is an automated monitoring method (analyzer) utilizing a measurement principle based on based on non-dispersive ultraviolet absorption photometry. The newly designated equivalent method is identified as follows:

EQOA-0815-227, “2B Technologies Model Personal Ozone Monitor (POM),” operated in a range of 0-0.5 ppm in an environment of 20-30 °C, temperature and pressure compensation, using a 10 second averaging time, with a 12V DC source supplied by a 100-240V AC power adapter, operated according to the POM Operation Manual and with or without the following: Cigarette lighter adapter or a 12V DC battery or a 7-24 V battery for portable operation, USB data port with computer cable.

The application for equivalent method determination for the ozone method was received by the Office of Research and Development on September 18, 2013. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, 2B Technology, Inc., 2100 Central Ave., Suite 105, Boulder, CO 80303.

Test monitors representative of these methods have been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted in the application, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that these methods should be designated as equivalent methods.

As designated equivalent methods, these methods are acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, the method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the applicable designated method descriptions (see the identification of the methods above).

Use of the methods also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program” EPA-454/B-08-003, December, 2008. Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

Consistent or repeated noncompliance should be reported to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

Designation of this new equivalent method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

This proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs under CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) and 104(e)(6), concerning the Former Kocher Drive Dump Superfund Site in Bennington, Vermont, requires the settling party, the Town of Bennington, Vermont to pay $175,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, consisting of principal and interest, on the following payment schedule: (1) $50,000 within 10 days of the Effective Date of the settlement; (2) $75,000 on or before December 31, 2015; and (3) the balance of $50,000 on or before December 31, 2016. The settlement also requires the Town to comply with any request or order from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources relating to the Site.

The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Site, and protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(h)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(2) and 9622(h)(4). The settlement has been approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice.

The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator about areas that may include, among other things, “advice about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice, including environment-related strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental justice.”

The meeting shall be used to discuss and receive comments about the nexus between sustainability and environmental justice. Specifically, the NEJAC will discuss these primary areas: (1) Dialogue about Civil Rights, (2) NEJAC Charge on improving environmental outcomes through monitoring, (3) Update on the Clean Power Plan, (4) NEJAC Charge on Youth Perspectives on Climate Change.

A. Public Comment: Individuals or groups making oral presentations during the public comment periods will be limited to a total time of seven minutes. To accommodate the large number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of an organization or group will be allowed to speak. If time permits, multiple representatives from the same organization can provide comment at the end of the session. In addition, those who did not sign up in advance to give public comment can sign up on site. The suggested format for written public comments is as follows: Name of Speaker; Name of Organization/Community; City and State; Email address; and a brief description of the concern and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by Midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Monday, August 31, 2015, will be included in the materials distributed to the members of the NEJAC. Written comments received after that date and time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All information should be sent to the mailing address, email address, or fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

B. Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Jasmin Muriel, at (202) 564-4287 or via email at [email protected]. To request special accommodations for a disability, please contact Ms. Muriel at least four working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to establish criteria for a program to monitor not more than 30 unregulated contaminants every five years. Information collected under the program supports Agency decision making regarding whether or not to regulate particular contaminants in drinking water. UCMR 3 addresses the third group of 30 contaminants and was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2012.

UCMR 3 “Assessment Monitoring” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all large systems (those systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large systems (those systems serving more than 100,000 people), and for a nationally representative sample of 800 small public water systems (PWSs) (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). The “Screening Survey” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all very large systems, 320 randomly-selected large systems, and 480 randomly selected small systems. “Pre-Screen Testing” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for a sample of 800 very small (systems serving 1,000 or fewer people) undisinfected ground water systems.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Public Water Systems (PWSs) and States, territories and tribes with primacy to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. The information collection is carried out per Section 1445(a) of SDWA.

Estimated number of respondents: There are approximately 6,351 respondents to UCMR 3, including approximately 2,098 PWSs that will monitor during the ICR years of 2015-2017, and 56 states and primacy agents.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 17,902 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $7,449,927 per year, including $6,546,967 in non-labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 22,765 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the existing ICR. This decrease is an adjustment to estimates due to the reduced number of PWSs that have to monitor during the ICR period of 2015-2017.

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.

Abstract: The Microbial Rules Renewal ICR examines public water system, air carrier and primacy agency burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the microbial drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. The following microbial regulations are included: the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR), the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), the Ground Water Rule (GWR) and the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR). Future microbial-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR after the regulations are promulgated and the initial, rule-specific, ICRs are due to expire.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are public water systems, air carriers and primacy agencies.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.

Estimated number of respondents: 149,864 (total).

Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually).

Total estimated burden: 14,683,598 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

TTotal estimated cost: $652,507,000 (per year), includes $21,982,000 annualized capital and $88,035,000 operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 913,658 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is a result of inclusion of the RTCR burden (839,526 hours) and expanded implementation requirements for the GWR and LT2ESWTR; updating relevant baseline information for each rule with the most current and accurate information available (e.g., Public Water System inventories); and, updating burden to incorporate the results of consultation with stakeholders. Where appropriate and available, estimated violation, waiver and other associated rates have also been updated to reflect current information on rule compliance.

While not required by law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that reissuance of an agency's EEO policy statement each fiscal year is a symbol of the agency leadership's commitment to EEO and Diversity principles. The FCA conducted its annual review of Policy Statement FCA-PS-62 on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity and made several minor changes. First, due to the change in FCA leadership, the term “Chair” has been replaced with “Chairman.” Second, a parenthetical has been added to one of the bases of discrimination to read, “sex (including sexual orientation),” to clarify EEOC's jurisdiction after the recent issuance of Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 1020133080 (July 16, 2015). Finally, several stylistic, nonsubstantive changes were made.

The text of the updated Policy Statement is set forth below in its entirety. All FCA Board policy statements may be viewed on FCA's Web site. From www.fca.gov, select “Laws & Regulations,” then select “FCA Handbook,” then select “FCA Board Policy Statements.”

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 2015.

EFFECT ON PREVIOUS ACTION: Replaces FCA-PS-62 [NV 14-15] dated August 26, 2014 (79 FR 50908, 8/26/14).

SOURCE OF AUTHORITY: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 721 et seq.); Equal Pay Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)); Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 3112); Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) (5 U.S.C. 2301); Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff et seq.); section 5.9 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2243); Executive Order 11478 (Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government), as amended by Executive Orders 13087 and 13152 to include prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation and status as a parent; Executive Order 13166 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency); 29 CFR part 1614; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Management Directives.

THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION BOARD HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENT:

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) Board reaffirms its commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity (EEOD) and its belief that all FCA employees should be treated with dignity and respect. The Board also provides guidance to Agency management and staff for deciding and taking action in these critical areas.

Unquestionably, the employees who comprise the FCA are its most important resource. The Board fully recognizes that the Agency draws its strength from the dedication, experience, and diversity of its employees. The Board is firmly committed to taking whatever steps are needed to protect the rights of its staff and to carrying out programs that foster the development of each employee's potential. We believe an investment in efforts that strongly promote EEOD will prevent the conflict and the high costs of correction for taking no, or inadequate, action in these areas.

THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION (FCA) BOARD ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENT:

It is the policy of the FCA to prohibit discrimination in Agency policies, program practices, and operations. Employees, applicants for employment, and members of the public who seek to take part in FCA programs, activities, and services will be treated fairly. The FCA Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that FCA meets all EEOD requirements and initiatives in accordance with laws and regulations, to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination and that values all employees. FCA, under the appropriate laws and regulations, will:

• Ensure equal employment opportunity based on merit and qualification, without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), age (40 or older), national origin, disability, status as a parent, genetic information, or filing of a complaint, participation in discrimination or harassment complaint proceedings, or other opposition to discrimination;

• Provide for the prompt and fair consideration of complaints of discrimination;

• Make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants for employment and employees with physical or mental disabilities under law;

• Make reasonable accommodations based on applicants' and employees' religious beliefs or practices, consistent with Title VII;

• Provide an environment free from harassment to all employees;

• Create and maintain an organizational culture that recognizes, values, and supports employee and public diversity and inclusion;

• Develop objectives within the Agency's operation and strategic planning process to meet the goals of EEOD and this policy;

• Implement affirmative programs to carry out this policy within the Agency; and

• To the extent practicable, seek to encourage the Farm Credit System to continue its efforts to promote and increase diversity.

The FCA intends to be a model employer. That is, as far as possible, FCA will build and maintain a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of individual differences evident throughout this Nation. The Board views individual differences as complementary and believes these differences enrich our organization. When individual differences are respected, recognized, and valued, diversity becomes a powerful force that can contribute to achieving superior results. Therefore, we will create, maintain, and continuously improve on an organizational culture that fully recognizes, values, and supports employee diversity. The Board is committed to promoting and supporting an inclusive environment that provides to all employees, individually and collectively, the chance to work to their full potential in the pursuit of the Agency's mission. We will provide everyone the opportunity to develop to his or her fullest potential. When a barrier to someone achieving this goal exists, we will strive to remove this barrier.

The Board reaffirms its commitment to ensuring FCA conducts all of its employment practices in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Board expects full cooperation and support from everyone associated with recruitment, selection, development, and promotion to ensure such actions are free of discrimination. All employees will be evaluated on their EEOD achievements as part of their overall job performance. Though staff commitment is important, the role of supervisors is paramount to success. Agency supervisors must be coaches and are responsible for helping all employees develop their talents and give their best efforts in contributing to the mission of the FCA.

It is the policy of the FCA to provide a work environment free from unlawful discrimination in any form, and to protect all employees from any form of harassment, either physical or verbal. The FCA will not tolerate harassment in the workplace for any reason. The FCA also will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for reporting harassment or for aiding in any inquiry about reporting harassment.

A disabled veteran is defined as someone who is entitled to compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans Administration or someone who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability.

The FCA is committed to increasing the representation of disabled veterans within its organization. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans who served their country, especially those who were disabled because of service. To honor these disabled veterans, the FCA shall place emphasis on making vacancies known to and providing opportunities for employing disabled veterans.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 § CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreements containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, have been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreements, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the each consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 18, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 17, 2015. Write “Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al—Consent Agreements; File No. 151-0030” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 § CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 § CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al—Consent Agreements; File No. 151-0030” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 17, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, Agreements Containing Consent Orders with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., TPG Partners VI, L.P. (hereinafter “Par”), and with Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Concordia Healthcare Corp. (hereinafter “Concordia”). The proposed orders are designed to settle allegations that Par and Concordia violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by entering into an unlawful agreement not to compete relating to generic versions of Concordia's prescription drug known as Kapvay.

The proposed orders have been placed on the public record for 30 days in order to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreements and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed orders final.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed orders. This Analysis to Aid Public Comment is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement, the complaint, or the proposed consent orders, or to modify their terms in any way. The proposed consent orders have been entered into for settlement purposes only and do not constitute admissions by Par or Concordia that either violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true.

The complaint charges that Par and Concordia entered an unlawful agreement that Concordia would refrain from launching an “authorized generic” version of its brand-name drug Kapvay in exchange for a share of the supra-competitive profits Par would earn as the sole seller of generic Kapvay.

An authorized generic is a prescription drug that has been approved by the FDA as a brand-name drug product, but is marketed by the brand company (or its representative) as a generic drug product, without the trademark of the brand-name drug. An authorized generic can be sold under the approval the FDA granted under a new drug application (NDA) at any time.2 Brand-name drug companies frequently introduce authorized generics upon entry of the first generic to stem large losses resulting from the rapid shift of sales from brand-name drugs to lower-priced generic products. Empirical evidence from the Federal Trade Commission's Authorized Generic Study shows that competition between the first generic entrant and an authorized generic typically drives down both retail and wholesale generic drug prices.3

Competition from an authorized generic has significant financial implications for the first generic entrant, for two reasons: (1) The authorized generic typically takes substantial sales from the first entrant; and (2) the competition from an authorized generic means that, on average, sales are made at lower prices. When the first generic entrant is the sole seller of the generic drug product, it enjoys approximately double the revenues that it would otherwise make in the first six months on the market if it faced competition from an authorized generic.4

As alleged in the complaint:

Concordia owns and markets various brand-name drug products. It acquired the rights to Kapvay in May 2013. Kapvay is a non-stimulant medication for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, approved for sale in the United States in September 2010.

Par develops and markets generic drugs. Par filed an application seeking FDA approval to sell a generic version of Kapvay in March 2011.

The timing of FDA approval for an independent generic drug is subject to certain patent and regulatory exclusivity protections. The federal law commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act requires a brand-name drug manufacturer to notify the FDA of patents that could reasonably be asserted against a party making or selling its drug. The FDA publishes patent information in a document known as the “Orange Book.” If a generic drug manufacturer seeks FDA approval to market a generic product prior to the expiration of a listed patent or patents relating to the brand-name drug upon which the generic is based, the applicant must: (1) Certify to the FDA that the patent in question is invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (known as a “paragraph IV certification”); and (2) notify the patent holder of the filing of the certification. If the holder of patent rights files a patent infringement suit within 45 days of the notification, FDA approval to market the generic drug is automatically stayed for 30 months, unless before that time the patent expires or is judicially determined to be invalid or not infringed.

In the case of Kapvay, the single patent listed in the FDA's Orange Book expired on October 13, 2013 (U.S. Patent No. 5,869,100 (“the '100 patent”)). When Par filed its application for approval of its generic Kapvay product in 2011, it submitted a paragraph IV certification concerning this patent. The company that held the rights to Kapvay at the time did not assert any claim for patent infringement.

Approximately five weeks before the '100 patent was due to expire, however, Par and Concordia entered into a “License Agreement” relating to Kapvay. The agreement granted Par a license effective one week before expiration of the '100 patent. Under this agreement, Concordia agreed not to market an authorized generic version of Kapvay for five years. Par in turn agreed to pay Concordia at least 35 percent (and as much as 50 percent) of the net profits from the sale of Par's generic Kapvay product.

Although the License Agreement purports to grant Par rights under the '100 patent and other unspecified current or future intellectual property (and a waiver of unspecified regulatory exclusivities), the parties provided no evidence that Concordia held any rights that might have prevented Par from selling generic Kapvay after expiration of the '100 patent. Aside from the '100 patent, which expired a week after the effective date of the license, no patent claiming Kapvay has ever been listed in the FDA Orange Book.

Par received final FDA approval for its generic Kapvay ANDA on September 30, 2013. It began selling generic Kapvay on October 7, 2013. Until May 15, 2015, Par was the only generic drug manufacturer to receive FDA approval for a generic Kapvay product.

Concordia launched an authorized generic Kapvay product in December 2014, after learning that the FTC was investigating its agreement with Par concerning Kapvay.

The complaint charges that the challenged agreement between Par and Concordia constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade that was likely to harm competition and consumers by enabling Par to price its generic Kapvay product without facing competition from an authorized generic version of the drug. By agreeing to share a portion of its likely supra-competitive profits with Concordia, Par protected itself from competition from an authorized generic for five years. The agreement was not plausibly related to any efficiency-enhancing joint undertaking. It is therefore appropriate to analyze the challenged conduct here as a straightforward agreement not to compete.

The evidence in this case indicated that, without a competing generic Kapvay product, consumers and other private and public purchasers were likely forced to pay higher prices for generic Kapvay. In addition, as noted above, empirical evidence from the FTC's Authorized Generic Study confirms what economic theory predicts: when the brand company cedes all generic sales to the first generic entrant by agreeing not to introduce an authorized generic, the generic drug company on average captures substantially more sales and sells at significantly higher prices. Consumers, meanwhile, are forced to pay supra-competitive prices for the generic product.5

The proposed orders are designed to remedy the unlawful conduct charged in the complaint and to prevent recurrence of similar conduct. The orders prohibit Par and Concordia from (1) enforcing the relevant provisions of their 2013 License Agreement and (2) entering into similar “no-authorized-generic” agreements in the future.

In the Par order, Paragraph II.A prohibits Par from seeking to enforce any provision in its 2013 License Agreement with Concordia that restricts Concordia's ability to market an authorized generic Kapvay product. Paragraph II.B provides that Par may not enter into any agreement that (1) limits a brand-name drug manufacturer's ability to market an authorized generic version of a drug product for which Par is seeking FDA approval to sell a generic counterpart; and (2) the limitation extends beyond the expiration of any Orange-Book listed patents for the drug in question.6

In the Concordia order, Paragraph II requires Concordia to relinquish any and all rights to payment under the License Agreement and to provide written notice to Par and the FTC of that relinquishment. Paragraph III bars Concordia from entering any agreement with a generic applicant for a reference-listed drug for which Concordia holds the NDA, if the agreement (1) limits marketing of an authorized generic version of that drug and (2) the limitation extends beyond the expiration of any Orange-Book listed patents for the drug in question.

The proposed orders' prohibitions on future agreements limiting an authorized generic cover only agreements in which the restraint extends beyond patent expiration. Agreements to restrict the sale of an authorized generic sometimes appear in patent litigation settlements and can serve as a means of compensating the generic patent challenger for agreeing to stay off the market for a period of time.7 These arrangements can raise the same antitrust concerns that the Supreme Court addressed in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).8 That is not this case, however, and the proposed orders are not designed to address that type of conduct. As discussed above, the challenged agreement here did not arise out of pending or threatened patent litigation and nearly the entire five-year term of the agreement covered the period after expiration of the Kapvay patent.

For purposes of these proposed orders, “authorized generic” means a drug product distributed by or on behalf of an NDA holder, but marketed as a generic, regardless of whether it is manufactured pursuant to an NDA, an ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) application.9

The proposed orders each include a notice provision designed to assist in monitoring the respondents' future conduct with respect to an agreement to restrict the sale of an authorized generic product—without regard to whether the agreement extends beyond expiration of any listed patent. Par is required to notify the Commission and provide certain specified information if it enters certain agreements with a party that markets a brand-name drug for which Par has filed an application to sell a generic equivalent. Covered agreements are those that (1) limit the sale of an authorized generic and (2) take effect before the expiration of all Orange-Book listed patents for the relevant brand-name drug. A comparable provision in the Concordia order requires Concordia to provide such notice for agreements with a party seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of a brand-name drug for which Concordia holds the NDA. Both notice provisions terminate ten years after issuance of the orders.

These notice provisions differ from the filing requirements contained in Section 1112 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The notice required by the orders must be filed at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the agreement; MMA filings must be made within ten days after execution of the agreement.

The proposed orders also require that for five years Par and Concordia maintain compliance programs with certain prescribed features. Finally, the proposed orders contain certain reporting and other provisions that are designed to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance and are standard provisions in Commission orders. The proposed orders will expire in 20 years.

FMR Bulletin G-05 consolidates information regarding tools and best practices for management of UAA mail from a number of sources. Better management of UAA mail reduces mailing costs and associated personnel costs, improves community outreach and relations, supports sustainability efforts by reducing printing, paper use, and energy consumption, and is consistent with the goals of Executive Orders 13589 and 13693, and the Federal Management Regulation. The four suggestions described in this bulletin are: (1) Establish internal policies to obtain and verify address correction, (2) prior to mailing, use USPS® certified vendors' address management tools, (3) actively manage returned mail with barcodes and scanning technology, and (4) track, monitor, and report returned mail on an annual basis to help the Federal community avoid UAA mail.

Background: CECANF was established to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.

Agenda: Commission members will continue discussing the work plans of the Commission subcommittees, the information that they have obtained to date, and emerging recommendations.

Attendance at the Meetings: Individuals interested in participating by teleconference should dial 1-800-870-9004 and then enter *3676137#. Detailed meeting minutes will be posted within 90 days of the meeting. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions or otherwise participate in the meeting.

However, members of the public wishing to comment should follow the steps detailed under the heading Addresses in this publication or contact us via the CECANF Web site at https://eliminatechildabusefatalities.sites.usa.gov/contact-us/.

Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (42 U.S.C.263a-1(a)), the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA) requires that each ART program report annually to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1) pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program and (2) the identity of each embryo laboratory used by such ART program and whether the laboratory is certified or has applied for such certification under the act.

FCSRCA defines “assisted reproductive technology” (ART) as “all treatments or procedures which include the handling of human oocytes or embryos, including in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer, and such other specific technologies as the Secretary may include in this definition, after making public any proposed definition in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any federal or other public agency).”

The Secretary is directed in FCSRCA to define pregnancy success rates and “make public any proposed definition in such a manner as to facilitate comment from any person during its development.”

Section 2(c) (42 U.S.C. 263a-1(c)) states “the Secretary shall consult with appropriate consumer and professional organizations with expertise in using, providing, and evaluating professional services and embryo laboratories associated with assisted reproductive technologies.”

Since 1995, HHS/CDC has reported pregnancy success rates of United States ART programs as required by FCSRCA. Changes in ART practice require periodic revision of the National ART Surveillance System in order to maintain accurate reporting of ART success rates. In updating the definitions of success rates, as well as various factors and characteristics required for calculating the success rates or that might influence the success rates, HHS/CDC consulted with representatives of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART, a national professional association of ART clinical programs), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM, a national society dedicated to the advancement of the science and practice of reproductive medicine), RESOLVE (the National Infertility Association, a national, nonprofit consumer organization), Path2Parenthood (P2P, a national, nonprofit consumer organization), and the American Urological Association (AUA, a national professional association of urologic community) as well as a variety of individuals with expertise and interest in infertility and/or ART.

Seven comments were received in response to the July 21, 2014 (79 FR. 42328) notice that outlined the reporting requirements, changes to NASS data elements, and the associated burden. Comments are summarized by the following topics: burden estimates, proposed NASS data elements, duplicative data collection, and request for additional data elements. Some commenters provide comments on multiple topics. Summaries of these comments, as well as HHS/CDC's responses, are provided below.

1. Burden estimates: Four commenters expressed concern that implementation of the new NASS system was not included in the total burden estimates, thus the burden to clinics for data reporting was underestimated.

Response: The estimated annual burden to clinics is calculated using the average time required to answer the number of questions and possible responses to each question when applicable. We acknowledge that there is an additional burden for the first year of this transition associated with making the appropriate software modifications that was not represented in the notice published on July 21, 2014. In order to minimize the impact of this burden on clinic operations, projected implementation of the new data collection system was changed from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016. We have also recalculated the burden for the first year to include the fixed burden associated with changes to the data collection systems in each clinic. The following changes were made to the burden estimate: a) increased the average burden to 43 minutes per response and b) added a one-time system implementation for each clinic (40 hours per each response) to update their data collection systems to reflect the new platform and interface of the NASS web-application over a 3-year clearance period.

2. Proposed NASS data elements: There was concern from one commenter that the proposed data elements went beyond the mandate established by FCSRCA and its implementing regulations. Commenter cited the information related to the quality of any embryo considered for transfer and prior ART cycles that resulted in pregnancy as two examples that appear to go beyond the mandate.

Response: HHS/CDC thanks the commenter for this comment, but notes that changes to the NASS data elements are essential to keep pace with changes in medical practice, ensure that reported success rates reflect standardized definitions, and provide additional insight into factors that may affect success rates. Regarding the addition of variables such as embryo quality and the number of prior ART cycles, the NASS system collects information on ART outcomes as well as other patient and procedure characteristics that may affect treatment outcomes. The reporting of success rates by patient and procedural factors allows consumers to see success rates for patients similar to themselves and undergoing procedures with similar characteristics. Presenting success rates without taking patient and procedural characteristics into account could produce inaccurate rates.

3. Duplicative data collection: There was concern from one commenter that the collection of ART outcomes by HHS/CDC duplicates the work SART already does and the resulting cost of a duplicative data collection to the government and taxpayers is not warranted.

Response: HHS/CDC notes the commenter's concern and reminds the commenter that this data collection is mandated by statute while data collection by a private entity is not required by law. FCSRCA requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program annually report pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program to the Secretary through HHS/CDC. Changes in ART practice require periodic revision of the National ART Surveillance System in order to maintain accurate reporting of ART success rates.

4. Request for additional data elements: Three commenters suggested the addition of data elements.

Commenter 1 suggested that it would be important for the NASS and Assisted Reproductive Technology Team to consider adding variables relating to infant outcomes (as listed below).

(1) Use of traditional or gestational surrogate carriers: Surrogate age, number of prior pregnancies, number of previous live born infants, and number of prior surrogacy (either gestational carrier or traditional surrogate).

(2) Maternal variables: occurrence of pregnancy induced hypertension, maternal diabetes and stage, hyperemesis gravidarium, fetal ultrasound results with special focus on fetal echocardiogram at 20-24 weeks.

(3) Placental examination: placental abnormalities, evidence of single umbilical artery, histologic chorioamnionitis, in twins or multiple gestations presence of twin to twin transfusion syndrome associated with artery-venous shunting in the placenta, placentation (diamniontic-dichorionic, monochorionic-diamniontic, and placentation of greater than twin).

(4) Neonatal Variables Suggested to be added:

A. Infant Weight, Length, and Head Circumference

B. Infant Gestational age as determined by Ballard Physical and Neurodevelopment examination

C. Admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

D. Specific Neonatal Variables:

Response: FCSRCA requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program annually report pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program to the Secretary through HHS/CDC. Many of the suggested data elements are only available through vital records (i.e. birth certificates, fetal death certificates) and NASS does not collect information from birth certificates. Collection of the additional variables suggested is not feasible as part of this effort. No changes to the data collection were made as a result of this comment.

Commenter 2 requested clarification if the following male infertility data points are included in the new planned data collection:

Response: The suggested male infertility data points are already in the proposed NASS data elements; thus, no changes were made to the data collection as a result of this comment.

Commenter 3 recommended adding the method of delivery (Vaginal or C-section): Indication for c-section (if c-section used) (Prior c-section, Overdue delivery, Medical complication, Non-medical indication/Patient preference). This will take less than two additional minutes per cycle with live birth (zero for cycles without birth), as this information is almost always in the documents we routinely obtain.

Rationale for inclusion of this information includes: Some reports indicate c-section delivery is more common with frozen-thawed embryo transfer. It is also reported that frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with larger birthweights. These two variables might be causally related, or might be confounded in assessments of perinatal outcomes. Consider that large infants can motivate a c-section, FET cycles often follow a fresh delivery that might have used a c-section and thus create an indication for c-section, and c-sections abbreviate a pregnancy so that birth by c-section occurs some hours or days earlier than otherwise would have.

Response: HHS/CDC appreciates the suggestion to add `Method of Delivery' to the data collection and agrees that this information could be reliably reported by the patient. `Method of Delivery (Vaginal or C-section)' was added as a proposed data element. However, `Indication for C-Section' is usually only available through either the birth certificate or from the obstetrical care providers. Collecting information directly from the obstetrician/gynecologists is not feasible as part of this effort.