Federal Register Vol. 80, No.199,

Title: Quality Control Review Schedule.

Form Number: FNS 380-1.

OMB Number: 0584-0299.

Expiration Date: February 29, 2016.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Form FNS 380-1 is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) Quality Control (QC) Review Schedule which collects QC and household characteristics data. The information needed to complete this form is obtained from the SNAP case record and state quality control findings. The information is used to monitor and reduce errors, develop policy strategies and analyze household characteristic data. We estimate that it takes 1.05 hours per response and .0236 hours per record for recordkeeping to complete the form.

Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government: Respondent groups identified include: 53 State agencies.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The total estimated number of responses per respondent is 1,039.02.

Estimated Frequency per Respondent: 1.9980769.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: The estimated total annual responses are 110,136. This includes 55,068 sampled active cases for QC review and the same 55,068 records being kept by the 53 State agencies.

Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time of response for State agencies to report is approximately 63.36 minutes and the estimated response time for State agencies to do recordkeeping is approximately 1.42 minutes. Therefore, the total time per response is approximately 64.78 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,567,055.8 minutes (59,450.93 hours). See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

The Lobert project area encompasses approximately 97,500 acres of National Forest System lands and is located within the Klamath Tribes' former 1954 reservation. The project lies within portions of the Sprague River, Hog Creek-Williamson River, Swan Lake Valley, Long Lake Valley-Upper Klamath Lake, Yonna Valley-Lost River, and Wood River watersheds. The project area is in Klamath County, generally located between the communities of Fort Klamath and Chiloquin, south to Hagelstein Park, and east to Swan Lake Point and Saddle Mountain. The legal description for the project planning area includes Townships 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 South, and Ranges 07, 08, 09, 10 East, Willamette Meridian, Klamath County, Oregon.

The purpose and need for the Lobert Restoration Project was developed by comparing the management objectives and desired conditions of the Winema Forest Plan to the existing conditions in the project planning area related to watershed and forest resiliency and function. Where plan information was not explicit, best available science and local research, including the Klamath Tribes' Management Plan, were utilized. Comparison of the existing and desired condition indicates the specific needs to: (1) Restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistance and resilient vegetative conditions given the historic fire regime by reducing the horizontal and vertical connectivity and density of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels; (2) protect and release large and old trees from competition; (3) reduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the project planning area including the Saddle Mountain Cultural Resource Area and WUI; (4) Maintain and improve habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project planning area, particularly mule deer; (5) restore degraded physical and biological stream processes that sustain floodplain ecosystem structure, function and diversity; (6) implement recovery plans for federally listed species; (7) reduce risk of northern spotted owl habitat degradation and loss from uncharacteristic wildfire and/or insect and disease outbreak; (8) conserve and restore cultural plants and maintain habitat for two rare endemic plant populations; (9) provide for a variety of social and cultural values and opportunities in the project area, including availability of traditional use plants, a variety of wood products, enhanced recreation experiences and opportunities, and a safe road system that moves toward current public access and resource management objectives.

The Forest proposed action includes restoration activities for the following resources: Vegetation management, aquatic restoration, recreation interpretive site improvement, and associated road management activities to address the purpose and need. These activities would occur over approximately the next 10 years.

Vegetation management will include a mix of commercial thinning, small tree thinning, prescribed fire, and other fuels treatments. The use of different methods would be determined by site conditions, accessibility and specific resource protection needs. The proposal includes 9 different restoration treatments: (1) Dry ponderosa pine restoration; (2) dry mixed conifer restoration; (3) moist mixed conifer restoration; (4) xeric ponderosa pine restoration; (5) dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl (NSO); (6) foraging habitat (NSO); (7) wildland urban interface fuels reduction; (8) riparian restoration; (9) endemic plant enhancement.

The proposed action will include large wood and spawning gravel placement in six stream reaches that are deficient in wood, riparian hardwood species planting, headcut repair, and spring enhancement. Spring enhancement may include: (1) Removal or repair of spring boxes or other spring development equipment; (2) installation of protective fencing; (3) vegetation treatments to improve hydrologic conditions (4) planting/sowing riparian species.

Approximately 13.2 miles of roads are proposed to be closed post-implementation, 162 miles of roads are proposed for decommissioning, and 4.5 miles of roads would have their operational maintenance levels upgraded.

Recreation activities proposed include removal of three flush facilities from the Spring Creek Campground and picnic area and installation of one vault toilet. Two vault toilets that no longer meet water quality standards would be removed from the Oux Kanee Overlook; one would be replaced with a vault toilet that meets current standards.

The Lobert Restoration Project will also include a variety of project design criteria that serve to mitigate impacts of activities to forest resources, including wildlife, soils, watershed condition, aquatic species, riparian habitat conservation areas, heritage resources, visuals, rangeland, botanical resources, and invasive plants. The proposed action may also include amendments to the Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed action would be implemented. Additional alternatives may be included in response to issues raised by the public during the scoping process or due to additional concerns for resource values identified by the interdisciplinary team.

The Forest Supervisor of the Fremont-Winema National Forest, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, I will decide if the proposed action will be implemented. I will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for preparing the draft EIS and final EIS to the District Ranger, Chiloquin Ranger District.

Based on the purpose and need, the Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and public comments on the analysis in order to make the following decision: (1) Whether to implement timber harvest and associated fuels treatments, prescribed burning, and watershed work, including the design features and potential mitigation measures to protect resources; and if so, how much and at what specific locations; (2) What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design features and potential mitigation measures are implemented and effective, and to evaluate the success of the project objectives. A project specific monitoring plan will be developed.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The interdisciplinary team will continue to seek information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

On June 8, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review. We received a case brief from Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively, the petitioners) on July 8, 2015, and a rebuttal brief from JBL Canada on July 13, 2015. The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by this order is citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada. The product is currently classified under subheadings 2918.14.0000, 2918.15.1000, 2918.15.5000, and 3824.90.9290 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of merchandise subject to the scope is dispositive.2

The POR is May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.

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

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated JBL Canada's weighted-average dumping margin. Our calculations are discussed in detail in the accompanying final calculation memorandum.3

We determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by JBL Canada and that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR.

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after publication of these final results of review. Because we have calculated a zero margin for JBL Canada in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.4 This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by JBL Canada for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for JBL Canada will be that established in the final results of this review, (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.5 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On June 16, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results in the Federal Register. We invited interested parties to submit comments on the Preliminary Results, but no comments were received.

The products covered by the order are narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge. The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under HTSUS subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description in the Order remains dispositive.3

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby incorporated in, and adopted by, these final results. This memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and 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 accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The period of review is September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.

As noted the in Preliminary Results, Yama Ribbons had no reviewable transactions of merchandise during the POR.4 As there are no changes from, or comments upon, the Preliminary Results, the Department finds that there is no reason to modify its analysis. Therefore, we continue to find that Yama Ribbons did not have reviewable transactions during the POR.

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.5 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Pursuant to the Department's practice in non-market economy cases, because Yama Ribbons had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, the Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise that entered under Yama Ribbons' rate at the PRC-wide rate of 247.65 percent. For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For exports of merchandise made by Yama Ribbons of merchandise it did not produce, the cash deposit rate is the PRC-wide rate of 247.65, as stated in the Order;  6 (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have been determined by Commerce to have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 247.65 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 6, 2015.1 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until October 6, 2015.2

The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public 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 is available to all parties in the Department's 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 and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Initiation Notice provided interested parties an opportunity to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). However, no party to the proceeding provided scope comments.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price (“EP”) is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.

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 or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We based our calculation of the “all others” rate on the margin calculated for Selenis Canada Inc. (“Selenis Canada”), the only mandatory respondent in this investigation.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from Canada as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 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 EP as indicated in the chart above.4 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 submitting case briefs.5 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, filed electronically using ACCESS. 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 Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 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.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information submitted by Selenis Canada prior to making a final determination in this investigation.

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.

Selenis Canada requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for Selenis Canada, the Department postpone its final determination pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.7 In addition, Selenis Canada requested to extend the application of the provisional measures, from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.

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 exporter accounts 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.8

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative 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 as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from Canada 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).

On July 1, 2015, based on a timely request for review by Eramet Marietta, Inc. (Eramet) and Felman Production, LLC (Felman) (collectively, Petitioners), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Venezuela covering the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015.1 On August 25, 2015, Petitioners withdrew its request for an administrative review of all of the companies listed in its review request.2

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Petitioners timely withdrew its review request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review of silicomanganese from Venezuela for the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 6, 2015.1 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until October 6, 2015.2

The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public 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 is available to all parties in the Department's 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 and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Initiation Notice provided interested parties an opportunity to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). However, no party to the proceeding provided scope comments.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices (“EP”) and constructed export prices (“CEP”) have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.

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 or de minimis dumping margins, and any dumping margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We based our calculation of the “all others” rate on the dumping margin calculated for OCTAL SAOC—FZC (“OCTAL”), the only mandatory respondent in this investigation. This margin was not zero or de mininis and it was not determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from Oman, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 4 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds EP, or CEP as indicated in the chart above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 submitting case briefs.5 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.

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, filed electronically using ACCESS. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed hearing 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.6 Hearing 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.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information submitted by OCTAL and its affiliates prior to making a final determination in this investigation.

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.

OCTAL requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for OCTAL, the Department postpone its final determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2).7 In addition, OCTAL requested 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.

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 exporter accounts 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.8

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative 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 as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from Oman 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).

On August 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from the Republic of Turkey.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than October 14, 2015.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, and that the case is extraordinarily complicated such that additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination, section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation. We have concluded that the parties concerned are cooperating and that the case is extraordinarily complicated, such that we need more time to make the preliminary determination. Specifically, the analysis will involve not only the usual consideration of financial contribution and specificity for numerous programs, but will also involve the more complex consideration of the provision for less than adequate remuneration for several inputs. The deadline for completion of the preliminary determination is now December 18, 2015.

We also note that, on September 30, 2015, the petitioners 2 in this investigation, requested that the deadline for the preliminary determination be postponed to 130 days from the date of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).3

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 6, 2015.1 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until October 6, 2015.2

The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Initiation Notice provided interested parties an opportunity to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). However, no interested party provided scope comments.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum hereby adopted by this notice.

In the Initiation Notice, 4 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.5

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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.6 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, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. 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 location to be determined. Prior to the date of the hearing, the Department will contact all parties that submitted case or rebuttal brief to determine if they wish to participate in the hearing. The Department will then distribute a hearing schedule to the parties prior to the hearing and only those parties listed on the schedule may present issues raised in their briefs.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 8 equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,9 as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate the Department determines 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 the cash deposit rate 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.

As stated previously, we will adjust cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion CVD investigation, Jiangyin Xingyu New Material Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Xingye Plastic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xingjia Plastic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xingtai New Material Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Xingye Polytech Co., Ltd. (collectively “Xingyu Group”) received a calculated export subsidy rate of 0.80 percent, and, thus, we will offset the calculated rate for the Xingyu Group by 0.80 percent. Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. and Oriental Industries (Suzhou) Limited (collectively “FEIS Group”) was not a mandatory respondent in the companion CVD investigation, so we will offset the calculated rate for the FEIS Group by 1.83 percent, the average of the export subsidy rates for the two mandatory respondents in the companion CVD investigation. Dragon Special Resin (XIAMEN) Co., Ltd., one of the separate rate companies, was a mandatory respondent in the companion CVD investigation and received a calculated export subsidy rate of 2.85 percent, and, thus, we will offset the calculated rate for Dragon by 2.85 percent. The other separate rate companies were not mandatory respondents in the companion CVD investigation, so we will offset the calculated rate for each of them by 1.83 percent, the average of the export subsidy rates for the two mandatory respondents in the companion CVD investigation. Finally, we are adjusting the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity by 0.80 percent, the lowest adjustment for any party in the companion CVD investigation.10

Pursuant to 777A(f) of the Act, we are also adjusting preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. We will adjust the Xingyu Group's by 0.91 percent, but we are not adjusting the rate for the FEIS Group because it failed to justify such an adjustment. We are adjusting the rates for each of the other separate rate companies by 1.83 percent. Finally, we are not adjusting the PRC-wide entity's rate for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.11

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 by the Department, 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 by the Department, 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.

In a joint letter dated September 30, 2015, Xingyu, Xingye, Dragon, Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Wankai New Materials Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hengyi Polyester Fiber Co., Ltd. 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.12 In a letter dated October 2, 2015, FEIS requested the same.13

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.14

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify 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 PET resin from the PRC 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).

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum:

On June 1, 2015, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order on HPSC from PRC for the period of review January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.1 On June 15, 2015, Norris Cylinder Company (Norris) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (BTIC).2 On June 30, 2015, BTIC requested an administrative review of its POR sales.3 Pursuant to the requests and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department published a notice initiating an administrative review of BTIC.4 On September 9, 2015, both Norris and BTIC timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review of BTIC.5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, both Norris and BTIC withdrew their requests, and they did so within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of HPSC from PRC. CVDs shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On April 8, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Results may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the memorandum are identical in content.

In our Preliminary Results, we preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Evonik.3 For the Final Results, we are continuing to rescind the administrative review with respect to Evonik.4

The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014.

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department responded in the memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice.

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Baoding Mantong's margin calculation since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum, and accompanying Final Analysis Memorandum for Baoding Mantong, dated concurrently with this notice.

The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014:

The Department determined, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.6 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended: (1) For any previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding that received a separate rate in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently-completed period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Evonik, the cash-deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 453.79 percent); and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash-deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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 this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

On July 8, 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); 351.222(g)(1), and 351.221(c)(3)(ii), Ashland Specialty Ingredients, G.P. (Ashland), the petitioner and sole domestic producer of CMC, requested, effective July 1, 2014, revocation of the Order with respect to the Netherlands as part of an expedited CCR. On August 31, 2015, the Department preliminarily determined to revoke the Order and invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.

We received no comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Results.

The merchandise covered by this order 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), provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) 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. 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, and 351.222(g)(1)(i) and (vi), we are revoking the Order on CMC from the Netherlands. As stated in the Preliminary Results, the revocation will be effective July 1, 2014, which is the effective date requested by Ashland and also the first day of the most recent period not subject to administrative review.4

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.5 Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty 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 351.305(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 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(b)(5), and 351.222(g)(1)(i) and (g)(3)(vii).

The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 6, 2015.1 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until October 6, 2015.2

The merchandise covered by these investigations is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin

The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public 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 is available to all parties in the Department's 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 and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Initiation Notice provided interested parties an opportunity to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). However, no party to the proceeding provided scope comments.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price (EP) has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

On July 16, 2015, petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.4 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 have conducted an analysis of critical circumstances in accordance with section 733(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, and preliminarily determine that: (1) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; and (2) imports of the subject merchandise have been massive over a relatively short period in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist. For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

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 or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for both mandatory respondents that are above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act. However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the Department assigned a margin to the all-others rate companies based on the simple average of the two mandatory respondents' rates.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 submitting case briefs.5 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, filed electronically using ACCESS. 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 Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 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.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information submitted by Ester and Reliance prior to making a final determination in this investigation.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from India as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 7 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds EP as indicated in the chart above, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies.8 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 9 equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds EP, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for Dhunseri, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 14.28 percent; (2) the rate for Ester, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 5.55 percent; (3) the rate for JBF, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 0.00 percent; (4) the rate for Reliance, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 1.18, (5) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, then the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (6) the rate for all other producers or exporters, when adjusted for export subsidies, will be 3.37 percent. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As described above, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports produced or exported by all Indian exporters. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

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.

Reliance 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.10

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.11 The suspension of liquidation described above will be extended accordingly.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative 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 as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PET resin from India 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).

An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

On June 12, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile installation and removal associated with a pier replacement project in San Diego Bay at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, CA (NBPL). The Navy also submitted a separate monitoring plan and draft monitoring report pursuant to requirements of the previous IHA. The Navy submitted revised versions of the request on July 3 and July 26, 2015, a revised version of the monitoring plan on July 21, 2015, and a revised monitoring report on July 29, 2015. These documents were deemed adequate and complete. The pier replacement project is planned to occur over four years; this IHA covers only the third year of work and is valid for a period of one year, from October 8, 2015, through October 7, 2016. Hereafter, use of the generic term “pile driving” may refer to both pile installation and removal unless otherwise noted.

The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during all or a portion of the in-water work window include the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and either short-beaked or long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus spp.). California sea lions are present year-round and are very common in the project area, while bottlenose dolphins and harbor seals are common and likely to be present year-round but with more variable occurrence in San Diego Bay. Gray whales may be observed in San Diego Bay sporadically during migration periods. The remaining species are known to occur in nearshore waters outside San Diego Bay, but are generally only rarely observed near or in the bay. However, recent observations indicate that these species may occur in the project area and therefore could potentially be subject to incidental harassment from the aforementioned activities.

This is the third such IHA, following the IHAs issued effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539) and from October 8, 2014, through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 65378). Monitoring reports are available on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and provide environmental information related to issuance of this IHA.

NBPL provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier serves as a fuel depot for loading and unloading tankers and Navy underway replenishment vessels that refuel ships at sea (“oilers”), as well as transferring fuel to local replenishment vessels and other small craft operating in San Diego Bay, and is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern California. Portions of the pier are over one hundred years old, while the newer segment was constructed in 1942. The pier as a whole is significantly past its design service life and does not meet current construction standards.

Over the course of four years, the Navy plans to demolish and remove the existing pier and associated pipelines and appurtenances while simultaneously replacing it with a generally similar structure that meets relevant standards for seismic strength and is designed to better accommodate modern Navy ships. Demolition and construction are planned to occur in two phases to maintain the fueling capabilities of the existing pier while the new pier is being constructed. During the third year of construction (the specified activity considered under this proposed IHA), approximately 226 piles will be installed (including six 30-in steel pipe piles, 88 30 x 24-in concrete piles, and 132 16-in concrete-filled fiberglass piles). Demolition of the existing pier will continue concurrently, including the removal of approximately one hundred steel and concrete piles and twenty concrete-filled steel caissons. Removals may occur by multiple means, including vibratory removal, pile cutter, dead pull, and diamond belt saw, as determined to be most effective. Construction work under this IHA is anticipated to require a total of 115 days of in-water work. All steel piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer for their initial embedment depths and finished with an impact hammer, as necessary.

The planned actions with the potential to incidentally harass marine mammals within the waters adjacent to NBPL are vibratory and impact pile installation and removal of piles via pile cutter. Vibratory pile removal is not planned but could occur if deemed the most effective technique to remove a given pile; because this technique is not expected to occur we do not consider it separately in this document from vibratory pile driving. Concurrent use of multiple pile driving rigs is not planned; however, pile removal conducted as part of demolition activities (which could occur via a number of techniques) may occur concurrently with pile installation conducted as part of construction activities.

The entire project is scheduled to occur from 2013-17; the planned activities that are planned to occur during the period of validity for this IHA, during the third year of work, would occur for one year. Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), all noise- and turbidity-producing in-water activities in designated least tern foraging habitat are to be avoided during the period when least terns are present and engaged in nesting and foraging (a window from approximately May 1 through September 15). However, it is possible that in-water work, as described below, could occur at any time during the period of validity of this IHA. The conduct of any such work would be subject to approval from FWS under the terms of the MOU. We expect that in-water work will primarily occur from October through April. In-water pile driving and removal work using pile cutters or vibratory drivers is limited to 115 days in total under this IHA. Pile driving will occur during normal working hours (approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.).

NBPL is located on the peninsula of Point Loma near the mouth and along the northern edge of San Diego Bay (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped natural embayment oriented northwest-southeast with an approximate length of 24 km and a total area of roughly 4,500 ha. The width of the bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km, and depths range from 23 m mean lower low water (MLLW) near the tip of Ballast Point to less than 2 m at the southern end (see Figure 2-1 of the Navy's application). San Diego Bay is a heavily urbanized area with a mix of industrial, military, and recreational uses. The northern and central portions of the bay have been shaped by historic dredging to support large ship navigation. Dredging occurs as necessary to maintain constant depth within the navigation channel. Outside the navigation channel, the bay floor consists of platforms at depths that vary slightly. Sediments in northern San Diego Bay are relatively sandy as tidal currents tend to keep the finer silt and clay fractions in suspension, except in harbors and elsewhere in the lee of structures where water movement is diminished. Much of the shoreline consists of riprap and manmade structures. San Diego Bay is heavily used by commercial, recreational, and military vessels, with an average of over 80,000 vessel movements (in or out of the bay) per year (not including recreational boating within the Bay) (see Table 2-2 of the Navy's application). For more information about the specific geographic region, please see section 2.3 of the Navy's application.

In order to provide context, we described the entire project in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization associated with the first-year IHA (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013). Please see that document for an overview of the entire fuel pier replacement project, or see the Navy's Environmental Assessment (2013) for more detail. In the notice of proposed authorization associated with the third-year IHA (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015) we provided an overview of relevant construction methods before describing only the specific project portions scheduled for completion during the third work window. We do not repeat that information here; please refer to that document for more information. Approximately 498 piles in total are planned to be installed for the project, including steel, concrete, and plastic piles. For the third year of work, approximately 226 steel and concrete piles will be installed. Tables 1 and 2 detail the piles to be installed and removed, respectively, under this IHA.

During the first in-water work season, two primary activities were conducted: relocation of the Marine Mammal Program and the Indicator Pile Program (IPP). During the second in-water work season, the IPP was concluded and simultaneous construction of the new pier and demolition of the old pier begun. These activities were detailed in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015) and are not repeated here.

We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53115). We received a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission; the Commission's comments and our responses are provided here, and the comments have been posted on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. Please see the Commission's letter for background and rationale regarding these recommendations.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that we (1) authorize a small number of Level A harassment takes of California sea lions for construction activities at NBPL and (2) take a consistent approach in authorizing Level A harassment for other activities in which there is a potential for Level A harassment to occur (i.e., impact pile driving and seismic surveys).

Response: California sea lions are abundant in the vicinity of the project area, and it is therefore difficult to assume as is typical that all animals will be observed either prior to entering the shutdown zone or immediately upon surfacing within the shutdown zone. Therefore, the Navy evaluated use of a buffered shutdown zone during the course of Year 2 construction activities. The Navy ultimately proposed use of a pinniped shutdown zone with radial distance twice as large as the modeled Level A harassment zone in its request for authorization related to Year 3 construction activities. The Commission commends the Navy for amending its mitigation measures using an adaptive approach, but notes that four of 107 sea lion sightings resulting in shutdown involved animals observed within the modeled zone, rather than within the larger buffered zone. We have previously authorized Level A harassment for activities where we believe that such take is likely unavoidable. The Commission therefore believes that authorization of Level A harassment is warranted and, further, that we should take a consistent approach to such authorizations across projects.

We do not believe that the authorization of Level A harassment is warranted in this case. These four observations, within the relevant zone for impact driving of 30- and 36-in steel pipe piles, occurred over one hundred days of such activity and 238 driven piles. This gives a rate of 0.02 animals observed within the actual Level A zone per driven pile. While this rate would likely be highly variable, it does give an indication of the rarity of the event (i.e., an animal was not observed prior to traversing the buffer zone and entering the actual modeled zone). Only six days of similar pile driving (i.e., impact driving of 30-in steel pipe piles) is planned for Year 3. Based on the small number of piles associated with source levels that exceed the Level A harassment threshold, the low likelihood of an animal entering the actual Level A harassment zone, and the demonstrated success in implementation of the buffered shutdown zone, the Navy did not request authorization of Level A harassment, and we concur with that decision.

We agree with the Commission's recommendation that we consider the need for authorization of Level A harassment consistently, but disagree that our decision here displays an inconsistent approach. We consider the need for authorization of Level A harassment on a case-by-case basis. Consistency does not demand that we reach the same outcome in all cases, but merely that we consider like factors consistently across actions.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that we develop criteria and provide guidance to applicants regarding the circumstances under which we will consider requests for Level A harassment takes under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.

Response: We do not agree that formal criteria are necessary, but will continue to provide guidance to applicants regarding the need to consider Level A harassment authorization. As has been our practice, we will consider relevant factors consistently in reaching action-specific decisions.

There are four marine mammal species which are either resident or have known seasonal occurrence in the vicinity of San Diego Bay, including the California sea lion, harbor seal, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whale (see Figures 3-1 through 3-4 and 4-1 in the Navy's application). In addition, common dolphins (see Figure 3-4 in the Navy's application), the Pacific white-sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin, and northern elephant seals are known to occur in deeper waters in the vicinity of San Diego Bay and/or have been recently observed within the bay. Although the latter three species of cetacean would not generally be expected to occur within the project area, the potential for changes in occurrence patterns due to developing El Niño conditions in conjunction with recent observations leads us to believe that authorization of incidental take is warranted. Common dolphins have been documented regularly at the Navy's nearby Silver Strand Training Complex, and were observed in the project area during both previous years of project activity. The Pacific white-sided dolphin has been sighted along a previously used transect on the opposite side of the Point Loma peninsula (Merkel and Associates, 2008) and there were several observations of Pacific white-sided dolphins during Year 2 monitoring. Risso's dolphin is fairly common in southern California coastal waters (e.g., Campbell et al., 2010), and could occur in the bay. Northern elephant seals are included based on their continuing increase in numbers along the Pacific coast (Carretta et al., 2015) and the likelihood that animals that reproduce on the islands offshore of Baja California and mainland Mexico—where the population is also increasing—could move through the project area during migration, as well as the observation of a juvenile seal near the Fuel Pier in April 2015.

Note that common dolphins could be either short-beaked (Delphinus delphis delphis) or long-beaked (D. capensis capensis). While it is likely that common dolphins observed in the project area would be long-beaked, as it is the most frequently stranded species in the area from San Diego Bay to the U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger, 2011), the species distributions overlap and it is unlikely that observers would be able to differentiate them in the field. Therefore, we consider that any common dolphins observed—and any incidental take of common dolphins—could be either species.

In addition, other species that occur in the Southern California Bight may have the potential for isolated occurrence within San Diego Bay or just offshore. In particular, a short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) was observed off Ballast Point, and a Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) was seen in the project area during Year 2. These species are not typically observed near the project area and, unlike the previously mentioned species, we do not believe it likely that they will occur in the future. Given the unlikelihood of their exposure to sound generated from the project, these species are not considered further.

We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Southern California and Point Mugu Operating Areas, which provides information regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that may occur in those operating areas (DoN, 2008). The document is publicly available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed August 21, 2015). In addition, we provided information for the potentially affected stocks, including details of stock-wide status, trends, and threats, in our Federal Register notices of proposed authorization associated with the first- and second-year IHAs (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013 and 79 FR 53026; September 5, 2014) and refer the reader to those documents rather than reprinting the information here.

Table 3 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of NBPL during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. See also Figures 3-1 through 3-5 of the Navy's application for observed occurrence of marine mammals in the project area. Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance. All potentially affected species are addressed in the Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2015).

We provided discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat in our Federal Register notices of proposed authorization associated with the first- and second-year IHAs (78 FR 30873; May 23, 2013 and 79 FR 53026; September 5, 2014). The specified activity associated with this IHA is substantially similar to those considered for the first- and second-year IHAs and the potential effects of the specified activity are the same as those identified in those documents. Therefore, we do not reprint the information here but refer the reader to those documents. We also provided brief definitions of relevant acoustic terminology in our notice of proposed authorization associated with this IHA (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015).

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

The mitigation strategies described below largely follow those required and successfully implemented under the first- and second-year IHAs. For this IHA, data from acoustic monitoring conducted during the first two years of work was used to estimate zones of influence (ZOIs; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”); these values were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities at NBPL. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition, the Navy has defined buffers to the estimated Level A harassment zones to further reduce the potential for Level A harassment. In addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy would conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustic monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

The following measures apply to the Navy's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving and removal activities, the Navy will establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals (serious injury or death are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation measures). Estimated radial distances to the relevant thresholds are shown in Table 4. For certain activities, the shutdown zone would not exist because source levels are lower than the threshold, or the source levels indicate that the radial distance to the threshold would be less than 10 m. However, a minimum shutdown zone of 20 m will be established during all pile driving and removal activities, regardless of the estimated zone. This represents a buffer of 10 m added to the previously implemented 10 m minimum shutdown zone. In addition the Navy will effect a buffered shutdown zone that is intended to significantly reduce the potential for Level A harassment given that, in particular, California sea lions are quite abundant in the project area and bottlenose dolphins may surface unpredictably and move erratically in an area with a large amount of construction equipment. The Navy considered typical swim speeds (Godfrey, 1985; Lockyer and Morris, 1987; Fish, 1997; Fish et al., 2003; Rohr et al., 2002; Noren et al., 2006) and past field experience (e.g., typical elapsed time from observation of an animal to shutdown of equipment) in initially defining these buffered zones, and then evaluated the practicality and effectiveness of the zones during the Year 2 construction period. The Navy will add a buffer of 75 m to the 190 dB zone for impact driving of steel piles (doubling the effective zone to 150 m radius) and will add a buffer of 100 m to the 180 dB zone for impact driving of steel piles (increasing the effective zone to 450 m). These zones are also shown in Table 5. These precautionary measures are intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical interaction with construction equipment and to establish a precautionary minimum zone with regard to acoustic effects.

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and continuous sound, respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see “Monitoring and Reporting”). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in Table 4.

In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. If acoustic monitoring is being conducted for that pile, a received SPL may be estimated, or the received level may be estimated on the basis of past or subsequent acoustic monitoring. It may then be determined whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. Therefore, although the predicted distances to behavioral harassment thresholds are useful for estimating incidental harassment for purposes of authorizing levels of incidental take, actual take may be determined in part through the use of empirical data.

Acoustic measurements will continue during the third year of project activity and zones would be adjusted as indicated by empirical data. Please see the Navy's Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan; available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm) for full details.

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after pile driving activities. In addition, observers will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan for full details of the monitoring protocols.

The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable (as defined in the Monitoring Plan) to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:

• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

• Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher is required);

• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would be halted.

(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile and for thirty minutes following the conclusion of pile driving.

In-order to avoid impacts to least tern populations when they are most likely to be foraging and nesting, in-water work will be concentrated from October 1-April 1 or, depending on circumstances, to April 30. However, this limitation is in accordance with agreements between the Navy and FWS, and is not a requirement of this IHA. All in-water construction activities will occur only during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset).

The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” The project will utilize soft start techniques for both impact and vibratory pile driving of steel piles. We require the Navy to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced energy followed by a thirty-second waiting period, with the procedure repeated two additional times. For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving of thirty minutes or longer; these requirements are specific to both vibratory and impact driving and the requirement. For example, the requirement to implement soft start for impact driving is independent of whether vibratory driving has occurred within the past thirty minutes.

We have carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).

(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density).

• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).

• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.

• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Please see the Monitoring Plan (available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm) for full details of the requirements for monitoring and reporting. Notional monitoring locations (for biological and acoustic monitoring) are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Plan. The purpose of this Plan is to provide protocols for acoustic and marine mammal monitoring implemented during pile driving and removal activities. We have determined this monitoring plan, which is summarized here and which largely follows the monitoring strategies required and successfully implemented under the previous IHAs, to be sufficient to meet the MMPA's monitoring and reporting requirements. The previous monitoring plan was modified to integrate adaptive changes to the monitoring methodologies as well as updates to the scheduled construction activities. Monitoring objectives are as follows:

• Monitor in-water construction activities, including the implementation of in-situ acoustic monitoring efforts to continue to measure SPLs from in-water construction and demolition activities not previously monitored or validated during the previous IHAs. At minimum, acoustic sound levels would be collected and evaluated acoustic for five piles of each type of fender pile to be installed.

• Monitor marine mammal occurrence and behavior during in-water construction activities to minimize marine mammal impacts and effectively document marine mammals occurring within ZOI boundaries.

• Continue the collection of ambient underwater sound measurements in the absence of project activities to develop a rigorous baseline for the project area.

The primary purpose of acoustic monitoring is to empirically verify modeled injury and behavioral disturbance zones (defined at radial distances to NMFS-specified thresholds of 160-, 180-, and 190-dB (rms) for underwater sound (where applicable) and 90- and 100-dB (unweighted) for airborne sound; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” below). For non-pulsed sound, distances will continue to be evaluated for attenuation to the point at which sound becomes indistinguishable from background levels. Empirical acoustic monitoring data will be used to document transmission loss values determined from measurements collected during the IPP and to examine site-specific differences in SPL and affected ZOIs on an as needed basis.

Should monitoring results indicate it is appropriate to do so, marine mammal mitigation zones would be revised as necessary to encompass actual ZOIs in subsequent years of the fuel pier replacement project. Acoustic monitoring will be conducted as specified in the approved Monitoring Plan. Please see Table 2-2 of the Plan for a list of equipment to be used during acoustic monitoring. Monitoring locations will be determined based on results of previous acoustic monitoring effort and the best professional judgment of acoustic technicians.

Some details of the methodology include:

• No acoustic data to be collected for 30-in steel piles as sufficient data has been collected for 36-in steel piles during previous two years. One airborne sound monitoring station will be maintained.

• Hydroacoustic monitoring to be conducted at source for impact driving of a minimum of five of each type of fender pile in order to document SPLs.

• Sound level meters to be deployed to continue validation of source SPLs and 160/120 dB ZOIs as documented from previous acoustic monitoring efforts.

• Source SPLs for all construction or demolition activities will be measured for the first five events of each size or type of pile or activity if not sufficiently measured and/or validated previously; Navy would conduct additional monitoring if source unexpectedly exceeds any assumed values.

• For underwater recordings, sound level meter systems will follow methods in accordance with NMFS' 2012 guidance for the collection of source levels.

• For airborne recordings, to the extent that logistics and security allow, reference recordings will be collected at approximately 15 m from the source via a sound meter with integrated microphone. Other distances may also be utilized to obtain better data if the signal cannot be isolated clearly due to other sound sources (e.g., barges or generators).

• Ambient conditions will be measured at the project site in the absence of construction activities to determine background sound levels. Ambient levels will be recorded over the frequency range from 7 Hz to 20 kHz. Ambient conditions will be recorded at least three times during the IHA period consistent with NMFS' 2012 guidance for the measurement of ambient sound. Each time, data will be collected for eight-hour periods for three days during typical working hours (7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday) in the absence of in-water construction activities. The three recording periods will be spaced to adequately capture variation across the notional work window (October-March).

• Environmental data would be collected including but not limited to: wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, surface water temperature, water depth, wave height, weather conditions and other factors that could contribute to influencing the airborne and underwater sound levels (e.g., aircraft, boats).

• From all the strikes associated with each pile occurring during the Level 4 (highest energy) phase these measures will be made:

○ Mean, minimum, and maximum rms pressure level in dB.

○ Mean duration of a pile strike (based on the ninety percent energy criterion).

○ Number of hammer strikes.

○ Mean, minimum, and maximum single strike SEL in dB re μPa2 sec.

○ Cumulative SEL as defined by the mean single strike SEL + 10*log (# hammer strikes) in dB re μPa2 sec.

○ A frequency spectrum (pressure spectral density) in [dB re μPa2 per Hz] based on the average of up to eight successive strikes with similar sound. Spectral resolution will be 1 Hz and the spectrum will cover nominal range from 7 Hz to 20 kHz.

Full details of acoustic monitoring requirements may be found in section 3.2 of the Navy's approved Monitoring Plan and in section 13 of the Navy's application.

The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The Navy will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving as described under “Mitigation” and in the Monitoring Plan, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Notional monitoring locations are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's Plan. Please see that plan, available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm, for full details of the required marine mammal monitoring. Section 4.2 of the Plan and section 13 of the Navy's application offer more detail regarding monitoring protocols. Based on our requirements, the Navy would implement the following procedures for pile driving:

• MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible.

• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.

• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.

• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.

One MMO will be placed on the active construction/demolition platform in order to observe the respective shutdown zones for vibratory and impact pile driving or for applicable demolition activities. Monitoring will be primarily dedicated to observing the shutdown zone; however, MMOs would record all marine mammal sightings beyond these distances provided it did not interfere with their effectiveness at carrying out the shutdown procedures. Additional land, pier, or vessel-based MMOs will be positioned to monitor the shutdown zones and the buffer zones, as notionally indicated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Navy's application. Up to five additional MMOs will be deployed during driving of steel piles, and at least one additional MMO will be deployed during driving of fender piles and during applicable demolition activities.

Because there are different threshold distances for different types of marine mammals (pinniped and cetacean), the observation platform at the shutdown zone will concentrate on the 190 dB rms and 180 dB rms isopleths locations and station the observers and vessels accordingly. The MMOs associated with these platforms will record all visible marine mammal sightings. Confirmed takes will be registered once the sightings data has been overlaid with the isopleths identified in Table 4 and visualized (for steel piles) in Figure 6-2 of the Navy's application, or based on refined acoustic data, if amendments to the ZOIs are needed. The acousticians on board will be noting SPLs in real-time, but, to avoid biasing the observations, will not communicate that information directly to the MMOs. These platforms may move closer to, or farther from, the source depending on whether received SPLs are less than or greater than the regulatory threshold values. All MMOs will be in radio communication with each other so that the MMOs will know when to anticipate incoming marine mammal species and when they are tracking the same animals observed elsewhere.

If any species for which take is not authorized is observed by a MMO during applicable construction or demolition activities, all construction will be stopped immediately. If a boat is available, MMOs will follow the animal(s) at a minimum distance of 100 m until the animal has left the Level B ZOI. Pile driving will commence if the animal has not been seen inside the Level B ZOI for at least one hour of observation. If the animal is resighted again, pile driving will be stopped and a boat-based MMO (if available) will follow the animal until it has left the Level B ZOI.

Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the Navy.

We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:

• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;

• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;

• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity, and if possible, the correlation to measured SPLs;

• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;

• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or delay);

• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and

• Other human activity in the area.

In addition, photographs would be taken of any gray whales observed. These photographs would be submitted to NMFS' West Coast Regional Office for comparison with photo-identification catalogs to determine whether the whale is a member of the WNP population.

A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 45 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions. A final report will be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report. Required contents of the monitoring reports are described in more detail in the Navy's Acoustic and Marine Species Monitoring Plan.

The Navy complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under the previous authorizations for this project. Acoustic and marine mammal monitoring was implemented as required, with marine mammal monitoring occurring before, during, and after each pile driving event. During the course of Year 2 activities, the Navy did not exceed the take levels authorized under the IHA. However, the Navy did record four observations of California sea lions within the defined 190-dB shutdown zone. Previous acoustic and marine mammal monitoring results were detailed in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015) and are not repeated here.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving or demolition and involving temporary changes in behavior. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures (i.e., buffered shutdown zones) are expected to minimize the possibility of Level A harassment such that we believe it is unlikely. We do not expect that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.

If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

The project area is not believed to be particularly important habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals (with the exception of California sea lions, which are attracted to nearby haul-out opportunities). Sightings of other species are relatively rare. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.

The Navy requested authorization for the potential taking of small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Risso's dolphins, northern elephant seals, and gray whales in San Diego Bay and nearby waters that may result from pile driving during construction activities associated with the fuel pier replacement project described previously in this document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we typically first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area.

We provided detailed information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals and described the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take, in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015). That information is unchanged, and our take estimates were calculated in the same manner and on the basis of the same information as what was described in the Federal Register notice. Measured distances to relevant thresholds are shown in Table 4, assumed ZOIs and days of activity are shown in Table 5, and total estimated incidents of take are shown in Table 6. Please see our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 53115; September 2, 2015) for full details of the process and information used in estimating potential incidents of take.

The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidences of take:

• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;

• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;

• The assumed ZOIs and days of activity are as shown in Table 5; and,

• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.

The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:

The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in Table 4, assuming that sound radiates from a central point in the water column slightly offshore of the existing pier and taking into consideration the possible affected area due to topographical constraints of the action area (i.e., radial distances to thresholds are not always reached). When local abundance is the best available information, in lieu of the density-area method described above, we may simply multiply some number of animals (as determined through counts of animals hauled-out) by the number of days of activity, under the assumption that all of those animals will be present and incidentally taken on each day of activity.

Where appropriate, we use average daily number of individuals observed within the project area during Navy marine mammal surveys converted to a density value by using the largest ZOI as the effective observation area. It is the opinion of the professional biologists who conducted these surveys that detectability of animals during these surveys, at slow speeds and under calm weather and excellent viewing conditions, approached one hundred percent.

There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate (aside from the contingency correction discussed above). We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the period of validity, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative. See Table 6 for total estimated incidents of take.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

Pile driving activities associated with the pier replacement project have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.

No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. For example, use of vibratory hammers does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (site-specific acoustic monitoring data show no source level measurements above 180 dB rms) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact driving is necessary, required measures (implementation of buffered shutdown zones) significantly reduce any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for San Diego Bay (approaching one hundred percent detection rate, as described by trained biologists conducting site-specific surveys) further enables the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.

Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from past years of this project and other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous other construction activities conducted in San Francisco Bay and in the Puget Sound region, which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.

In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine mammal take from Navy's pier replacement activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

The number of incidents of take authorized for these stocks, with the exception of the coastal bottlenose dolphin (see below), would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (see Table 6) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. This is an extremely unlikely scenario as, for pinnipeds occurring at the NBPL waterfront, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day and in general, there is likely to be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day for animals in estuarine/inland waters.

The numbers of authorized take for bottlenose dolphins are higher relative to the total stock abundance estimate and would not represent small numbers if a significant portion of the take was for a new individual. However, these numbers represent the estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. That is, it is likely that a relatively small subset of California coastal bottlenose dolphins would be incidentally harassed by project activities. California coastal bottlenose dolphins range from San Francisco Bay to San Diego (and south into Mexico) and the specified activity would be stationary within an enclosed water body that is not recognized as an area of any special significance for coastal bottlenose dolphins (and is therefore not an area of dolphin aggregation, as evident in Navy observational records). We therefore believe that the estimated numbers of takes, were they to occur, likely represent repeated exposures of a much smaller number of bottlenose dolphins and that, based on the limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the coastal bottlenose dolphin, these estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of bottlenose dolphins.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

The Navy initiated informal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS Southwest Regional Office (now West Coast Regional Office) on March 5, 2013. NMFS concluded on May 16, 2013, that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, WNP gray whales. The Navy has not requested authorization of the incidental take of WNP gray whales and no such authorization was proposed, and there are no other ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area. Therefore, no consultation under the ESA is required.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from the pier replacement project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 8, 2013.

We have reviewed the Navy's application for a renewed IHA for ongoing construction activities for 2015-16 and the 2014-15 monitoring report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHAs. In addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document is not necessary, and, after review of public comments reaffirm our 2013 FONSI. The 2013 NEPA documents are available for review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to the Navy for conducting the described pier replacement activities in San Diego Bay, from October 8, 2015 through October 7, 2016, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss agenda items on the November 2015 Pacific Council meeting agenda. Topics may include the Pacific sardine distribution workshop report, anchovy general status, data-limited stock assessments for CPS, and/or methodology review topic selection.

Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery regulations at 50 CFR 648.77(b) authorize the Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, to specify in the Federal Register a vendor from whom cage tags, required under the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP), shall be purchased. Notice is hereby given that National Band and Tag Company of Newport, Kentucky, is the authorized vendor of cage tags required for the fishing year 2016 Federal surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Detailed instructions for purchasing these cage tags will be provided in a letter to ITQ allocation holders in these fisheries from NMFS within the next several weeks.

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

Title: Rules Relating to Review of National Futures Association Decisions in Disciplinary, Membership Denial, Registration, and Member Responsibility Actions (OMB Control No. 3038-0043). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: 17 CFR part 171 rules require a registered futures association to provide fair and orderly procedures for membership and disciplinary actions. The Commission's review of decisions of registered futures associations in disciplinary, membership denial, registration, and member responsibility actions is governed by Section 17(h)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 21(h)(2). The rules establish procedures and standards for Commission review of such actions, and the reporting requirements included in the procedural rules are either directly required by Section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act or are necessary to the type of appellate review role Congress intended the Commission to undertake when it adopted that provision.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32593).

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response. This estimate includes the time needed to transmit decisions of disciplinary, membership denial, registration, and member responsibility actions to the Commission for review. The estimated burden of 1 hour is determined by the following:

Respondents/Affected Entities: Individuals or entities filing appeals from disciplinary and membership decisions by National Futures Association.

Estimated number of respondents per year: 1.

Estimated number of responses: 3.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3 hours.

Frequency of collection: On occasion.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

The Spindle Locator Tool enables identification of proper and improper placement of a spindle in a locking mechanism. Specifically, it will be used for the X-10 electromechanical lock which has experienced a spindle and cam interface issue that can result in lockouts requiring neutralization.

Instructions for Submitting Letters of Interest: Letters of interest must be submitted as a PDF attachment to an email message sent to the email address provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The subject line of the email should read “ESI 2015—Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP).” The text of the email should include the name and address of the institution.

The letter of interest must include the institution's official name and Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education Identification (OPEID) number, as well as the name, mailing address, email address, FAX number, and telephone number of a contact person at the institution. Additional details on the application process requirements are provided in the “Application and Selection” section in this notice.

The letter of interest should be on institutional letterhead and should be signed by at least two officials of the institution. One of these officials should be the institution's financial aid administrator, and the other should be an academic official of the institution.

Content of the Letter of Interest: The letter of interest should include a brief description of the educational program or programs that the institution is considering for inclusion in this experiment. For each of those programs, we are interested in information such as the name(s) of the non-traditional provider(s) with whom the institution intends to partner, an estimate of the number of title IV-eligible students who will be enrolled in the program, and the name of the QAE to be engaged, if known. The letter should indicate which of the following two title IV student aid program options the institution will choose (in all cases providing title IV aid only to otherwise eligible students): (1) Allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants only; or (2) allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants, undergraduate Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and the Campus-Based Programs. Direct PLUS Loans for parents and graduate students and Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students are not included in this experiment. See “Application for Pell Grants Alone or for Pell Grants and Certain Other Title IV Aid” below for further information. The Department understands that the specific components of the actual programs developed may vary from the information submitted in the letter of interest.

Background: The landscape for learning in postsecondary education is undergoing tremendous development. Innovations in technology, pedagogy, and business models are driving rapid change. While much of this development has been led by traditional postsecondary institutions, there are also significant educational changes occurring outside of the traditional educational sector. Non-traditional providers have begun to offer educational opportunities to students in new ways, such as through intensive short-term programs, online or blended approaches, or personalized/adaptive learning. These opportunities have the potential to advance goals such as increased equity and access, more flexible and personalized learning, high-quality student outcomes, and reduced costs.

Although some of these educational opportunities show promise in advancing these priorities, they remain out of reach for many students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, in part because they generally do not provide students with access to title IV aid. The unavailability of title IV aid could increase the potential for educational inequity, because only those students with significant financial resources are able to enroll in these innovative programs, and it may constrain the growth of promising new approaches to learning.

Moreover, many of these non-traditional providers and educational opportunities are not subject to review by the traditional postsecondary accrediting agencies that historically have held the primary responsibility for ensuring academic quality in higher education. Since the purview of those accrediting agencies typically does not extend to non-traditional providers, these new providers lack the broadly recognized mechanisms for ensuring quality that are required for the Department to make title IV aid available. The lack of those structures may also reduce opportunities for external review and sharing of best practices in general that traditional accreditation can offer.

In general, under the Department's regulations, an eligible institution may enter into a contractual agreement with an institution or organization that is not eligible to participate in the title IV programs, under which the ineligible institution or organization provides part of an educational program of study. However, the regulations provide that the ineligible institution or organization cannot provide 50 percent or more of the title IV eligible educational program. The experiment outlined in this notice will allow participating institutions to provide title IV aid to otherwise eligible students pursuing a program of study for which 50 percent or more of the content and instruction is provided by one or more title IV-ineligible organizations (non-traditional providers). As part of the experiment, the Secretary will provide participating institutions with certain statutory and regulatory waivers, which are listed in the section of this notice titled “Waivers.”

The experiment is intended to encourage increased innovation in higher education through partnerships between the participating institutions and non-traditional providers. In doing so, the Department hopes to:

• Learn whether permitting partnerships between institutions and non-traditional providers increases equity by providing access to innovative educational programs for students from diverse backgrounds, particularly those from low-income backgrounds;

• Examine student outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of these non-traditional providers;

• Assess quality-assurance processes that are appropriate for non-traditional providers and the programs they offer; and

• Identify ways to protect students and taxpayers from risks in an innovative and emerging area of postsecondary education.

The experiment is intended to focus predominantly on low-cost, short-term programs serving students who do not yet have an undergraduate degree.

Background: The regulations in 34 CFR 668.8(a) require that an eligible program be provided by an eligible institution. The regulations in 34 CFR 668.5(c) provide, with certain exceptions, that an eligible institution may enter into a contractual agreement with an ineligible institution or organization under which the ineligible organization provides part of the educational program of study to students enrolled at the eligible institution. However, the ineligible institution or organization cannot provide 50 percent or more of the eligible educational program. In addition, if the amount of the educational program provided by the ineligible institution or organization is more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent, the ineligible institution or organization and the eligible institution cannot be owned or controlled by the same individual, partnership, or corporation. Finally, the regulations provide that the eligible institution's recognized accrediting agency must determine and confirm in writing that the agreement meets its standards for contracting out education services. Other restrictions apply as well.

Title I, part A of the HEA and federal regulations describe other conditions for an institution and its educational programs to be eligible for title IV aid. In general, for an educational program to be title IV-eligible, it must be included in the accreditation of the institution by the institution's recognized accrediting agency and in the institution's legal authorization to provide an educational program beyond secondary education in the State in which the institution is located. In addition, the program must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation as described in Department regulations, except if it is offered by a public or non-profit institution and either leads to a degree or is at least a two-year program acceptable at the institution for full credit towards a degree. In general, under section 481(b)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR 668.8(d), title IV-eligible programs must be at least 15 weeks in duration and provide at least 600 clock hours, 16 semester or trimester hours, or 24 quarter hours of academic credit. These statutes and regulations play a critical role in protecting students and taxpayers from abuse by low-quality higher education programs.

Under current regulations, institutions are prevented from building partnerships to create programs of study comprised of content and instruction provided largely by one or more non-traditional providers. In some cases, an institution may believe it has identified a non-traditional provider whose expertise or approach complements that of the institution and could work effectively with particular student populations or toward desired student outcomes. These limitations on partnerships could constrain innovation and make high-quality educational opportunities offered by non-traditional providers accessible only to students who do not need title IV aid.

In accordance with the waiver authority granted to the Secretary under section 487A(b) of the HEA, the Secretary will waive for this experiment the restriction on providing title IV aid to students enrolled in programs that an eligible institution offers through partnerships with title IV-ineligible entities (non-traditional providers) that, with oversight, are delivered to students primarily by those non-traditional providers. Through this and other waivers described in this notice, this experiment will examine whether extending eligibility for title IV aid to non-traditional postsecondary programs offered through these partnerships increases access to high-quality academic programs for students from a diversity of backgrounds, particularly students from low-income backgrounds. In addition, the experiment will examine student outcomes at these promising non-traditional providers to determine whether they are effective. The experiment will also examine whether the waivers create any challenges or obstacles to an institution's administration of the title IV, HEA programs.

Description: The Secretary will grant institutions participating in this experiment limited waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements in order to support innovative educational programs developed through partnerships between title IV-eligible institutions and non-traditional providers. Specifically, through this experiment the Secretary will waive the provision of 34 CFR 668.5(c)(3) that provides that an ineligible entity may not provide 50 percent or more of a title IV-eligible educational program. The Secretary will also waive the requirement under 34 CFR 668.8(a) that an eligible program must be provided by a participating institution.

In order for an institution to provide title IV aid to students in a program that is provided primarily by one or more non-traditional providers under the experiment, the Department will require that, in addition to being included in the institution's recognized accreditation, the program must be reviewed, approved, and monitored by an independent quality assurance entity (QAE) that is appropriately qualified to review and monitor such programs. These requirements are further described later in this notice.

The Secretary will also waive or modify the following statutory and regulatory provisions that might otherwise limit participation in flexible, high-quality programs of study offered through contractual agreements between postsecondary institutions and non-traditional providers. To participate in the experiment, an applicant institution must use at least one of the waivers in this experiment but need not use all of them.

• Minimum Program Length: The Secretary will waive the requirement that a title IV-eligible program must include at least 15 weeks of instructional time and at least 600 clock hours, 16 semester or trimester hours, or 24 quarter hours. The Secretary will allow title IV aid to be received by otherwise eligible students who are enrolled in a program of at least eight weeks in length that, at a minimum, includes at least 12 semester or trimester hours, 18 quarter hours, or 450 clock hours. The normal proration requirements for each title IV aid program apply. The Department's definition of “credit hour” in 34 CFR 600.2 applies to credit hour programs offered under the experiment.

• Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP): Through this experiment, the Secretary will modify the requirements for monitoring a title IV aid recipient's SAP. An institution will be required to evaluate a student's SAP upon the student's completion of each of the program's academic years, as measured in weeks of instructional time, though an institution will be permitted and is encouraged to evaluate a student's SAP more frequently. For programs that are less than one academic year in length, the institution will be required to evaluate a student's SAP upon the completion of each payment period. Institutions will not be required to determine the student's SAP pace by dividing the number of hours the student has completed by the number of hours the student has attempted. Instead, the institution will determine whether the student has completed sufficient credit hours, clock hours, or the equivalent to complete the program within the maximum timeframe (no more than 150 percent of the program's published length), as provided in the definition of “maximum timeframe” in the regulations in 34 CFR 668.34(b), as of the point in time when the institution conducts the evaluation of a student's pace.

Additionally, under this experiment, if the institution accepts any transfer credit to meet the requirements of a student's program, it may, but is not required to, prorate the student's maximum timeframe based on the remaining amount of the program after the transfer credit has been applied.

Application for Pell Grants Alone or for Pell Grants and Certain Other Title IV Aid: The costs of postsecondary programs where all or a portion of the program is provided by non-traditional providers vary widely; for some programs, Pell Grants alone might cover direct costs (tuition, fees, books, and supplies), while others may require a combination of Pell Grants and loans to cover those costs. Some programs may wish to focus solely on Pell Grant-eligible students. While this experiment aims to focus primarily on low-cost programs, it may also seek to learn from programs that may have a range of costs. Institutions must choose one of two title IV student aid program options: (1) Allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants only, or (2) allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants, undergraduate Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and the Campus-Based Programs. Direct PLUS Loans for parents and graduate students and Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students are not included in this experiment. Existing statutory and regulatory awarding requirements for the Campus-Based Programs are not changed under this experiment. For an institution choosing to provide only Pell Grants, any title IV aid recipients enrolled in the program must be Pell-grant eligible and be advised before enrollment that their title IV aid awards will be limited to Pell Grants. Similarly, for an institution choosing to provide Pell and the other title IV aid available in this experiment, any title IV aid recipients enrolled in the program must be otherwise eligible for that title IV aid and must be advised before enrollment of the limitations on their title IV aid eligibility for the program. Additional requirements for student protections will also be in place for institutions choosing to utilize title IV aid in addition to Pell Grants in the experiment (see “Requirements for Participation”).

Requirements for Participation: The Department intends to select a limited number of institutions to participate in this experiment. Each institution will curate a program of study comprised of educational programming that may be provided by one or more non-traditional providers. The Department intends to select some institutions that will make only Pell Grant funding available to otherwise eligible students enrolled in the program, and some institutions that will make Pell Grant funding and certain other types of title IV aid program funding available to otherwise eligible students enrolled in the program as described elsewhere in this notice.

An institution participating in this experiment will be required to do the following:

• Program design: Create one or more coherent programs of study by curating educational content from one or more non-traditional providers of postsecondary education that are not currently participating in the title IV, HEA programs. At least 50 percent, and up to 100 percent, of the program's content and instruction must be provided by one or more non-traditional providers through a contractual arrangement with the participating institution. The institution must award a certificate, degree, or other recognized credential to students who successfully complete the program, and the certificate, degree, or credential must have externally validated value in the workforce, for academic transfer, or both. The program must meet applicable title I, HEA requirements, including that the program must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation as described in Department regulations, unless it is offered by a public or private non-profit institution and either leads to a degree or is at least two years in length and acceptable for full credit towards a degree at the institution. The certificate, degree, or credential resulting from the program must represent the equivalent of at least 12 semester or trimester hours, 18 quarter hours, or 450 clock hours over a minimum of eight weeks. An institution's contractual agreement with a non-traditional provider must stipulate that the non-traditional provider agrees to provide information to the institution necessary for the institution to carry out its duties related to the administration of title IV aid. Upon request, the institution will provide evidence regarding its compliance with the terms of the experiment. Contractual agreements under which a non-traditional provider provides 50 percent or more of the instruction in a program must be reviewed and approved by the participating institution's accrediting agency.

• Quality assurance: Identify a QAE with the capacity to review, monitor, and report on the proposed program and ensure the quality of the providers and their program components as outlined in this notice under “Quality Assurance Questions and QAE Role.” The institution must demonstrate that the QAE is an independent organization that is free from conflicts of interest with the institution and the non-traditional providers.

• Accreditor review: Submit the program created in collaboration with one or more non-traditional providers to the applicant institution's recognized institutional accrediting agency for consideration for inclusion in the institution's existing accreditation. The program must fall within the accreditor's scope of recognition, and the eligible institution must obtain a determination from its accrediting agency that the institution's arrangement meets the standards and procedures the agency considers appropriate. The Department is not requiring the accrediting agency to provide specific program approval.

• Disclosure: Clearly disclose to prospective students information about the experimental nature of the programs, the possibility of termination of the programs, and how a teach-out to provide the remainder of the program will be conducted should a program or the relationship with the non-traditional provider(s) be terminated.

• Title IV disbursement: Only disburse title IV aid to otherwise eligible students under the option chosen by the institution.

• Consequences of low quality: Take immediate action to improve, suspend, or terminate programs or non-traditional providers that the Department, the QAE, the accreditor, or the institution determines are not meeting the quality standards established by the QAE. In the event that a program is suspended or terminated, a teach-out plan, as generally defined under 34 CFR 600.2, must be developed to provide the remainder of the program by the institution, or for the provision of the remainder of the program by another title IV-eligible institution, at no additional cost to students.

• Protections for students and taxpayers: For those programs in which students will have access to Federal student loans in addition to Pell Grants, submit detailed plans describing how students and taxpayers will be protected in cases where programs are suspended, terminated, or otherwise limited in their participation in the experiment by the Department, the QAE, the accreditor, or the institution, for any reason, including poor student outcomes and low quality. Institutions will be required to describe in detail what actions they will take, such as loan repayments and refunds to students (in addition to what is normally required of them under the existing title IV, HEA program regulations), and the conditions under which they will take these actions. In its review of experimental site applications that would allow access to both Pell Grants and other title IV aid programs, the Department will give preference to those applications that offer the strongest student and taxpayer protections.

The Department will monitor programs based on regular reports from the institution and the QAE, along with any data available to the Secretary, including information provided by the accreditor, students, or others regarding the performance of the participating entities, student enrollment, and student outcomes. Based on this information, the Department may take a number of actions, including removal of the institution from the experiment and any enforcement actions authorized by the HEA.

As part of this experiment, the Department is interested in understanding how a QAE will determine the quality of a program of study through a set of largely outcome-based questions, rigorous and timely monitoring, and accountability processes.

While the Department continues to refine this set of quality assurance questions, participating institutions must ensure that the QAE in this experiment has established a thorough quality assurance process that defines and monitors outcome-based standards for the numbered questions below. Draft questions are included here to provide an overview; the final set of questions will be provided to applicants in Phase Two of the application process.

1. What measurable claims is the institution making about the learning outcomes of students participating in the program? For example:

• What is the evidence that the learning claims are commensurate with postsecondary- or post-baccalaureate-level work?

• Do the institution's statements about student outcomes capture requisite knowledge and skills? How?

2. How are the value and relevance of those claims established? For example, what external stakeholders have been consulted to verify the value and relevance of the claims?

3. How will the claims be measured?

4. How will institutions be held accountable for meeting those claims?

5. How do all the claims for learning come together into a meaningful and coherent set of overall program outcomes and goals?

1. How does the institution assess whether students enrolled in the program can meet the claims outlined in Section A? For example:

• How are assessments aligned with the specific tasks, expectations, and contexts for which programs claim to be preparing students?

• Beyond one-time assessments, is student work reviewed as part of the assessment of student learning and program outcomes? Do external stakeholders review students' work? How are examples of student work made available to outside parties (with appropriate privacy and other protections)?

2. How has the reliability of these assessments been established?

3. How has the validity of these assessments been established, for example, in terms of the following?

• Face validity: Does the assessment appear to measure what it says it measures?

• Content validity: Does the assessment accurately measure the knowledge and skills covered by the program?

• Predictive validity: Does the assessment accurately predict the student's ability to demonstrate a given competency in the future?

• Concurrent validity: Does the assessment correlate with other measures of the desired performance meant to be assessed?

4. How and how often does the QAE review these assessments?

1. How are students performing on program assessments?

2. How are students progressing through the program? For example:

• Retention rate?

• Withdrawal rate?

• Average time to completion?

• Completion rate (within 100 percent and 150 percent of expected time)?

3. What are the actual program outcomes for students (e.g., entry into subsequent phase of study, career, etc.)? For example:

• Employment outcomes, for all programs that have a stated mission focused on employment (include method for how these outcomes are measured):

• Job placement rates in field of study?

• Average length of time between completion of program and employment in field of study?

• Job retention rates?

• Median starting salaries?

• Transfer rates to other academic or vocational programs, where applicable.

• Certifications and licensure exam passage rates, where applicable.

4. What are the following ratios for the program, where relevant?

• Published tuition and fees versus earnings.

• Average net price versus earnings.

• Median student debt versus earnings.

5. How does the program rate on measures of student satisfaction? For example, how does the program rate in the following:

• Comments from students about what made them successful or unsuccessful in the program?

• A rigorous and transparent methodology for gathering and synthesizing customer satisfaction measures?

1. How has the stability of the non-traditional provider(s) been evaluated (e.g., longevity and past outcomes, leadership/board, etc.)?

2. How are privacy, security, and student authentication managed?

3. Are activities related to student recruitment appropriate and transparent?

4. How is pricing made transparent?

5. Are all materials accessible to learners with disabilities?

6. What is the process for continuous improvement of all aspects of the learning experience (content, platform, student support, faculty engagement, etc.)?

Based on the standards developed by the QAE, the QAE must establish a rigorous and timely process to assess the program before students are enrolled, monitor and report on an approved program's performance, and take action based on the program's performance. The institution must require the QAE to perform the following functions:

• Develop a process to review the proposed program, including its components and providers, based on clear, specific, and measurable standards consistent with the questions listed above, among others.

• Monitor the proposed program, including its components and providers, to confirm the program is being implemented and assessed as proposed, and to confirm the achievement of provider claims for learning and student outcomes; and have a written policy that outlines timely and significant consequences for lack of performance. If groups of students enroll in a program at distinct and regularly scheduled points in time, monitoring must be conducted, at a minimum, at four points in time: An early stage in the program to identify early warning signs of issues related to implementation, quality, or management; the midpoint of a program in order to have sufficient time to correct potential problems that have been identified; at the completion of a program; and at a pre-determined time period after completion of the program (e.g., six months) to monitor post-completion outcomes for participants. If students do not enroll in this manner and a program is instead offered on a “rolling” basis, monitoring must be conducted at regular intervals that represent the average time it takes a student to reach an early stage, the midpoint, the completion of the program, and some pre-determined time period after completion.

• Report on the performance of the non-traditional providers to the institution, accreditor, and the Department every six months, as well as at any time the QAE identifies program quality concerns or determines that the program is at risk of or subject to any adverse action.

This notice refers to a single QAE for each participating institution because the Department believes it is important to have a single organization ultimately responsible for affirming the quality of a program and taking action based on its assessment. However, given the range and depth of expertise and knowledge required for the quality assurance process, we expect that some applicants may wish to have two or more organizations working together to fulfill the requirements of this role. Subcontracts for specific portions of the role would be acceptable as long as one organization is clearly designated as having the lead role and final responsibility for quality determination and consequences, and the respective roles and responsibilities of the organizations are clearly delineated along with the means of coordination among all the partners. QAEs could be any of a number of kinds of organizations, including employer associations, new entities created for this specific purpose, existing accreditors (as long as the proposed quality assurance process is new, meets the stated requirements, and does not create conflicts of interest), accounting firms, or others.

Waivers: Institutions selected for this experiment will be granted waivers of any or all of the following statutory and regulatory provisions. As mentioned earlier under “Application for Pell Grants Alone or for Pell Grants and Certain Other Title IV Aid,” each institution will need to choose between two options: (1) Allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants only; or (2) allowing students to be eligible for Pell Grants, undergraduate Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and the Campus-Based Programs. Direct PLUS Loans for parents and graduate students and Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students are not included in this experiment.

To participate in the experiment, an applicant institution must use at least one of the waivers in this experiment but need not use all of them.

• 34 CFR 668.8(a), to the extent that the regulation requires that an eligible program be provided by the participating institution.

• 34 CFR 668.5(c)(3), to the extent that the regulation restricts the amount of an eligible program that may be provided by an ineligible institution or organization. Notwithstanding this waiver, the eligible institution must provide documentation from its accrediting agency confirming that the accrediting agency considers the program within its accreditation of the eligible institution. The waiver does not apply to the prohibition on the eligible institution and the ineligible institution or organization (non-traditional provider) being owned or controlled by the same individual, partnership, or corporation.1

• Section 481(b)(1)(A) of the HEA and 34 CFR 668.8(d)(1)(i) and (ii), which establish minimum timeframes for non-degree programs and programs offered by proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions. Under the experiment the program may be no less than 12 semester or trimester credit hours, 18 quarter hours, or 450 clock hours, all offered over a minimum of eight weeks.

• Section 484(c) of the HEA and 34 CFR 668.34(a)(3)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), and (b), to the extent these provisions relate to the timeframe when the institution must determine whether a student is making satisfactory academic progress and to the method by which an institution must calculate the pace of a student's academic progression.

All other provisions and regulations of the title IV, HEA programs will apply to institutions participating in this experiment.

Reporting and Evaluation: With this experiment, the Department is interested in evaluating three main areas: (1) The extent to which new programs provide access for students from low-income backgrounds to high-quality postsecondary education and training programs; (2) whether the partnerships between participating institutions and non-traditional providers provide low-cost and high-value postsecondary education and training programs that produce strong student outcomes; and (3) how innovative and effective processes are developed to assure the quality of these types of programs and protect students and taxpayers. Accordingly, institutions will be asked to provide information to support the Department's evaluation of the experiment.

Institutions that are selected for participation in the experiment will likely be required to provide the Department with identifying information for students who have enrolled in one of the programs included in the experiment and who submitted a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Additional information may also be required about students who could serve as a comparison group for benchmarking purposes, for example, similar students not enrolled in programs included in the experiment.

In addition, participating institutions will be required to submit reports and/or participate in surveys, interviews, or site visits to provide information about the implementation of the experiment. Institutions will likely be asked to provide information on courses and programs offered, numbers and types of degrees and/or certificates awarded, numbers and types of students served, their experiences in the program, their outcomes after leaving the program (such as employment status, earnings, credits transferred), provider expenditures per student, and information on the cost of the programs and the amounts borrowed by students attending the programs. Institutions will also be required to provide information on how they partnered with the non-traditional providers and the QAEs, the quality assurance process, and any challenges experienced and how those challenges were addressed.

The specific evaluation and reporting requirements will be finalized prior to the start of this experiment.

Application and Selection: From the institutions that submit letters of interest and full applications, the Secretary will select a limited number to participate in the experiment. Applications will be evaluated on five criteria:

(1) The extent to which the proposed activities are innovative and will produce high-quality programs likely to lead to positive student learning and employment outcomes, and for programs focused on student learning outcomes, the Department will give preference to programs that either lead to a degree or demonstrate evidence of transferability of academic credit;

(2) The extent to which programs will provide equitable access to innovative postsecondary education programs, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds;

(3) The extent to which the proposed quality assurance processes have the potential to address the types of quality assurance questions outlined in this notice;

(4) The extent to which the programs are affordable; and

(5) For programs in which students will have access to Federal student loans, the strength of proposed student and taxpayer protections.

The Secretary will also consider institutional diversity in, among other characteristics, institutional type and control, geographic location, enrollment size, and title IV, HEA program participation levels.

Institutions selected to participate in the experiment must have a strong track record with regard to student outcomes, especially in serving students from low-income backgrounds. When selecting institutions, the Secretary will consider not only the information in the institution's application, including the information provided about the QAEs and non-traditional providers that would provide the program in whole or in part, but any additional information available to the Department including, but not limited to, evidence of title IV, HEA program compliance, student completion rates, cohort default rates, financial responsibility ratios, gainful employment data, and, for for-profit institutions, “90/10” funding levels. The institution's recognized accrediting agency will also need to provide a notice of inclusion of the program in the applicant institution's accreditation by Phase Three in the application and selection process (described below).

The application and selection process will entail three phases:

Phase One: The institution will submit a letter of interest to the Department, as described above under “Instructions for Submitting Letters of Interest.” If all of the institutional qualifications for participation are met and the Department determines this initial letter to be of sufficient quality and alignment with the goals of the experiment, the institution will receive an invitation to submit a full application.

Phase Two: Institutions invited to submit a full application will be required to submit materials addressing questions in areas such as program design, student population, and intended outcomes; provider and QAE selection and roles; process for defining, implementing, monitoring, and taking appropriate actions based on rigorous quality assurance standards; and student supports and protections. Institutions will also need to demonstrate the commitment of the non-traditional provider(s) to offer content and instruction once required approvals are secured, and demonstrate their accrediting agency's agreement to consider including the proposed program in the institution's accreditation.

Full applications will be reviewed based on the stated criteria, including the preferences described in this notice. On this basis, the Secretary will select the institutions to be invited to participate and provide those institutions an amendment to the program participation agreement (PPA) that must be signed by the institution's authorized official and returned to the Department. PPA amendments will reflect the specific statutory or regulatory provisions that the Secretary has waived or modified for the experiment. The institution must acknowledge its commitment to properly administer the experiment by establishing any necessary procedures and by coordinating with other institutional offices and staff. The PPA amendments will also document the agreement between the Secretary and the institution about how the experiment will be conducted, including, for institutions intending to disburse title IV, HEA aid other than Pell Grants, additional student and taxpayer protections.

Phase Three: After signing its PPA amendment document and receiving the Department's countersigned copy, the institution must submit its programs to the Department for review and final approval through the E-App system, along with documentation that the program has been reviewed and approved by the QAE, is included in the institution's accreditation and State authorization, and meets all other title IV, HEA eligibility requirements. Proposed programs will not be eligible for access to title IV aid until the Department's final review and approval in Phase Three is complete.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0393, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decision or case closure document for the pesticides in the following table:

The registration review final decisions for these cases are dependent on the assessments of threatened and endangered (listed) species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), determinations on the potential for endocrine disruption, and/or pollinator risk assessments.

Debacarb (Interim Decision). The registration review docket for debacarb (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0802) opened in December 2008. Debacarb is a fungicide registered to control diseases in ornamental trees, and is applied via injection into the tree trunk. Because of its limited use and potential exposure, the Agency did not conduct a new human health risk assessment during registration review. There are very little data on adverse effects and potential routes of exposure for wildlife and the environment, so the Agency conducted a qualitative ecological risk assessment. The Agency concluded that debacarb does not pose risk concerns for birds, mammals, and plants (both listed and non-listed). Risk could not be precluded for aquatic organisms (from leaf drop into aquatic habitats) and pollinators (from residues in pollen and nectar). To address these concerns, the Agency proposed prohibitions on treating trees within 20' of water bodies and before and during bloom. More recently, in characterizing exposure, the Agency determined that the pathway from treatment of leaves to receiving waters diluted the potential for adverse effects in aquatic organisms. Concerns about pollinator risks remain, and the Agency is directing the registrant to amend labels to prohibit application before and during bloom. The Agency will likely require pollinator data at a later time. Debacarb has not been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

Gas Cartridges; Inorganic Nitrate—Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur (Interim Decision). Potassium and sodium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur are ingredients in fumigant gas cartridge products, which are available in small and large sizes. Both sizes are registered to control burrowing mammals, but only the large gas cartridge is registered to also control coyotes, red foxes and skunks. Gas cartridges are registered for outdoor use only. To use the products, the user lights the fuse, places the cartridge in the burrow or den and seals the entrance. Animals within the burrow or den are asphyxiated by the release of carbon dioxide and toxic gases.

The Agency relied on a previous human health risk assessment in making its registration review decisions and determined that no human health risks of concern exist for these compounds. The Agency conducted a new ecological risk assessment for the gas cartridges for registration review. The risk assessment did find the potential for adverse effects to a number of listed species from gas cartridge use. EPA developed mitigation to address the risk to a number of listed species. In most cases, the mitigation involves the use of Endangered Species Protection Bulletins. Because the gas cartridges may contain up to three different active ingredients compounds, these Bulletins are available in the Inorganic Nitrate—Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur Registration Review dockets (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1118, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0705, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176, respectively). Although implementation of these Bulletins will address risk to some listed species from gas cartridge use, risk to a number of other listed species remains. Additionally, potassium and sodium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur have not been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decisions are dependent upon the result of ESA Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk.

Maleic Hydrazide (Interim Decision). The registration review docket for maleic hydrazide (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0387) opened in September 2009. Maleic hydrazide is a systemic plant growth regulator registered for use on tobacco, potato, onions, non-bearing citrus, turf, utility and highway rights-of-way, airports, industrial land, lawns, recreational areas, ornamental/shade trees and ornamental plants. EPA published human health and ecological risk assessments in July 2014, which included a screening-level listed species assessment. No human health risks of concern were identified. The ecological risk assessment indicated potential risks to non-target terrestrial birds, terrestrial invertebrates, and certain species of semi-aquatic and terrestrial monocotyledonous plants. To address findings of the maleic hydrazide registration review, the Agency is reducing maximum application rates for certain uses, requiring additional data on chronic avian effects, and requiring label clarifications. Maleic hydrazide has not been evaluated under the EDSP nor has the EPA completed an ESA section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the National Marine and Fisheries Service (the Services). Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk and consultation with the Services for potential risk to listed species.

Soap Salts (Interim Decision). The registration review docket for soap salts (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0519) opened in September 2008. Soap salts are used as acaricides, herbicides, and insecticides on food and non-food crops in various settings, chiefly residential and agricultural. Ammonium and sodium soap salts are also used as animal repellants. EPA published draft human health and ecological risk assessments in March 2013 for a 60-day public comment period. In March 2015, EPA published a revised ecological risk assessment and the Soap Salts Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for a 60-day public comment period. In this Soap Salts Interim Decision, the Agency has determined that no additional data are required and no changes to the affected registrations or their labeling are needed at this time. The Agency's final registration review decision for soap salts will depend upon the results of an ESA section 7 consultation with the services, an EDSP determination, and an assessment of the non-target exposure to bees.

Sulfur (Interim Decision). The registration review docket for sulfur (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176) opened in March 2008. Sulfur is used as an insecticide and fungicide on a wide range of field and greenhouse-grown food and feed crops, livestock, livestock quarters, and indoor and outdoor residential sites. Sulfur is also registered for use in gas cartridge products, along with inorganic nitrate/nitrite, carbon, and carbon dioxide. EPA has conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks, including listed species, for sulfur. Details of the assessment for the gas cartridge use are summarized under the gas cartridge heading in this unit. For uses of sulfur other than gas cartridges, the Agency is making a “no effect” determination for all listed aquatic species, and a “no effect” determination for direct effects to listed terrestrial vertebrates that do not rely on insects as a primary food source. However, at this time, the Agency is not able to make a listed species determination for effects to terrestrial invertebrates, terrestrial plants, or indirect effects to terrestrial vertebrates with insects as a primary food source. Sulfur has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of an ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk.

Case Closure for Flufenpyr-ethyl (PC Code 108853; Case 7262). Flufenpyr-ethyl is an herbicide which was labeled for post-emergence control of broadleaf weeds in field corn, soybeans, and sugarcane. On March 19, 2015, the Agency received a request for voluntary cancellation of flufenpyr-ethyl from the technical and end-use product registrant, Valent USA Corporation. EPA subsequently issued a Federal Register notice announcing receipt of the request (FRL-9928-54) on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 39100), and allowed for a 30-day period for public comment on the request. No comments were received, and on September 22, 2015, EPA issued the cancellation order terminating the last pesticide products containing flufenpyr-ethyl registered in the United States (80 FR 57179) (FRL-9933-58). There were no existing stocks of these products and no requests for existing stocks provisions. Therefore no existing stocks provision was provided for these product registrations. With the cancellation of these remaining products, the Agency is announcing the closure of the registration review case for flufenpyr-ethyl.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered the pesticides listed in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The interim decision documents in the dockets describe the Agency's rationale for issuing registration review interim decisions for these pesticides.

In addition to the interim registration review decision documents, the registration review docket for these pesticides also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed interim registration review decisions were previously posted to each docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information.

EPA has addressed the substantive comments or information received during the 60-day comment period in the interim decision document for each pesticide listed in this document.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for each pesticide discussed in this notice will remain open until all actions required in the interim decisions have been completed.

Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier documents related to the registration review of this pesticide are provided in the Pesticide Chemical Search data base accessible at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch.

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 1990 CAA Amendments added section 112(r) to provide for the prevention and mitigation of accidental releases. Section 112(r) mandates that EPA promulgate a list of “regulated substances” with threshold quantities and establish procedures for the addition and deletion of substances from the list of regulated substances. Processes at stationary sources that contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance are subject to accidental release prevention regulations promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(7). These two rules are codified as 40 CFR part 68. Part 68 requires that sources with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process develop and implement a risk management program and submit a risk management plan to EPA. The compliance schedule for the Part 68 requirements, established by rule on June 20, 1996, requires the implementation of the source risk management programs and the submission of initial Risk Management Plans (RMPs) by June 21, 1999, and at least every five years after the initial submission. Sources must resubmit earlier than their next five-year deadline if they undergo certain changes to their covered processes as specified in Part 68. Therefore, after the initial submission, some sources re-submitted their RMPs prior to the next 5-year deadline because they had process changes that required an earlier update. These sources were then assigned a new five-year resubmission deadline based on the date of their revised plan submission. Most covered sources had no significant changes to their covered processes and therefore resubmitted their updated RMP on June 21, 2004. This same pattern continued through the next two submission cycles—some sources updated and resubmitted their RMP prior to their next five-year deadline and were assigned a new (off-cycle) five-year deadline, but a majority of sources submitted their updated RMP on or near the next scheduled five-year resubmission deadlines (June 2009 and June 2014). Similarly, while most sources' next submission is due in June 2019, because of off-cycle resubmission deadlines assigned to sources who have resubmitted RMPs prior to their next 5-year resubmission date, only a portion of the RMP-regulated universe has a submission deadline occurring in June 2019.

Other than the costs for gathering information and filling out the on-line RMP form, the regulations require sources to maintain on-site documentation, perform a compliance audit every three years, provide refresher training to employees, perform a hazard analysis at least every five years, etc. Some of these activities are expected to occur annually or are on-going. Some are required every three years or every five years, unless there are changes at the facility. Therefore, the burden and costs incurred by sources vary from ICR to ICR. The five-year resubmission deadline set by the regulations or assigned by EPA based on the latest RMP resubmission also will cause the burden to vary from ICR to ICR.

Form Numbers: 8700-25, 8700-27, 8700-28.

Respondents/affected entities: Chemical manufacturers, petroleum refineries, water treatment systems, agricultural chemical distributors, refrigerated warehouses, chemical distributors, non-chemical manufacturers, wholesale fuel distributors, energy generation facilities, etc.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 68).

Estimated number of respondents: 13,396 (total).

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 54,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)