Federal Register Vol. 80, No.56,

Title: Hawaiian and Territorial Fruits and Vegetables Regulations.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0346.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Regulated Articles From Hawaii and the Territories” (7 CFR 318.13-1 through 318.13-26), APHIS prohibits or restricts the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables into the continental United States from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to prevent plant pests and noxious weeds from being introduced into and spread within the continental United States.

The regulations contain requirements for a performance-based process for approving the interstate movement of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more designated phytosanitary measures and for acknowledging pest-free areas. These requirements involve information collection activities, including limited permits, inspections to issue limited permits, inspections of production areas, transit permits, compliance agreements, inspection and certification, labeling for fruits and vegetables produced in pest free areas, written requests for facility approvals, trapping and surveillance, and recordkeeping. In addition, the activities of packaging, marking, identification, and certification of sweet potatoes from Hawaii are also included.

This notice includes a description of the information collection requirements currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for OMB control numbers 0579-0198 and 0579-0281. Therefore, we will consolidate them into one collection (0579-0346). In addition, we have also added recordkeeping to this collection. As a result of consolidating 0579-0198 and 0579-0281 under 0579-0346, and upon approval of this collection by OMB, APHIS will retire numbers 0579-0198 and 0579-0281.

We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.47 hours per response.

Respondents: Wholesalers and producers of fruits and vegetables; growers, shippers, and exporters in Hawaii, U.S. Territories, and State plant regulatory officials; and irradiation facility personnel.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 302.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 81.5.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 24,626.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,749 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Background

The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) provide a comprehensive statutory framework to ensure that meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products prepared for commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. Statutory provisions requiring inspection of the preparation or processing of meat, meat food, poultry, and poultry products do not apply to operations of types traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants when those operations are conducted at any retail store or restaurant or similar retail-type establishment for sale in normal retail quantities (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(2) and 454(c)(2)). FSIS's regulations (9 CFR 303.1(d) and 381.10(d)) elaborate on the conditions under which inspection requirements do not apply to retail operations involving the preparation of meat and meat food, and processing of poultry and poultry products.

Under these regulations, sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions (other than household consumers) disqualify a retail store from exemption if the product sales exceed either of two maximum limits: 25 percent of the dollar value of total product sales or the calendar year dollar limitation set by the Administrator. The dollar limitation is adjusted automatically during the first quarter of the year if the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows an increase or decrease of more than $500 in the price of the same volume of product for the previous year. FSIS publishes a notice of the adjusted dollar limitations in the Federal Register. (See 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b).)

The CPI for 2014 reveals an annual average price increase for meat and meat food products at 9.24 percent and for poultry products at 1.97 percent. When rounded to the nearest $100, the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products increased by $6,500 and the dollar limitation for poultry products increased by $1,100. Because the dollar limitation of meat and meat food products and poultry products increased by more than $500, FSIS is increasing the dollar limitation on sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions to $76,900 for meat and meat food products and to $58,200 for poultry products for calendar year 2015, in accordance with 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b).

FSIS Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS will also make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

(1) Northern Long Eared Bat Listing Update; and

(2) FY 15-19 Vegetation Management Strategy (Follow-up); and

(3) Bearlodge Project Presentation Update; and

(4) 2015 Fire Season Forecast; and

(5) 2015 Fire Season Preparedness.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 6, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Title: Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American Countries.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0274.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including fruit flies, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71).

In accordance with § 319.56-40, peppers from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, including inspections by national plant protection organization (NPPO) officials of the country of export; a bilateral workplan; production site registration; fruit fly trapping, monitoring, quality control program, and recordkeeping; box labeling; and a phytosanitary certificate.

When comparing the regulations to the information collection activities that were previously approved, we found that production site registration and the quality control program were omitted from the previous collection. By adding these activities to this information collection, the estimated annual number of responses per respondent has increased from 3,226.65 to 21,947. We also found that we overestimated the burden hours for recordkeeping. In addition, the estimated annual number of respondents has decreased from 245 to 36. As a result of these factors, the estimated total annual burden on respondents decreased from 2,999 hours to 1,929 hours.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.00244 hours per response.

Respondents: Importers, NPPOs, growers, and shippers of peppers in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 36.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 21,947.

Estimated annual number of responses: 790,092.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,929 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0264.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71) allow a number of fruits and vegetables into the United States, under specified conditions, from certain parts of the world while continuing to protect against the introduction of pests into the United States. Under these regulations, the importation of a variety of fruits and vegetables from Belgium, Central America, China, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Jerusalem, the Netherlands, South America, and Trinidad and Tobago requires the use of phytosanitary certificates.

In our previous extension request for this collection, we included the information collection activities of trapping records and compliance agreements, which were specific to untreated citrus from Mexico. However, we have removed the collection activities for untreated citrus from Mexico from this collection because they are now listed under a different Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. As a result, the overall burden numbers for this collection have decreased.

We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

Respondents: National plant protection organization officials of countries exporting to the United States.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 39.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 468.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 117 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Animal Welfare Act Workshop Registration.

OMB Number: 0518-033.

Expiration Date:

Type of Request: To extend currently approved data collection form.

Abstract: This Web-based form collects information to register respondents in the workshop, Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Information collected includes the following: Preference of workshop date, name, title/position, organization name, mailing address, phone number, and email address. Five questions are asked regarding: Database searching experience, membership on an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, position as principal investigator, and goals for attending the workshop.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response.

Respondents: Principal investigators, members of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, animal care personnel, veterinarians, information providers, and administrators of animal use programs.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 16.6 hours.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF, including any revised agendas for the April 22-23, 2015 meeting that occurs after this Federal Register Notice is published, may be found at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/air/taskforce.

Please note that the timing of events in the agenda is subject to change to accommodate changing schedules of expected speakers and or extended discussions.

This meeting is open to the public. On April 23, 2015, the public will have an opportunity to provide up to 5 minutes of input to the AAQTF.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Greg Johnson (contact information listed above). USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD).

On September 2, 2014, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper from India.4 Pursuant to requests from interested parties, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation 5 of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect seven companies for the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The instant review was initiated on October 30, 2014. Accordingly, the deadline to timely file withdrawal of review requests was January 28, 2015.

Petitioners submitted requests for review with respect to the following seven companies: Kokuyo Riddhi, Marisa, Navneet, Pioneer, Riddhi Enterprises, SAB, and Super Impex.6 On December 12, 2014, Navneet timely withdrew its request for administrative review. On January 28, 2015, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for administrative review of Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex. On January 28, 2015, Kokuyo Riddhi withdrew its request for administrative review. Thus, the aforementioned withdrawal requests are timely because they were filed within the 90-day deadline.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our practice,7 we are rescinding this review with respect to Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex. The instant review will continue with respect to Kokuyo Riddhi, Navneet, Riddhi Enterprises, and SAB.8

The Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, i.e., Marisa, Pioneer, and Super Impex, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of antidumping duties assessed.

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 an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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 Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The harvest and possession of red drum in the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) has been prohibited since 1988 (53 FR 24662, June 29, 1988). The harvest and possession prohibition was implemented to protect the Gulf red drum stock from overfishing. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) is currently discussing whether to modify or remove this harvest and possession prohibition, but data regarding the adult red drum in Gulf Federal waters is limited. The existing population data is not representative of the Gulf red drum population as a whole as it mainly consists of younger and smaller red drum samples obtained from state waters where harvest is permitted.

The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that would be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to red drum managed by the Council. Specifically, the EFP requests exemption from Federal regulations at § 622.92 (Prohibited species) that prohibit the harvest and possession of red drum in Gulf Federal waters.

The applicant requests authorization through the EFP to allow state of MS-licensed for-hire vessels to have a recreational bag and possession limit of one red drum per person per trip from Federal waters. There would be no size limits applicable for the red drum collected through this EFP. Additionally, the red drum bag and possession limits for captain and crew of any for-hire vessel participating in this study would be zero.

Beginning in the fall of 2015, the applicant requests to collect a maximum of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) of red drum during a 2-year period. The 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) is equivalent to approximately 2,000 red drum or about 1,000 red drum per each year of the study. According to MS DMR, as many as 70 for-hire vessels would be a part of the study. For any vessel trip that plans to harvest red drum, the vessel would be required to hail-in and hail-out with a representative of MS DMR using an existing MS DMR electronic reporting format. A representative of MS DMR would then meet the vessel that has red drum onboard harvested from Federal waters to collect sample information. The applicant would monitor the amount of red drum collected to ensure that the 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) sample limit is not exceeded. After biological sampling by MS DMR is completed for each red drum landed by participating for-hire vessels, recreational fishers from the for-hire vessel would be allowed to retain the red drum as recreational harvest. All red drum collected through this study would be harvested during regular for-hire trips using hook-and-line gear in Gulf Federal waters. A MS-licensed for-hire vessel would not be permitted to fish for or possess either Gulf reef fish species or coastal migratory pelagic species unless that vessel also had a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for the applicable species. It is not anticipated that the study will increase any overall fishing effort in the Gulf.

Samples to be collected by the applicant include biological material for red drum population genetics, age and growth, reproduction, and food habits analyses of adult red drum in Federal waters. Some specific information to be collected include using molecular techniques to identify possible meta-populations and genetic structure, stomach content analysis, tissue analysis, several length measurements, otolith sampling, and histology analysis.

The research data are intended to provide better life history information to assist with any future red drum stock assessments and to assist the Council with future management decisions.

NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.

A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with appropriate fishery management agencies of the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

Background

On November 24, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the instant review.2 TMI and TMM submitted timely-filed certifications indicating that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.3 In addition, in response to the Department's query, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) did not provide any evidence that contradicted TMI's and TMM's claims of no shipments.4 The Department received no comments from interested parties concerning the results of the CBP query. Therefore, based on TMI's and TMM's certification and our analysis of CBP information, we preliminarily determined that TMI did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.5 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 6 We received no comments from interested parties.

The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 7 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 8 ; (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.9

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

As explained above, in the Preliminary Results, the Department found that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable entries during the POR.10 Also in the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that consistent with its refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to TMI and TMM and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.11

After issuing the Preliminary Results, the Department received no comments from interested parties, nor has it received any information that would cause it to revisit its preliminary results. Therefore, for these final results, the Department continues to find that TMI and TMM did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.

The Department determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.12 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, because the Department determined that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under TMI's antidumping duty case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.13 As TMM's entries are subject to the PRC-wide rate, any suspended entries will also be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

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 Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, 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 (including TMM, which claimed no shipments, but has not been found to be separate from the PRC-wide entity), the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; 14 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 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.

Background

On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 24 species and 3 subpopulations, announced the initiation of status reviews, and solicited information from the public for each of the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). We completed comprehensive status reviews under the ESA for six foreign marine species and evaluated whether one foreign marine subpopulation met our DPS Policy criteria in response to the petition (79 FR 74954; December 16, 2014).

This notice addresses the finding for one of the petitioned subpopulations: a putative Baltic Sea harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) subpopulation (79 FR 9880; February 21, 2014). The remaining species and subpopulation will be addressed in subsequent findings.

We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” as “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species or subspecies (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. As stated in the joint DPS Policy, Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates such action is warranted. Listing determinations under the ESA must be based on the best available scientific and commercial information.

Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:

(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.

(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, we will evaluate its biological and ecological significance. The significance consideration may include the following:

(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon,

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon,

(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range, or

(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.

The harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, is a widely distributed cetacean found in temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore waters of the northern hemisphere and is usually seen in groups of two to five animals (Reeves et al., 2002). Although it is sometimes found in offshore waters, it is primarily considered a coastal species limited to continental shelf waters (Perrin et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 2008), possibly due to feeding preference and reproduction. It is also commonly found in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fjords (Powell et al., 2002).

Harbor porpoises are easy to identify because they are smaller than most other cetaceans in the northern hemisphere. Males can reach up to 1.57 m in length and 61 kg in weight, while females reach up to 1.68 m and 76 kg (Reeves et al., 2002). They reach maximum girth just ahead of the dorsal fin, which gives them a robust body and short back (Reeves et al., 2002). They are medium to dark gray with a white belly and throat, a short blunt beak, and a medium-sized triangular dorsal fin. Their maximum life span is thought to be 24 years (Reeves et al., 2002). Data from the Baltic Sea indicates that females are larger than males in all age classes (Benke et al., 1997).

Despite their small size, harbor porpoises are highly mobile animals. Satellite tagging studies show that harbor porpoises have an average swim speed of 0.6-2.3 km/h, can swim distances of up to 58 km/day, and have large home ranges (Read and Westgate, 1997; Sveegaard et al., 2011). This movement likely has implications for reproduction, foraging behavior, bioenergetics, environmental preferences, and population structure.

Sexual maturity is generally reached at about 3 to 4 years, with a large proportion of mature females producing a calf every year (Read and Hohn, 1995; Koschinski, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002). Gestation lasts 10—11 months (Reeves et al., 2002). Mean conception date is reported as 6 July ± 9.5 days in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine and 25 July ± 20.3 days in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas in the Baltic region (Borjesson and Read, 2003). Timing of conception was found to be significantly earlier in the Baltic Sea (18 August ± 11.8 days) than in the North Sea, but did not differ between the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Borjesson and Read, 2003). The North Atlantic harbor porpoise sex ratio has been reported as biased toward males throughout life (Lockyer, 2003). The sex ratio found in Danish waters in the Baltic region is 55:45, male:female (Clausen and Andersen, 1988; Sorensen and Kinze, 1994).

It is thought that shallow water areas are important for harbor porpoise calving, nursing, or breeding (Kinze, 1990; Hammond et al., 1995). Calving areas in the Baltic region have been identified inside the 20-meter depth contour in the northern part of the Little Belt, Great Belt, Sejro Bight, waters north of Fyn, archipelago south of Fyn, and Smalandsfarvandet (Kinze, 1990). The significantly higher proportion of calves off Sylt and Amrum in the North Sea indicates that these coastal waters are used as a preferred calving ground for North Sea harbor porpoises (Kremer et al., 1990; Sonntag et al., 1999). North Sea harbor porpoises have also been found in high densities during summer at the tip of Jylland in the northern part of the Danish North Sea, 30km from the Danish coast at Horns Rev, and also in the German Bight (Teilmann et al., 2008), suggesting possible calving areas or even foraging areas.

Harbor porpoises' small size, high mobility, and relatively fast reproduction cycle require a great deal of energy (Read, 1999; Koopman et al., 2002; MacLeod et al., 2007). For this reason, they feed on high lipid content fishes (Perin et al., 2002), though preferred prey species can vary regionally based upon availability (Koschinski, 2002; Perrin et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 2008). Harbor porpoises are solitary feeders and do not cooperatively forage (Reeves et al., 2002). Herring, sprat, and cod have been reported as the most important schooling fish prey items in the Baltic Sea (Koschinski, 2002), and harbor porpoises in Polish Baltic waters have been reported to feed on herring, sprat, and gobies (Malinga et al., 1997). Harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea feed opportunistically on certain species found in their local area (Koschinski, 2002), and this may be the explanation for significant differences in species preference when compared to harbor porpoises in other areas, such as the North Sea (Benke et al., 1998). Harbor porpoises in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas are reported to feed on Atlantic herring as juveniles and Atlantic hagfish as adults (Boerjesson et al., 2003).

Long-distance migrations of Baltic harbor porpoises were thought to occur in the past (Mohl-Hansen, 1954; Wolk, 1969; Andersen, 1982; Gaskin, 1984). This assumption of a massive seasonal migration has since been challenged in the literature (Kinze, 2008; Andersen and Clausen, 1993), and modern telemetry research in the Baltic region has shown there to be more of a seasonal net movement rather than complete seasonal migration (Read and Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; Sveegaard et al., 2011).

Environmental conditions may drive some of their net movement. Decreasing access to food or air and ice entrapments could occur when the Baltic Sea almost completely freezes during harsh winters, causing reports of mass deaths of harbor porpoises (Teilmann and Lowry, 1996). There are severe ice conditions reported in the southeastern Baltic Sea, but they are not consistent (Seina and Palusuo, 1996). There have been several winters with almost complete ice coverage in the Baltic Sea, which would have forced harbor porpoises from the Baltic Sea into the Belt Sea (Teilmann and Lowry, 1996; Koslowski and Schmelzer, 2007).

Environmental preferences for ideal foraging and reproduction conditions could also drive their movement. Telemetry studies of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region show that they concentrate in some areas (Read and Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; Sveegaard et al., 2011). Sveegaard et al. (2011) collected satellite telemetry data to identify key habitat use in the Baltic region by tagging harbor porpoises from a Skagerrak group (northern Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea) and an Inner Danish Waters group (southern Kattegat, Belts Seas, western Baltic Sea). They found that harbor porpoises in the region are not evenly distributed, and reported nine high density areas for the region, with clear seasonal movement for all animals tracked. Porpoises from the Inner Danish Waters group move south in winter, whereas porpoises from the Skagerrak group move west to the North Sea; during the spring and summer reproductive period, the Skagerrak group stays close to one particular area, while the Inner Danish Waters group spreads out over the entire range of their distribution. No difference was found in home range size in relation to sex for the Inner Danish Waters group, but males of the Skagerrak group had larger home ranges than the females. A more recent abundance study by Viquerat et al. (2014) confirmed that harbor porpoises in the Baltic region are not evenly distributed and reported them to concentrate in high density areas.

There is also other evidence that harbor porpoises move across water bodies in the Baltic region. Stable isotope analysis of prey items from the Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak Seas has shown that harbor porpoises move between the Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak Seas, although the magnitude of these movements is not well known (Angerbjoern et al., 2006). An extensive review of sighting surveys and tagging has indicated extensive movement of animals within and between Inner Danish Waters and the Skagerrak/North Sea (Lockyer and Kinze, 2003).

The petitioner did not define the geographic boundaries of its petitioned Baltic Sea subpopulation. Therefore, we used the best available data from the region to determine whether any boundaries exist that could be used to define a DPS within the Baltic region. Here we review the best available information, including information on physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors, to identify a Baltic Sea subpopulation and determine whether it is a DPS, as defined in our Policy.

The harbor porpoise is comprised of three subspecies in the northern hemisphere, which are assumed to be reproductively segregated by ocean basin: The North Pacific (Phocoena phocoena vomerina, Gill, 1865), North Atlantic (P. phocoena phocoena, L., 1758), and Black Sea/Sea of Azov (P. phocoena relicta, Abel, 1905) (Gaskin, 1984; Rosel et al., 1995). Within the North Atlantic subspecies, some authors have classified the Eastern and Western Atlantic harbor porpoises as populations based on migration distance (Gaskin, 1984; IWC, Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, 1996). More recently, genetic studies also differentiate harbor porpoises from the Eastern and Western Atlantic (Rosel et al., 1999; Tolley et al., 2001); however, an analysis using mitochondrial DNA has shown that movement of harbor porpoises across the Atlantic does occur at a low level (Rosel et al., 1999). Harbor porpoises in the Western Atlantic exhibit higher genetic diversity than those in the Eastern Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999). Finer-level genetic patterns of population structure remain to be resolved for the Eastern Atlantic population (Tolley et al., 2004).

The coastal nature of harbor porpoises led to an assumption of depth-restricted movement and a widespread acceptance of the proposal of thirteen populations in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999) (Figure 1): (1) Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; (2) Gulf of St. Lawrence; (3) Newfoundland and Labrador; (4) West Greenland; (5) Iceland; (6) Faroe Islands; (7) Norway and Barents Sea; (8) North Sea; (9) Kattegat and adjacent waters; (10) Baltic Sea; (11) Ireland and Western British Isles; (12) Iberia and Bay of Biscay; and (13) Northwest Africa (Gaskin, 1984; Yurick and Gaskin, 1987; IWC, Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, 1996; Rosel et al., 1999; Andersen, 2003). Regional genetic and other studies have attempted to detail a finer subpopulation structure in the Eastern and Western Atlantic and test the assumption of the above divisions.

Available information to inform our analysis of “discreteness” consists of genetic studies, skull measurements, contaminant profiles, and tooth ultrastructure. We examined the best available information in each of these categories to determine whether there is a set of individuals in the Baltic region that is discrete from the rest of the taxon (Figure 2).

Several genetic studies on the harbor porpoise have been conducted in the Baltic region using a wide range of methods, sampling locations, sample pooling, and genetic markers, which are not consistent among research groups. The most common genetic analyses have used mitochondrial DNA, followed by microsatellites, Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and isozymes to infer genetics.

Three studies tested for genetic divergence of individuals inhabiting the Baltic Sea proper, as defined by the western boundary at the Limhamn and Darss underwater ridges (Stensland, 1997; Wang and Berggren, 1997; Wiemann et al., 2010) (Figure 2). These studies did not find consistent support for a genetically distinct subpopulation within the Baltic Sea proper. For instance, Stensland (1997) found no significant differences between samples from the Swedish portion of the Baltic Sea proper and the Skagerrak when using a RAPD technique. Wiemann et al. (2010) used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA to demonstrate a small but significant genetic separation between the Baltic Sea proper and the Belt Seas. However, migration rates between the Baltic Sea proper and adjacent Belt Seas were estimated to be high, at 7.5 migrants per generation. Due to low genetic divergence, and evidence for continued gene flow and movement, the authors admitted that “it is difficult to argue in favour [sic] of a `demographic independency' of the Baltic Sea population.” Overall, existing research is consistent in supporting low or no divergence among individuals from the Baltic Sea proper as compared to others in the Baltic region, supporting continued genetic exchange and lack of reproductive isolation or demographic independence. Thus, due to the low extent of differentiation and lack of statistical confidence in these results, the weight of genetic evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a discrete Baltic Sea proper subpopulation in accordance with our DPS Policy.

Even though available genetic information did not support the conclusion that there is a discrete Baltic Sea proper population, a thorough review of available genetic information for harbor porpoises in the entire Baltic region revealed consistent support that individuals from the region are genetically differentiated from those individuals inhabiting the North Sea. First, all of the microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA methods used by Andersen (1993; Anderson et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson et al, 2001) differentiated samples from Inner Danish Waters (pooled sample set from the Kattegat, Belts, and Baltic Seas) and the North Sea. Tiedemann et al. (1996) also found a highly significant difference in mitochondrial haplotype compositions between their North Sea and Baltic Sea (pooled sample set from the Baltic Sea proper and Belt Seas) samples. These earlier studies provide consistent support that individuals in the North Sea have diverged from those inhabiting the waters of the Baltic region.

The study by Wiemann et al. (2010) provides further evidence supporting divergence of North Sea individuals from other Baltic region individuals. They suggested that this genetic transition occurs in the Kattegat Sea, based on the most comprehensive mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA study on 497 harbor porpoises in the Baltic region. They detected overall weak population structure in the region. However, the population structure that was detected showed a tendency for the North, Skagerrak, and Kattegat Seas to cluster separately from the Belt and Inner Baltic Sea samples, with strong evidence for mixture of genetic lineages throughout the region. The transition zone in the Kattegat Sea area was supported by an abrupt shift in haplotype composition; one particular haplotype that is almost absent in the North Sea was the most abundant in the Belt Sea and Inner Baltic Sea. Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA pairwise comparisons of genetic divergence among Skagerrak and Kattegat samples showed significant divergence between them, indicating that the genetic split likely occurs somewhere within the Kattegat Sea. This study obtained generally strong agreement between independent data from microsatellite and mitochondrial haplotypes, providing robust support for this genetic transition zone in the Kattegat Sea.

Based on the best available genetic data, there is evidence that the harbor porpoise is weakly diverged between the North Sea and the Baltic region past Kattegat and south/eastward into the Baltic Sea.

Skull comparisons of harbor porpoises in the Baltic Region have also been used to explore morphological evidence for population structure. The weight of available skull information aligns with genetic information in that it differentiates North Sea harbor porpoises of both sexes from those in the Baltic region. A finer population structure is seen for females within the Baltic region, but this same skull differentiation is not seen in males.

Skull studies support the genetic information indicating a genetic break, or transition zone, between the North Sea and the Baltic region. Non-metric (not measured) skull characters of harbor porpoises from the North Sea and Baltic Sea are found to differ (both sexes; Kinze 1990, Huggenberger et al. 2000). In addition, harbor porpoise skull measurements are different between the North Sea and Baltic Sea (both sexes; Kinze, 1985, 1990; Borjesson and Berggren, 1997; Huggenberger et al., 2000; Galatius et al., 2012).

Some skull studies achieved a finer-scale geographic resolution of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region. However, the statistical results of these studies are more robust in females than in males, suggesting male migration and mixing between areas (Huggenberger et al., 2002). Borjesson and Berggren (1997) examined harbor porpoise skulls from the Baltic Sea proper and the Kattegat and Skagerrak Seas and their statistical analyses showed geographically-relevant differences in skull characters between females from the Baltic Sea proper and the Kattegat and Skagerrak Seas, but not the same for males; five of 16 skull characters were significantly different in female samples, whereas one of 16 skull characters significantly differed in male samples.

Galatius et al. (2012) used geometric morphometric skull comparisons (70 cranial landmarks registered with a 3-D digitizer) from six geographic areas—the North Sea, Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, Belt Seas, western Baltic, and Inner Baltic Sea and found highly significant shape differences in skulls among these six geographic areas. There were no significant differences between males and females or sampling seasons within any of the samples. Their results indicate a morphometric segregation of harbor porpoises within the Belt Seas/Inner Baltic Sea. However, this study stands alone in differentiating this fine population structuring within the Baltic region, as the weight of genetic and other skull information does not support the same conclusion.

The weight of available skull information aligns with genetic information in that it differentiates North Sea harbor porpoises of both sexes from those in the Baltic region. Available skull information provides evidence of a finer population structure within the Baltic region for females, but not for males. This difference provides evidence of exchange of male, but not female, individuals between and among the Baltic region and the North Sea. One skull study was able to detail a fine population structure for both sexes within the Baltic region, but the weight of other available evidence does not support such a conclusion.

A few studies have distinguished North Sea or Skagerrak harbor porpoises from the rest of the Baltic region based on contaminant levels and patterns. Bruhn et al. (1997; 1999) analyzed blubber samples in harbor porpoises from the German North Sea, Baltic Sea proper, and off the west coast of Greenland. Clear differences existed between the Baltic Sea proper and North Sea animals for certain contaminants. Berggren et al. (1999) found that mature males in the Swedish part of the Baltic Sea had significantly different contamination patterns of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) than animals from the Swedish Kattegat and Skagerrak coasts and from western Norway. This information is consistent with genetic information to show population differences between the North Sea and Baltic region.

Tooth ultrastructure in the harbor porpoise has been examined to differentiate between porpoises from different regions. Lockyer (1999) found different characteristics in tooth layers, which may be genetic in origin or influenced by life history events or other factors. The author found significant differences in several tooth characteristics between the North Sea, Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, Inner Danish waters, and the Baltic Sea proper. Lockyer (1999) stated the use of tooth ultrastructure alone “is not sufficient to allow an individual animal to be assigned to a particular management unit.” Thus, her results are not informative alone and should be combined with other studies when helping to delineate a population structure. The tooth ultrastructure study does not align with genetic and other information, since it differentiates a finer scale than is supported by the weight of available information. Therefore, we do not find this information persuasive.

After combining the weight of evidence from genetic, skull, contaminant, and tooth studies we conclude that there is a discrete subpopulation of harbor porpoises in the Baltic region (from the Kattegat Sea, at the genetic break found by Wiemann et al. (2010), eastward into and including the Baltic Sea proper). Although there are shared haplotypes among harbor porpoises in the Baltic region and evidence of some male movement to suggest that a certain level of gene flow exists within the Baltic region, the repeated evidence of statistically significant genetic divergence from North Sea/Skagerrak samples guides our conclusion that this can be considered a discrete subpopulation. Available information on skull measurements and contaminant studies supports our conclusion based on genetic information, since these studies also differentiate North Sea/Skagerrak harbor porpoises from those in the Baltic region. Lockyer's (1999) study differentiated tooth structure among harbor porpoises from the North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat, Inner Danish waters, and the Baltic Sea; however, she caveats that this must be combined with other supporting information, and we did not find that the weight of other available information supports her proposed population structure. The weight of all evidence favors our conclusion of a population split at the Kattegat Sea.

Since we determined that there is a discrete Baltic region subpopulation, we next determine whether the discrete population is significant to the taxon. From this point forward in the document, we define the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation as beginning at the Kattegat inward (south/east) to and including the Baltic Sea proper.

The identified discrete Baltic subpopulation does not persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. Differences seen in harbor porpoise morphological characteristics (skull and tooth analyses) may be related to differences in environment, but available information is not informative enough at this point to link these characteristics to distinct habitats or specific adaptations at present. The habitat utilization reported for the Baltic harbor porpoise does not differ from general descriptions of the species' habitat preference. They are found in the shallow coastal areas of the Baltic region and their preference for shallow water calving and nursing does not differ from the general preference of the species. The opportunistic feeding nature of the Baltic harbor porpoise also does not show it to persist in a unique ecological setting. They target high lipid content fish to fulfill large energetic requirements, similar to the general preference of the species.

There are insufficient data to conclude that loss of the identified discrete Baltic subpopulation would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The Baltic subpopulation comprises only a small geographic area in the total range of the species and even the subspecies. There are purported to be around ten other subpopulations in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999) and other harbor porpoise populations in the North Pacific and Black Sea. Additionally, available information reveals movement and some level of gene flow throughout the Baltic region through evidence of shared haplotypes, which is discussed further below. Although there are caveats to determining the exact level of mixing between the North Sea and Baltic region (and vice versa), there is evidence to show at least some level of mixing, such that a loss of the Baltic subpopulation would not lead to a significant gap in the range of the taxon. There is evidence of continued admixture and gene flow between these regions. This gene flow may be sustained by the high dispersal capacity and movement of these animals, and the lack of obvious physical barriers between the regions.

While multiple studies confirm divergence between individuals from the North Sea and those inhabiting the Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, the absolute extent of divergence is consistently weak. For instance, all analyses of mitochondrial haplotype distribution have revealed shared haplotypes throughout the region, even across the Kattegat `transition zone' (Tiedemann et al., 1996; Wang and Berggren, 1997; Wiemann et al., 2010). In Wiemann et al. (2010), an abrupt shift in microsatellite haplotype distribution was observed between the North Sea and Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, but the two most abundant haplotypes only differ by a single point mutation. No physical barrier exists between the Kattegat and the North Sea, porpoises are known to move long distances (Teilmann et al., 2009), and evidence suggests that genetic connectivity can occur among harbor porpoises separated thousands of kilometers in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999; Fontaine et al., 2007). So, while the weak divergence (separating the North Sea from the Baltic region) is well supported, continued genetic exchange, connectivity, and ongoing reproduction among animals throughout the region is likely.

There is no evidence that the identified discrete Baltic subpopulation represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range. Harbor porpoises are historically widespread in the northern hemisphere. As stated previously, within the North Atlantic subspecies, genetic studies differentiate harbor porpoises between the Eastern and Western Atlantic, with some level of mixing. The Baltic subpopulation does not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, as there are clearly many other existing natural populations.

There is no evidence that the identified discrete Baltic population differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. The attachment of skull characters to unique environments or conditions would show evidence of adaptive genetic characteristics; however, the available harbor porpoise skull information from the Baltic region does not definitively attach characters to environmental connections to show that any skull differences are adaptive. One harbor porpoise skull study suggests that skull morphology could be attached to particular environments or conditions (Galatius et al., 2012). However, this is not supported by the weight of genetic evidence and is not even supported by other skull analyses, as they did not test adaptive skull characteristics and attach them to local or unique environmental conditions in the Baltic region. In addition, we did not find much discussion in the available literature about how differences in skull character for harbor porpoises may relate to adaptation to a particular prey item. Most of these skull studies attempt to delineate a population structure without testing the attachment of particular skull distinctions or characteristics.

In conclusion, we find that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation, while it may be discrete, does not meet any factors under the significance criterion. As such, we conclude that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation is not a DPS as defined by our joint DPS Policy.

We find that the Baltic harbor porpoise subpopulation does not meet the DPS Policy criteria for qualifying as a DPS. Therefore, listing the petitioned entity under the ESA is not warranted.

A complete list of all references cited in this notice can be found on our Web site and is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Synthetic biology will realize its full contributions to the bioeconomy when a robust metrology infrastructure is in place to enable coordination of labor and reuse of materials. Metrology products—standards, including reference materials, reference data, reference methods, and documentary standards—can enable business-to-business transactions at scale. The NIST-hosted Synthetic Biology Standards Consortium (SBSC) will collectively build the infrastructure to support a fully integrated global synthetic biology enterprise. NIST will provide standards development support for some consortium activities, as well as facilitation and technical leadership.

The SBSC will be convened as a standards setting consortium focused on the shared standards development needs of consortium members. It will provide safe harbor for collaborative work through the formation of technical standards-setting working groups. Successful working groups will be organized around a clear vision of specific metrology products that will enable interoperability and reproducibility.

Example metrology products might include a reference material such as a standard proteome set from whole cell lysates to be used as a benchmark for mass spectroscopy; reference data such as a DNA watermark repository; a reference method for DNA sequence verification; and a documentary standard for minimum information standards for biological protocol interoperability.

The goal of the workshop is to identify several initial working groups with critical mass, leadership teams, and a clear path forward to deliver standards. Participants are invited to put forth proposals—your input is essential to the success of this work. Some candidate working groups are listed on the registration page. Proposals for working groups are strongly solicited and may be contributed via the workshop registration page (http://tinyurl.com/sbsc-0315), SBSC Trello page (http://tinyurl.com/NIST-SBSC), or email to the NIST team ([email protected]). The portfolio of working groups and the technical projects within working groups will be dynamic as needs shift and arise.

At present, we expect that the workshop will conclude with:

The SBSC—Kick-off Workshop will be held on Tuesday March 31, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Pacific time. The workshop will be held in the Li Ka Shing Conference Center at Stanford University in Stanford, California. To register, go to http://tinyurl.com/sbsc-0315. There is no registration fee. Space is limited so please register early. Travel and parking information can be found on the registration page listed above.

There is no cost for participating in the consortium or the workshop. No proprietary information will be shared at the workshop.

I. Abstract

This request is for a new information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect economic and attitudinal data from hired captains and crew regarding the performance of the GOM Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program five years after its implementation. These data will be used to estimate the effects of the GT-IFQ Program on these stakeholders for the five-year program review mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The population targeted by the economic survey is hired captains and crew that participate in the GOM Grouper-Tilefish fishery. In addition, the information will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, and satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other pertinent statues.

The economic and attitudinal information sought will be collected via in-person surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0648-XXXX.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions; individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 captains and 500 crew.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 300.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The merchandise subject to the Order 1 is PSF. The PSF subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 5503.20.00.40, 5503.20.00.45, 5503.20.00.60, and 5503.20.00.65 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.2

We published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Taiwan covering two companies, FENC and Nan Ya.3 We received a timely submission from Nan Ya reporting that it did not sell or export subject merchandise during the POR.4 On December 22, 2014, we transmitted a “No-Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with respect to Nan Ya.5 Pursuant to this inquiry, we received no notification from CBP of entries of subject merchandise from Nan Ya. Accordingly, based on record evidence, we preliminarily determine that Nan Ya had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Further, consistent with our practice, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Nan Ya, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.6

The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). With respect to FENC, export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).7 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 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://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for FENC for the period May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.8 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.9

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS which is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. 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.10 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 11

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.12 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by FENC for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Consistent with the Assessment Policy Notice, if we continue to find that Nan Ya had no shipments of subject merchandise, following issuance of the final results of review, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nan Ya for which this company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for FENC will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above including Nan Ya, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.31 percent.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

The Research Steering Committee will: (a) Review the final report for the cooperative research project “Large Mesh [Belly] Panel in Small Mesh Fisheries as a Method to Reduce Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch in Cultivator Shoal”; (b) review any additional analysis performed for the cooperative research project “Large Mesh [Belly] Panel in Small Mesh Fisheries as a Method to Reduce Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch in Georges Bank”; and (c) discuss possible improvements to the research set-aside process. The Committee also may receive an update on the Council-funded collaborative groundfish research project managed by the Northeast Consortium (Supplemental Request for Proposal due March 17, 2015). Other issues may also be discussed.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The items of discussion on the agenda are:

The group will continue development of the white paper, Toward Implementation of Electronic Monitoring in groundfish fishery sectors. The group will also discuss recommendations. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

On December 7, 2012, the Department published a notice of the Order in the solar cells proceeding in the Federal Register.1 On February 4, 2015, NeoSolar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.216(b) of the Department's regulations, to determine that Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan for purposes of the Order. In their request, Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang provided lists of shareholders, managers, and boards of directors of Neo Solar and DelSolar Taiwan, business licenses of DelSolar Taiwan and DelSolar Wujiang, and a merger agreement and press release describing the merger of Neo Solar and DelSolar Taiwan.

On March 6, 2015, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (“SolarWorld”), the petitioner in the underlying investigation, submitted comments on the changed circumstances review request. SolarWorld stated that the Department should reject the request for a changed circumstances review because Neo Solar failed to establish that it is eligible for a separate rate and that it operates as the same business entity as DelSolar Taiwan. SolarWorld stated that if the Department initiates a changed circumstances review with respect to Neo Solar, the Department should require Neo Solar to provide additional information about its company operations before making a preliminary successor-in-interest determination.

The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.

This order covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of this order.

Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).

Also excluded from the scope of this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are covered by this order; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this order.

Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order. In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department determines that the information submitted by Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang constitutes sufficient evidence to conduct a changed circumstances review of the Order.2

In a changed circumstances review involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.3 While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company.4 Thus, if the record demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.5

After reviewing the information provided in the request for a changed circumstances review, we determined that Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang provided sufficient evidence to warrant a review to determine if Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a changed circumstances review. However, we also determined that there is a need to issue a questionnaire to gather additional information, as provided for by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2), before issuing a preliminary determination in this review. Therefore, the Department is not conducting this review on an expedited basis by publishing the preliminary results in conjunction with this notice of initiation.

The Department will issue the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its AD changed circumstance review within 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

During the course of this changed circumstances review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the merchandise subject to review. The cash deposit will only be altered, if warranted, pursuant to the final results of this review.

This initiation notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(b)(1).

I. Abstract

This request is for a new information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect economic and attitudinal data from reef fish dealers regarding the performance of the GOM Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program five years after its implementation. These data will be used to estimate the effects of the GT-IFQ Program on these stakeholders for the five-year program review mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The population targeted by the economic survey is all federally licensed dealers that participate in the GOM reef fish fishery. In addition, the information will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, and satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other pertinent statues.

The economic and attitudinal information sought will be collected via in-person and mail surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0648-XXXX.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 168.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 168.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Twenty years of research and development work in QIS is producing the first niche applications, and there is an increasing level of international activity in the field. The Interagency Working Group in QIS was chartered in October 2014 to develop and coordinate policies, programs, and budgets to take advantage of recent progress in this area and position the United States as a leader in the international research community. The Interagency Working Group includes participants from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and the National Science Foundation. The purpose of the workshop on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry is to solicit input from stakeholders about the broader needs of the industrial community in the area of quantum information science (QIS). Topics to be discussed include opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. Information gathered at this workshop will be used in the development and coordination of U. S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.

This workshop will focus on the needs of industry in the following areas:

Quantum information science includes, for example, quantum computing and processing, quantum algorithms and programming languages, quantum communications, quantum sensors, quantum devices, single photon sources, and detectors. What areas of pre-competitive QIS research and development appear most promising? What areas should be the highest priorities for Federal investment? What are the emerging frontiers? What methods of monitoring new developments are most effective?

The 2008 “A Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science” 1 identified exciting new possibilities for QIS impact, including mineral exploration, medical imaging, and quantum computing. Now, six years later, what market areas are well-positioned to benefit from new developments in QIS?

Funding levels and mechanisms, technology, dissemination of information, and technology transfer are some of the potential barriers to adoption of QIS technology. What are the greatest barriers to advancing important near-term and future applications of QIS and what should be done to address these barriers?

Addressing opportunities in QIS and barriers to applications requires a workforce spanning many disciplines, ranging from computer science and information theory to atomic scale manipulation of materials, and possessing a range of knowledge and skills. What knowledge and skills are most important for a workforce capable of addressing the opportunities and barriers? In what areas is the current workforce strong, and in what areas is it weak? What are the best mechanisms for equipping workers with the needed knowledge and skills?

The workshop will include invited presentations by leading experts from academia, industry, and government and time for group discussion.

There is no cost for participating in the workshop. No proprietary information will be accepted, presented or discussed as part of the workshop, and all information accepted, presented or discussed at the workshop will be in the public domain.

Workshop Registration: All workshop participants must pre-register at the following web address to be admitted: http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/quantum-information-science-innovation-and-the-path-forward.cfm. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2015, in order to attend. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Gail Newrock at (301) 975-3200 or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

Authority:

12 U.S.C. 5492(a), 5493(b)(3), (d), 5496(c)(4), 5511(b), (c), 5512, 5534(a), (b).

Under the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau extends its existing practice of disclosing data associated with consumer complaints via the Consumer Complaint Database to include narratives for which opt-in consumer consent is obtained and a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology has been applied. The purposes of the Consumer Complaint Database include providing consumers with timely and understandable information about consumer financial products and services, and improving the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of markets for such products and services. The Bureau believes that adding additional information to the Consumer Complaint Database, here narratives and structured company responses, is consistent with and promotes these purposes.

In the Bureau's previous notices of its policy statements, establishing and expanding the Consumer Complaint Database, the Bureau generally described how the Office of Consumer Response (“Consumer Response”) handles consumer complaints (collectively the “Complaint System”).2 This Final Policy Statement does not affect how a consumer's complaint is substantively handled by the Bureau. Consumer Response screens all complaints submitted by consumers based on several criteria, including whether the complaint should be routed to another regulator and whether the complaint is complete. Screened complaints are forwarded via a secure web portal to the appropriate company. The company then has 15 calendar days to provide an initial response and up to 60 calendar days to provide a final response. Companies have the ability within these timeframes to respond administratively to the Bureau, e.g., responding that no commercial relationship exists between the complaining consumer and the company in question. Typically, the company reviews the complaint, communicates with the consumer as needed, and determines what action to take in response. After the company responds to the consumer and the Bureau via the secure company portal, the Bureau invites the consumer to review the response and provide feedback. Some complaints are individually reviewed by Consumer Response investigations staff. All complaints are subject to follow-up and further investigation by Consumer Response and other parts of the Bureau.3

The Bureau makes publicly available some data it collects as part of its complaint handling function, while continually striving to protect the sensitive information contained within that data. One way the Bureau currently accomplishes this is by sharing some fields from de-identified individual-level complaint data with the public through the Consumer Complaint Database. The Database was launched on June 19, 2012. It was initially populated with credit card complaint data but has since been expanded to include complaint data about other products, e.g., mortgages, bank accounts and services, student loans, vehicle and other consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, debt collection, payday loans, and prepaid cards. Data from complaints are disclosed in the Database the earlier of: (1) An initial response to the consumer and the Bureau (confirming a commercial relationship with the consumer) or (2) 15 calendar days after the complaint was sent to the company. Data from a complaint is not published in the Database if, among other reasons, the company suspects the complaint was submitted in furtherance of a fraud or it indicates to the Bureau that it does not have a commercial relationship with the consumer.

In its Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Disclosure of Unstructured Narrative Data From Consumer Complaints and Company Responses (“Proposed Policy Statement”), the Bureau proposed expanding its Consumer Complaint Database to include narratives submitted by consumers as well as public-facing narrative responses from companies.4 The Bureau received 137 unique comments from, among others, consumer groups, trade associations, companies, and individuals. In some cases, several organizations jointly submitted a single comment letter. One financial reform organization, Americans for Financial Reform (“AFR”), submitted a single set of comments on behalf of 49 consumer, civil rights, privacy, and open government groups.5 The Bureau reviewed unique comments from 39 individuals, as well as substantially identical comment letters from approximately 30,000 individuals expressing support for the Proposed Policy Statement.

Commenters provided feedback on numerous aspects of the Proposed Policy Statement. Almost all comments concerned the expansion of the Database to include narratives. Companies and their trade associations generally opposed the inclusion of narratives in the Database. Many industry commenters asserted that the publication of “unverified” consumer narratives would unfairly damage the reputations of companies. Several trade associations also commented that inclusion of unstructured narratives is contrary to the Bureau's stated mission of being data-driven.

Per the AFR's comment letter, consumer, civil rights, privacy, and open government groups supported the inclusion of narratives, asserting that among other things narratives would: “(1) Empower consumers with timely, valuable information pre-purchase, in order to prevent problems and reward companies that respect their customers, and post-purchase, in order to report unreasonable, unfair or deceptive practices and alert others in advance of problems; (2) allow others to assist the Bureau in detecting destructive patterns before they do extensive damage; and (3) encourage more people to use the Database, as it becomes a more useful tool, creating a cycle of increased information about consumer experiences in the financial services marketplace.” These groups and individual commenters endorsed the goals underlying the publication of consumer narratives.

Several commenters focused on normalization, or the use of some metric to provide context for data, for example, by including information on the number of accounts a company has for each particular product or service. Some industry commenters noted the risk of potential consumer re-identification and the impact certain laws may have on a company's ability to respond publicly to a consumer's complaint. Both trade associations and consumer groups submitted written comments advising the Bureau to be mindful of the privacy risks associated with narrative publication. Nonetheless, four nationally recognized privacy groups—Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, and World Privacy Forum—signed AFR's comment letter in support of the Proposed Policy Statement. Additionally, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse submitted an individual comment generally supportive of disclosing narratives.

Many submissions included comments directed to the Bureau's method of processing consumer complaints, i.e., the Complaint System. To the extent that these comments also related to the scope of the Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau addresses them below. Whether addressed below or not, the Bureau welcomes operational feedback and intends to continue to refine its Complaint System over time.6

This section provides a summary of the comments received by subject matter to the Proposed Policy Statement. It also summarizes the Bureau's assessment of the comments by subject matter and, where applicable, describes the resulting changes that the Bureau is making in the Final Policy Statement including a change to how companies may respond publicly to individual complaints. All such changes concern the Consumer Complaint Database. There are no policy changes regarding the Bureau's issuance of its own complaint data reports, e.g., the Consumer Response Annual Report.

The Bureau is committed to transparency and robust engagement with the public regarding its actions. Although not required by law to do so, the Bureau voluntarily solicited and received public comments on the Proposed Policy Statement. A few commenters requested a 60-day response period as opposed to the 30 days originally provided, a request the Bureau granted.7 The Bureau received substantial public feedback expressing a range of viewpoints, and it has carefully considered the comments received, as described in detail below. As stated in the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau plans to monitor the effectiveness of its policy on an ongoing basis and to continue to engage with the public, including regulated entities, as it assesses the efficacy of the Final Policy Statement.

Several commenters commended the Bureau on providing the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Policy Statement. A number of trade associations commented that the proposal could not be finalized in a general statement of policy and was instead a binding legislative rule subject to the procedural requirements of notice and comment rulemaking.8 Several of these groups argued that rulemaking was required because the policy would obligate companies to provide public responses or else suffer reputational harm from unanswered complaint narratives. Some groups stated that the policy would impose new duties on the Bureau to verify the details contained in the narratives or to protect consumer privacy by removing information that could lead to consumer re-identification. Two groups commented that § 1022(c)(6)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to issue rules concerning the confidential treatment of information, dictates that any decision involving confidential information has to be enacted as a legislative rule.9 These groups also commented that the proposal would effectively amend the Bureau's existing privacy regulations by releasing confidential information and therefore had to be enacted through notice and comment. Two groups pointed to the example of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which provided details about its statutorily mandated database of consumer product safety complaints via a legislative rule. The groups argued that the Bureau was required to follow the same process in announcing this policy. Finally, several of these groups suggested that the importance of releasing consumer narratives or the interest in transparency meant that full notice and comment procedures were required.

The Final Policy Statement is meant to inform the public about the Bureau's intended use of its discretionary authority to release certain de-identified information. The planned addition of narratives to the Consumer Complaint Database is properly the subject of a policy statement and does not require formal rulemaking.10 The Bureau has made minor changes to the Final Policy Statement to clarify its nature as a general statement of policy. The policy neither binds private parties with any legal responsibilities nor creates any legal rights. As the Final Policy Statement makes clear, companies are under no obligation to recommend public-facing responses and will face no legal consequences by declining to do so. That some companies may decide it is worthwhile to recommend a public response does not rise to the level of a legal obligation.11 For their part, consumers are under no obligation to opt in to sharing their stories, as the consent language will make clear by stating that the decision whether to provide consent for public disclosure does not otherwise affect how the Bureau handles the complaint.

The Bureau is also not binding itself with new legal duties. As explained below, the Bureau is not committing to verify the details contained in each complaint narrative. Although the Bureau plans to scrub identifying information from the consumer narratives, it intends to do so in order to assist consumers and ensure its compliance with existing laws, rather than through the assumption of such a duty through the present Final Policy Statement. The addition of narratives to the Consumer Complaint Database is also in keeping with the Bureau's stated intent to continue refining the way it receives, shares, and makes use of consumer complaint information as well as with its past practice of making improvements to the Database.12 As part of advancing that effort, and in response to comments it received in response to the Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau is also publishing a Request for Information on how it might create or enhance opportunities for consumers to share accounts of positive experiences they have had with providers of consumer financial products and services.

The suggestion that § 1022(c)(6)(A) requires the Bureau to finalize this policy as a legislative rule is unpersuasive. That provision mandates that the Bureau “prescribe rules regarding the confidential treatment of information” it obtains in exercising its authorities. The Bureau has previously prescribed rules regarding the confidential treatment of information.13 The disclosure contemplated by this policy is consistent with those rules, and therefore does not require an amendment to those rules. Finally, as noted previously, several commenters contend that the past practice of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the general interest in transparency, or the importance of releasing consumer narratives require the Bureau to proceed via legislative rulemaking. None of these factors provides a legal basis for concluding that notice and comment rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Bureau also notes that it has made the policy process transparent by voluntarily soliciting public comment and extending the comment period from 30 to 60 days.

In the Bureau's previous notices of its policy statements establishing and expanding the Consumer Complaint Database, the Bureau addressed in detail several comments related to the Bureau's authority to establish a Database.14 Several comments in response to the Proposed Policy Statement implicate the same or similar arguments concerning the Bureau's legal authority. The Bureau directs readers to and incorporates its prior discussions, and clarifies portions here.

As was true with respect to the Bureau's prior two policy statements, commenters contend that the Dodd-Frank Act expressly delineates the circumstances and manner in which the Bureau may collect, resolve, and share consumer complaints with others, and that a public-facing database is not explicitly included. Therefore, by adverse inference, they assert that the Dodd-Frank Act does not authorize the Database.

Similarly, as was true with respect to the Bureau's prior policy statements, commenters argue that § 1034 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to establish “reasonable procedures to provide a timely response to consumers . . . to complaints against, or inquiries concerning, a covered person,” 15 does not authorize the creation of a public-facing complaint database that, instead of aiding complainants, enables data mining and market research. Commenters also make arguments, similar to past comments, that § 1021 and § 1022 do not expressly grant authority for the Bureau to establish a public-facing database or disclose consumer complaint narratives to the public.16 They also contend that the Dodd-Frank Act's restrictions on publishing confidential information block the implementation of such a database, including narratives.

The Bureau has considered these comments and concluded that the Database is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, § 1013(b)(3) authorizes the establishment of a unit “whose functions shall include establishing a single, toll-free telephone number, a Web site, and a database or utilizing an existing database to facilitate the centralized collection of, monitoring of, and response to consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products or services.” 17 Section 1034(a) directs the Bureau to establish “reasonable procedures to provide a timely response to consumers, in writing where appropriate, to complaints against, or inquiries concerning, a covered person . . .,” and § 1034(b) provides that “[a] covered person subject to supervision and primary enforcement by the Bureau pursuant to section 1025 shall provide a timely response, in writing where appropriate, to the Bureau, the prudential regulators, and any other agency having jurisdiction over such covered person concerning a consumer complaint or inquiry. . . .”18 These provisions require and establish conditions for specific methods of disclosure and responses, but do not express or imply any limit on the Bureau's authority to disclose consumer complaint information in other ways. The Database as described would facilitate and supplement, not contravene, these provisions. The Database is reasonably encompassed within the Bureau's authorities, especially in light of the Bureau's other statutory objectives and functions, including promoting financial education, providing timely information, and ensuring that markets operate transparently.19 In addition, with prescribed limitations, the Bureau has broad discretionary authority to release information obtained during the exercise of its statutory functions and the Database, as described in the Proposed Policy Statement, would not contravene any legal constraints on the Bureau.

Publication of such information would also be authorized by the Bureau's express authority pursuant to § 1022 to make certain information, including information from consumer complaints, public: Section 1022(c)(3)(B) states that the Bureau “may make public such information obtained by the Bureau under this section as is in the public interest, through aggregated reports or other appropriate formats designed to protect confidential information in accordance with paragraphs (4), (6), (8), and (9).” 20 This subparagraph permits the Bureau to disclose consumer complaint information in a non-aggregated format as long as the format is designed to protect confidential information in accordance with other specific provisions of § 1022(c). The Database would satisfy those criteria.

The disclosure of information contemplated by this policy is also consistent with subpart D of the Bureau's Final Rule on the Disclosure of Records and Information,21 which the Bureau promulgated pursuant to § 1022(c)(6). Commenters are correct to point out that subpart D generally restricts the authority of the Bureau to publicly disclose “confidential information,” including “confidential consumer complaint information.” 22 However, such disclosure restrictions only apply to the extent that consumer complaint information is confidential in nature. The Bureau's regulations define “confidential consumer complaint information” to mean “information received or generated by the [Bureau], pursuant to [sections 1013 and 1034 of the Dodd-Frank Act], that comprises or documents consumer complaints or inquiries concerning financial institutions or consumer financial products and services and responses thereto, to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) [FOIA].” 23 Because the information to be disclosed in the public database is disclosed with the consumer's express consent and not exempt from disclosure under FOIA, such information does not constitute “confidential consumer complaint information.” Accordingly, § 1022(c)(6)(A)'s grant of authority to issue rules regarding when the Bureau will treat information confidentially does not limit the Bureau's discretion to disclose information consistent with those rules, but provides further authority for the policy.

Furthermore, the Bureau intends to obtain consent from consumers to publish their complaint narratives. Obtaining written consent for disclosure aligns with requirements of 1022(c)(8), FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the Bureau's confidentiality rules. The Bureau does not intend to release a narrative until the consumer expressly consents to publication and the Bureau has determined that the narrative has been de-identified according to a robust scrubbing standard.

Comments from consumer groups, open government groups, privacy groups, and individual commenters asserted that the publication of narratives would empower consumers to better understand the context of the data currently provided in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on behalf of nine major news organizations and press trade associations, supported the publication of all narratives regardless of consent, stating that the Database is an invaluable resource for journalists as the experiences reflected in the narratives contribute to the public's understanding of the relationships between consumers and financial institutions and inform the ongoing democratic debate regarding financial regulation. Consumer groups added that consumer narratives would be a valuable resource for researchers to identify trends in the business practices of companies, particularly as they relate to traditionally underserved consumers.

Some commenters noted that narratives would encourage companies to address the sources of common complaints. Consumer groups stated that the publication of narratives would allow companies to better compete through customer service, further increasing the improvement in customer care resulting from the introduction of the Database. Other consumer groups commented that narratives would aid consumer advocacy and legal aid groups in serving their communities by helping to identify local trends.

Industry commenters, by contrast, asserted that the publication of narratives in the Database would mislead consumers because the data is, in the commenters' words, unverified and unrepresentative. And despite the fact that the Bureau confirms the existence of a commercial relationship before publishing complaints, multiple commenters expressed concern that complaints, and thus narratives, from individuals without a commercial relationship with the relevant company would appear in the Database.

In general, the Bureau believes that greater transparency of information does tend to improve customer service and identify patterns in the treatment of consumers, leading to stronger compliance mechanisms and customer service. These have been features of the Consumer Complaint Database since its inception. In addition, disclosure of consumer narratives will provide companies with greater insight into issues and challenges occurring across their markets, which can supplement their own company-specific perspectives and lend more insight into appropriate practices. Other issues raised in the comments received by the Bureau are addressed below.

In its 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement, the Bureau addressed several comments related to the disclosure of unverified consumer complaints. In response to the Proposed Policy Statement, several trade associations and companies continued to express concern, stating that unverified complaint narratives are likely to mislead consumers. Some trade associations suggested that the Bureau should only disclose narratives after a substantive investigation by the Bureau had been completed on that particular complaint. Some industry comments recommended distinguishing between unverified and verified complaints. Consumer groups and privacy groups, on the other hand, commented that the lack of verification presented minimal risk of misleading consumers.

The Bureau incorporates its previous statements and analysis on this issue.24 The Bureau acknowledges that the Complaint System does not adjudicate the merits of each individual complaint disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database, specifically stating on the Bureau's Web site that it does not “verify the accuracy of all facts alleged in complaints.” However, the Bureau does screen each complaint according to various criteria. The complaint is reviewed to determine whether it should be routed to another regulator. A determination is made whether each submission is a complaint, an inquiry, or feedback. Submissions in the latter two categories are not forwarded to the identified company for handling as complaints. Importantly, the commercial relationship between the company and the consumer is verified before disclosing it in the Database. The Bureau also verifies that the complaint is submitted by the identified consumer or by his or her specifically authorized representative before disclosure in the Database. Lastly, complaints are only forwarded to companies when they contain the required fields, including the complaint narrative, the consumer's requested resolution, and the consumer's contact information. The Bureau believes that with the information currently made public, supplemented by the contextual richness of the de-identified narratives, the public and the marketplace will have the capacity to assess all the data with the appropriate level of confidence.

Several trade associations and companies commented that third parties like debt negotiation companies could use complaint submission as a strategic tool to unfairly aid their clients. A company commenter claimed that at least one outside party has been using the company's name unlawfully to defraud consumers, and that several complaints have been mistakenly lodged against the company as a result. Specifically, a third party was contacting consumers under the name of the other company to collect money and defraud consumers, and subsequently, several consumers lodged complaints against the other company.

The Complaint System has a number of protections against manipulation. These protections were addressed in the 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement.25 For example, while the process of submitting a complaint is designed to be user-friendly and straightforward, it does require deliberate action and a moderate time commitment by the consumer. According to the Bureau's own calculations, the average amount of time required to complete a complaint submission via the Web site is eight minutes. Consumers must also affirm to the government that the information they provide is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Again, the commercial relationship between the consumer and company is confirmed by the company before any complaint data is disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database. With regard to the example provided regarding fraudulent use of a company's identity: (1) Companies have the ability to alert the Bureau via an administrative response of any suspected fraud; (2) if properly identified by the company, such complaints do not appear in the Database; (3) if the Bureau finds any pattern of fraud by any entity within its jurisdiction, the Bureau can bring appropriate enforcement actions; and (4) in sending such complaints to the company, the Bureau is assisting company operations in quickly identifying and addressing instances of potential fraud.

Several trade associations and companies commented that consumers' confusion about consumer financial products and services would lead to mistaken identification of the company against which the complaint is lodged. For example, one company commented that a consumer is likely to lodge a complaint against a credit reporting agency, when the consumer's complaint should be against the data furnisher. Trade associations and other commenters suggested the inclusion of company relationships. For example, one consumer group recommended including the parent company when that company has multiple subsidiaries against which complaints are lodged.

As previously noted, companies have the ability to notify the Bureau if no commercial relationship exists between the consumer and the company; such complaints are not suitable for disclosure in the Consumer Complaint Database. Regarding the credit reporting example that was provided, the Bureau empowers the consumer to elect whom to submit a complaint against (dependent, as noted, on an existing commercial relationship). Specific to the suggestion regarding inter- and intra-company relationships, the Bureau is exploring expansion of the Database to include additional company relationship information.

Several trade associations and companies commented that the Consumer Complaint Database should include positive narratives about companies in conjunction with complaint narratives. One commenter suggested that if the Database is to function as a marketplace of ideas, then it should reflect the entire market and not solely consumers submitting complaints. Several trade associations stated that if the Database is to be likened to private web-based review sites, then positive feedback is necessary.

Consistent with these comments, the Bureau believes that the Bureau should share data that provides an unbiased perspective on company behavior toward consumers. At present, the Bureau already collects and shares some elements of positive feedback regarding company complaint handling. For example, the Consumer Complaint Database currently discloses information that can be used to highlight positive company behavior, e.g., companies with timely responses or low consumer dispute rates. However, the Bureau intends to further explore ways in which positive company behavior may be highlighted. Concurrent with the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau is publishing a Request for Information to solicit and collect input from the public on the potential collection, identification, and sharing of data and feedback specific to positive interactions with providers of consumer financial products and services.

Several consumer groups commended the accessibility of the Bureau's contact center, with translation available in over 180 languages. These groups requested that the Bureau make the online complaint submission form available in multiple languages.

In addition to telephone support for non-English speaking consumers, the Bureau plans over time to make its online complaint intake form on consumerfinance.gov available in Spanish, and subsequently to explore making the form available in other languages as well. The Bureau is committed to providing persons with limited English proficiency meaningful access to its programs and services.

Several trade associations and companies raised concerns that narratives from third parties without authority to make a complaint on behalf of a consumer nevertheless would be published, and companies would be compelled to respond publicly. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors requested clarification on whether narratives within complaints referred from other government agencies would be disclosed.

This Final Policy Statement does not apply to complaints submitted by any third parties or via agency referral, and the Bureau does not intend to disclose such narratives at this time. The Complaint System affords companies the opportunity to alert the Bureau if they are unable to verify the commercial relationship with the consumer who submitted the complaint before the complaint is disclosed in the Consumer Complaint Database.

In its Proposed Policy Statement, the Bureau stated that:

The Bureau received comments from companies and trade associations arguing that, because of business and legal considerations, they would be limited in their ability to provide meaningful public-facing unstructured narrative responses and that such responses would be impracticable or unhelpful. In response, the Bureau intends to adopt an alternative approach based on structured company responses, as discussed below.

Trade associations and companies both questioned the fairness of publicly disclosing consumer narratives because they argued that, under the Bureau's proposal, companies would be limited in their ability to provide public-facing unstructured narrative responses. Several companies, trade associations and individual commenters expressed concern that their ability to provide meaningful public-facing unstructured narrative responses would be limited by laws such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Regulation P, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Commenters argued that, under the Bureau's proposal to permit voluntary narrative company responses, they might not be able to provide any public-facing response at all due to legal, business, and reputational considerations. These commenters argued that frank responses may be viewed negatively by the public and companies would be discouraged from attempting to articulate individualized responses. They argued that, in practice, voluntary public-facing company responses would not provide the balance suggested in the Proposed Policy Statement. Some commenters suggested various ways the Bureau could mitigate these concerns, including providing specific interpretive guidance. Consumer groups stated that making consumer narratives and company responses public would allow for consumers to make individual determinations regarding the quality of the company's service.

Responsive to company and trade association feedback, the Bureau acknowledges that unstructured company narratives may not effectively provide companies with a mechanism to balance a consumer's narrative. Therefore, the Bureau intends to provide companies with a finite list of optional structured responses from which they can choose. Within the secure web portal companies use to respond to complaints, the Bureau intends to add a set list of company responses, giving companies the ability to recommend a public-facing response addressing the substance of the consumer's complaint. Companies will be under no obligation to avail themselves of this opportunity. The Bureau plans to adopt company recommendations as a general matter, but it reserves discretion to assess whether there are good-faith bases for the recommendations. In addition, the Bureau plans to assess its review process over time. The Bureau plans for this functionality to apply to all consumer complaints disclosed via the Consumer Complaint Database (and not only those with consumer consent to disclose the associated narrative).

Although this approach was not specifically proposed by commenters, the Bureau believes that it should eliminate or significantly mitigate the concerns, raised by companies, arising from the risk of public disclosure of protected confidential information. Companies that voluntarily decide to provide a public-facing response will not be put in a position of assessing what level of detail will address a complaint while protecting confidential information. The Bureau believes companies will be more likely to recommend public-facing structured responses than they would be to provide unstructured public-facing responses, and that the reputational risks of recommending structured responses will be lower. The Bureau also believes that this approach will lead to more standardized information that may facilitate the Bureau's other functions and goals with respect to the Consumer Complaint System, such as monitoring and reporting on complaints.

Companies are ultimately responsible for ensuring their compliance with all legal requirements. The Bureau believes that its approach of making public-facing structured responses voluntary allows companies sufficient flexibility to assess legal, business, reputational, and other considerations relevant to the decision of whether to provide public-facing responses. Finally, while providing an opportunity for public-facing structured company responses offers significant benefits, the Bureau notes that the benefits of publicly disclosing unstructured consumer complaint narrative data, as explained in this Final Policy Statement, justify such disclosures, even absent an opportunity for public-facing company responses.

The Bureau solicited feedback on whether any potentially public-facing company response should be distinct and in addition to the response companies currently send directly to the consumer. Several companies and trade associations commented that it should be distinct as the public response will have to be adapted to conform to applicable privacy laws. Several consumer groups and one company, on the other hand, commented that the same response, but in redacted form, should be publicly displayed in order to provide the public with the necessary context to interpret the data. Some trade associations commented that it would be operationally burdensome to create two separate responses.

The Bureau plans to ensure that companies have the option to provide both a private (to-consumer) response and recommended public-facing structured (to be shared via the Database) response to a consumer's complaint. One of the principal benefits for consumers of the Bureau's complaint handling services is the requirement that companies respond to the consumer and the Bureau remains committed to keeping the focus on assisting consumers with their complaints. Based on data available in the Consumer Complaint Database, approximately 62% of complaints are “closed with explanation” and the majority of those (75%) are not disputed by the consumer. The Bureau is concerned that mandating that the to-consumer company responses be made public could have a chilling effect on well-received, detailed responses to consumers, potentially leading to higher consumer dispute rates. Based on comments received by companies on this issue, this concern would appear to be well founded. Allowing the company the choice to provide one very detailed private communication to its consumer, as well as a separate public-facing response, would address the Bureau's, companies' and consumers' interests on this issue.

Currently, companies have 15 days to provide an initial response to a consumer complaint. Several trade associations and companies commented that the response time should be extended in order to accommodate the drafting of a separate, public-facing response. Some comments recommended extending the initial response time to as many as 60 days.

The Bureau believes that the marginal increase in burden associated with voluntarily recommending a separate structured public response does not necessitate a deviation from the current complaint handling requirements, which themselves are designed to provide the complaining consumer with a timely response.

Trade associations, consumer groups, and individual commenters supported the simultaneous posting of the consumer narrative and company response. One consumer group recommended posting the consumer narrative after 15 days, and posting the company's public response as it becomes available. Several commenters recommended 45 days; one company recommended 60 days. One commenter recommended publication after 35 days, to align generally with timing provided under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate and respond to consumer disputes.

There are at least three timing options regarding the disclosure of the consumer narrative and company response: (1) Disclose the consumer narrative and company response (if available) when the company provides an initial response, but no later than 15 days after the complaint is routed to the company (the system currently in place for non-narrative complaint data), (2) disclose the consumer narrative and company response (if available) 15 days after the complaint is routed to the company, or (3) disclose the consumer narrative when the company provides its public-facing response, but no later than 60 days after the complaint is routed to the company. Under all three options, the complaint's structured closure responses would continue to follow the current disclosure timing (option number 1) and the consumer narrative would only be disclosed once it is scrubbed of personal information. However, only option three guarantees that a public-facing company response, to the extent one is provided within the 60-day period, would be disclosed contemporaneously with the consumer narrative.

After careful consideration, therefore, the Bureau intends to adopt option number three. Option number one could force the company to choose between its desire to respond to and close complaints quickly versus its desire to provide an appropriate public facing response. Option number two may result in instances in which the company legitimately needs additional time, has appropriately communicated to the Bureau an “in progress” response (allowing for up to 60 days to respond), and yet the consumer narrative is made public on day 15 and possibly without an accompanying company response. Option three carries a similar risk to option number one, potentially creating the incentive for companies to delay providing an optional public-facing response for the full 60-day allowance (and thus delaying disclosure of the consumer narrative). However, erring on the side of fairness to companies by ensuring contemporaneous release, the Bureau plans to implement option three.

Several consumer groups commented that consumers should be allowed to update narratives to inform the public of the status of the complaint. Some trade associations asked that consumers be provided the ability to remove their narratives if they are satisfied with the complaint resolution.

Once given, at any point in the process, consumers will have the ability to withdraw their consent regarding publication of their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database. At such time the consumer's narrative will be removed from the Database. However, data already downloaded by the public cannot be recalled by the Bureau. Based on the Bureau's experience to date reviewing consumer complaints, company responses, and ensuing resolutions, the Bureau believes that no additional back-and-forth functionality is necessary at this time.

Several trade associations and one company commented that complaints and narratives should be removed from the database after a given step in the process or given amount of time, e.g., quarterly.

The Bureau believes that consumers and the marketplace are capable of independently assessing the value of complaints based in part on when those complaints were submitted and therefore has no plans to remove complaints from the Consumer Complaint Database based on their age or status.

Several trade associations and companies commented that the unstructured narrative data should be accompanied by information providing context to the company's profile, including how many transactions the company conducts per year, how many complaints are received, and how many complaints are satisfactorily resolved.

The Bureau notes the general agreement by commenters that normalization would improve the quality of the data in the Consumer Complaint Database. As discussed in the Bureau's notices of its previous policy statements, data normalization is a complicated issue, and one that the Bureau is continuing to explore.27 The Bureau also notes that market participants, news organizations, and consumer groups can and have created normalized results.

Several consumer groups requested the inclusion of protected group information, such as sex, ethnicity, race, age, disability, marital status, or national origin, on complaint submissions. These comments noted that it would be helpful to have this information to identify trends in companies' business practices.

The Bureau agrees that the collection and public disclosure of protected group data has the potential to increase the quality of the dataset made available via the Consumer Complaint Database. However, there remain many open questions that the Bureau must first explore before moving forward on this suggestion, including the appropriateness of collecting protected group data, its representativeness, and the potential challenges with disclosing protected group data given the Bureau's sensitivity to re-identification risk.

Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, the Bureau's Database scrubbing standard would remove demographic information such as gender, age, and race, and ethnicity provided by consumers in the text of their narratives.

Trade associations, consumer groups, and individual commenters supported the proposed opt-in feature requiring a consumer's consent in order for narratives to be eligible for publication. A trade association representing news organizations asserted its view that narratives are subject to disclosure under FOIA regardless of consumer consent. Based on this viewpoint, it urged that at most the Bureau should permit consumers to opt-out of publication as opposed to having to opt-in. Commenters also generally agreed that consumers should maintain the right to revoke their consent at any time.

A central tenet of the Bureau's work is to empower consumers; providing them with the option to opt-in (as opposed to requiring them to opt-out) and the right to withdraw their consent to publication of their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database at any time advances that end.28 With respect to the comment about the application of the FOIA to narratives, the Chief FOIA Officer is authorized to grant or deny any request for a record of the CFPB, in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA and the Bureau's regulations. 12 CFR 1070.15. If the Bureau receives FOIA requests for records that are not published in the Consumer Complaint Database pursuant to this Final Policy Statement, the Chief FOIA Officer will determine whether to grant the request, or to deny it due to the applicability of FOIA exemptions.

Some commenters discussed the appearance of the opt-in form. Consumer groups requested that the opt-in be presented to the consumer early in the complaint process so that consumers can consider the implications as they draft their complaints. One company recommended providing the option to opt-in only once the consumer has received a response and has had the opportunity to consider the implications of publication. Some consumer groups recommended that, to encourage publication, the opt-in option be displayed prominently on the consent form. Additionally, some commenters requested that consumers have a distinct field on the form in which they can specify what personal information they want excluded from their narrative.

The Bureau plans to place the opt-in consent at the submission phase of the complaint. The Bureau believes the decision whether or not to consent is most appropriate at the actual time of complaint submission. This decision is consistent with the practice of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which also obtains consent to disclose complaint narratives in its public-facing database.

Some commenters recommended including disclaimers with the opt-in feature that notify consumers of what the commenters perceived to be a risk of defamatory speech. Some trade associations and companies commented that the Bureau should inform consumers of the risks of narrative publication, including the possibility of re-identification. Trade associations and companies generally commented that the consumer should be notified of the company response procedure and risks of consenting to publication. One press group commented that the consumer should be notified that his or her narrative is subject (in the commenter's view) to FOIA disclosure. One consumer group commented that consumers should be notified that consenting to publication may provide additional assistance to other consumers facing similar issues. The Bureau agrees that when a consumer is making the decision whether or not to opt-in, it is essential that the consumer have the information to weigh appropriately the risks of consenting to the disclosure of their de-identified narrative against individual and public benefits of doing so. In support of that goal, in addition to the consent language, the Bureau intends to provide clear, easily understandable material describing the scrubbing standard, methodology, and publication process, the remaining risk to privacy, and the possibility of re-identification. The Bureau is committed to continuously improving these materials over time to empower the consumer to make the most appropriate choice for his or her individual needs and circumstances.

However, consumers do not waive any privacy interests they may have in the information merely by submitting it to the Bureau.29

The Bureau requested feedback on the standard and methodology it intends to utilize for scrubbing personal information in the narratives. This scrubbing standard would be applied comprehensively to all data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database. Consumer groups offered comments supporting the proposed use of modified Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) standards for scrubbing narratives. Some companies expressed concern that significant identifiers associated with major life events may remain, notwithstanding the scrubbing process. One company commented that scrubbing should be applied to all identifying information, including references to third parties. Another company noted the differences between health data and unstructured narratives, expressing concern that a HIPAA-based methodology would not be effective and that the Bureau has not provided sufficient detail on the scrubbing mechanism to be used. One privacy organization recommended that the Bureau scrub company responses.

The Bureau's Database scrubbing standard is modeled after the HIPAA Safe Harbor Method, which is generally considered to represent a best practice for de-identifying data. In addition to adopting most of the specific HIPAA identifiers, the Bureau also plans to remove: (1) Demographic information such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity; (2) appropriate analogues to HIPAA identifiers in the consumer financial domain, e.g., credit card numbers; and (3) identifiers which the Bureau knows appear in complaints and could reasonably be used to identify individuals, e.g., references to third parties other than the company that is the subject of the complaint. The scrubbing methodology contemplates a computer-based automated step and a quality assurance step or steps performed by human reviewers.

The Bureau requested feedback on whether to disclose 5-digit ZIP codes alongside redacted narratives.30 By and large the responses that were received supported two options. The majority of commenters suggested the Bureau disclose 5-digit ZIP codes, except where population in the ZIP code contains fewer than 10,000 people. The second most cited option recommended disclosing full 5-digit ZIP codes, regardless of population. On the other extreme, one commenter suggested that ZIP codes should be excluded altogether, with state or county being used as the geographic identifier.

While the Bureau acknowledges the unique value of detailed geographic data, it is also acutely aware of the heightened risk 5-digit ZIP codes can create for re-identification. Accordingly, the Bureau plans to disclose 5-digit ZIP codes, except where the population in the ZIP code contains fewer than 20,000 people. In such cases, the Bureau plans to disclose the 3-digit ZIP code, except where the 3-digit ZIP code population contains fewer than 20,000 people, in which case the Bureau does not intend to disclose any ZIP code data. While this approach represents a different approach than those suggested by most commenters, the Bureau believes that this option appropriately balances the utility of geographic data with the associated risk to individual consumer privacy. As with all elements of its scrubbing standard, the Bureau intends to make adjustments in the future guided by the goal of simultaneously maximizing data utility and individual privacy.

Several trade associations and companies commented that despite the proposed scrubbing methodology, an unacceptably high risk of re-identification will remain. Some commented that in areas with small populations, even scrubbed narratives could lead to re-identification based on other details not covered by HIPAA standards. One company also commented that the risk of narrative content being repeated through social media raises the possibility of re-identification by individuals familiar with the consumer. Consumer and privacy groups commented that the risk of re-identification is minimal, and offset by the benefits of the policy and rigor of the scrubbing standard.

As the Bureau stated in the Proposed Policy Statement, sharing data containing any personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. As a particular personal information scrubbing standard becomes more or less stringent, the utility of a given de-identified dataset may become respectively less or more useful. The publication of narratives involves risks, including the potential harm associated with the re-identification of actual consumers within the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau believes that it is appropriate to publish only those narratives for which opt-in informed consumer consent has been obtained, that have also been subjected to scrubbing under a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology.

Trade associations commented that the public disclosure of unverified narratives would result in reputational harm to companies. Some comments argued that any perceived benefit to consumers through narrative publication would be outweighed by the reputational harm suffered by companies.

The Bureau takes seriously company and trade association concerns that financial institutions could incur intangible reputational damage as a result of the disclosure of narratives. As stated in previous policy statements, to a large extent, this risk is inherent in any release of complaint data. In deciding to release the structured complaint data, the Bureau considered this concern and concluded that, while there is always a risk that market participants will draw erroneous conclusions from available data, the marketplace of ideas would on the whole be able to determine what the data show and their relative importance. The Bureau believes this to be equally true with respect to narratives, and that consumer narrative publication will in fact make it easier for the marketplace to evaluate the rest of the complaint data by providing more information and context. Likewise, the Bureau also believes that the option for companies to provide public-facing structured responses will enhance the effectiveness of the Database and provide an opportunity for companies to enhance their reputation and mitigate potential concerns.

Consistent with these comments, the Bureau believes that the Database should include data that provides an unbiased perspective on company behavior toward consumers. Accordingly, in parallel to the finalization of the instant Final Policy Statement, the Bureau intends to further explore ways in which positive company behavior may be highlighted. Concurrent with the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau is publishing a Request for Information to solicit and collect input from the public on the potential collection, identification, and sharing of data and feedback specific to positive interactions with providers of consumer financial products and services.

Several companies, trade associations, and a public interest organization commented that publicly posting narratives could create disincentives for consumers to deal directly with companies to resolve their disputes. Some commenters requested that narratives only be posted after the consumer has directly contacted the company. A few trade associations commented that narrative publication would cause general harm to customer relations by making the process more adversarial.

The data collected from the Bureau's credit card intake form and survey work shows that the vast majority of consumers have already attempted, often several times, to resolve the complained-about issue with the company before seeking assistance from the Bureau. As previously stated, a central element of the Bureau's mission is to empower consumers; the Bureau believes that requiring consumers to contact the company before engaging the Bureau would work against that goal. Such an additional procedural hurdle may also discourage some number of consumers from submitting complaints, which would have the effect of depriving the Bureau of the information underlying the complaint. This could serve to undermine Bureau functions that rely, at least in part, on complaint data to inform their respective activities.

Similarly the Bureau is skeptical of concerns that disclosing narratives would create disincentives for consumers to deal directly with the company and would cause general harm to customer relations by making the process more adversarial. Feedback the Bureau has received suggests the introduction of the Consumer Complaint Database and the Bureau's activities generally have caused greater investment by companies in their customer service operations, which includes company complaint handling. The Bureau views this development as a positive step for customer service at companies that are making such investments.

Several trade associations, companies, and individual commenters stated that by including unverified comments on a government Web site, the narratives will be portrayed as being validated by the Bureau.

Similar concerns were previously raised and addressed by the Bureau in the 2012 Notice of Final Policy Statement.31 The Bureau acknowledged the possibility that some consumers may (or may be led to) draw erroneous conclusions from the data. That is true, however, for any market data. In recognition of this risk the Bureau provides the following disclaimer on the Consumer Complaint Database: “We don't verify all the facts alleged in these complaints but we take steps to confirm a commercial relationship between the consumer and company. Complaints are listed here after the company responds or after they have had the complaint for 15 calendar days, whichever comes first. We remove complaints if they don't meet all of the publication criteria. Data is refreshed nightly.” The Bureau believes this disclaimer to be sufficient to address the risk identified by commenters.

As discussed elsewhere, it is noteworthy that several other government agencies make consumer complaint narratives available, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and, pursuant to FOIA requests, the Federal Trade Commission.

Several trade associations commented that unstructured narrative data provides minimal benefit to consumers as required scrubbing would remove any useful information from the narrative and responses. Some trade association comments added that the Bureau's resources would be better utilized by providing more context for data already provided in the Database. Some consumer groups requested better organization of the data provided in the Database.

As noted previously, sharing data containing personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. The Bureau believes, based on the comments received from various consumer and privacy groups, that it is possible to strike a balance between these two important interests and still disclose a dataset that provides significant benefit to the marketplace. The Bureau will continually monitor this balance for opportunities to adjust its personal information scrubbing standard, which the Bureau intends to describe on its Web site. Furthermore, the Bureau is committed to the continuous improvement of the Consumer Complaint Database, which includes the addition of increasing levels of context, organization, and data normalization.

A few companies and trade associations commented that the publication of narratives would lead to increased litigation, either through potentially “defamatory” narratives posted by consumers or as a result of additional information available to prospective plaintiffs. One company expressed the concern that complaints and narratives could be sources of information appropriately left to be obtained during the discovery process. One trade association also commented that the privacy risks of published narratives could increase the risk of legal liability and heighten litigation costs. One legal aid organization commented that the availability of complaint narratives would help consumer advocacy groups to identify local trends of unlawful behavior and target legal efforts more effectively.

The Bureau believes the risk of increased litigation following the disclosure of narratives to be low. The closest analogs to the Bureau's plan for narrative disclosure are the Consumer Product Safety Commission's public-facing complaint database and the Federal Trade Commission's disclosures pursuant to FOIA requests; the Bureau is not aware of any information that those disclosures have increased litigation against companies. Ultimately, the Bureau believes there is significant value in making available Bureau complaint data to help in the identification of and calling attention to potentially unlawful behavior.

Several trade associations and companies commented that the additional procedure of creating a second, public-facing response, and ensuring its compliance with potentially applicable laws, would increase operational costs for companies. Some of these commenters also emphasized the increased costs to the Bureau resulting from additional infrastructure necessary to publish narratives. One public interest group also highlighted the financial burden of producing additional responses to narratives.

As noted above, and in light of the comments received, the Bureau intends to provide companies with a finite list of optional structured responses that will allow them to recommend to the Bureau an optional public response to address the substance of consumers' complaints. The Bureau believes that this approach significantly decreases the operational costs of providing independent public-facing responses, as compared to the Bureau's proposal of providing separate narrative responses. Still, the Bureau acknowledges that additional effort and expense may be borne by companies in connection with preparing public-facing responses to consumer narratives. The Bureau has weighed these factors, in addition to the increased burdens on the Bureau's own complaint handling operation. The Bureau considers it a matter of fairness to provide companies with the opportunity to address publicly consumer complaints from the company's perspective. It is important to recognize that no company will be required to recommend a public-facing response, and it is entirely up to the company whether it wants to take advantage of this forum. The Bureau does not believe that the additional burden a company may bear in taking advantage of this opportunity, particularly given the Bureau's movement to structured responses and away from unstructured narrative company responses, outweighs the benefit of publicly disclosing narratives to consumers and the marketplace.

One individual commented that the public posting of consumer narratives would create an incentive for companies to require consumers to sign non-disclosure agreements when creating an account. This commenter recounted an experience in which he submitted a complaint to the Bureau and when settling the matter with the company, the company asked him to sign a confidentiality agreement.

The Bureau's experience to date has not uncovered widespread company use of non-disclosure agreements in connection with the Consumer Complaint Database, and no company comments on the proposed Policy have indicated that companies intend to utilize non-disclosure agreements as gag orders in the way envisioned by this comment. The Bureau's market monitoring will remain alert to developments along these lines. However, the Bureau would likely look disfavorably upon agreements that require a consumer to withdraw his or her consent to have a narrative published as a condition of settlement.

Following publication of the Final Policy Statement, the Bureau will turn to implementation of the policy. The Bureau intends to modify its Web site and online complaint intake form to collect informed opt-in consumer consent. In conjunction with the collection of consumer consent, the Bureau intends to finalize and post on its Web site the Consumer Complaint Database scrubbing standard. The Bureau will also modify the company web portal to add functionality to allow companies to provide the recommended public-facing responses, reach out to companies on the company web portal to offer training and provide technical support related to the policy. The Bureau will finalize its automated and manual review processes and then begin scrubbing narratives.

The Bureau will not disclose any scrubbed and consented-to narratives until sufficient time has elapsed to allow the Bureau to adequately complete and assess the above actions.

The Bureau hears directly from the American public about their experiences with the nation's consumer financial marketplace. An important element of the Bureau's mission is the handling of individual consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products and services.

In June 2012, the Bureau began making de-identified individual-level complaint data available via its web-based, public-facing database (the “Consumer Complaint Database”). Since launch, the Consumer Complaint Database has been expanded to include additional consumer financial products and data fields as products have been added to its complaint handling system. Consistent with its strategic vision, the Bureau is committed to the continued growth and refinement of the Consumer Complaint Database in a manner that helps inform consumers and the marketplace while still protecting privacy and incorporating appropriate security controls.

The Bureau plans to provide consumers who submit their complaints directly to the Bureau the opportunity to share their individual stories with other consumers and the marketplace by including consumer complaint narratives in the Consumer Complaint Database where consent for publication is first obtained from the consumer. Only those narratives for which opt-in consumer consent is obtained and a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology is applied will be eligible for disclosure.

The Bureau intends to disclose only narratives for which informed consent has been obtained and that have been scrubbed for personal information. To obtain informed consumer consent, the Bureau plans to give consumers who submit a complaint the opportunity to check a consent box, with accompanying language that will state, among other things, and in plain language, that: (1) Whether or not consent is given will not otherwise impact how the Bureau handles the complaint; (2) if given, the consumer may thereafter inform the Bureau that the consumer withdraws consent at any time and the narrative will be removed from the Consumer Complaint Database; and (3) the Bureau will take reasonable steps to remove personal information from the complaint to address risk of re-identification.

Sharing data containing personal information presents a tension between data utility and individual privacy. As a particular personal information scrubbing standard becomes more or less stringent, the utility of a given de-identified dataset may become respectively less or more useful.

Within its judgment and discretion, and in order to address the risk of re-identification, the Bureau intends to apply to all publicly-disclosed narratives a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology. In designing its scrubbing standard, the Bureau relied heavily on guidance by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding de-identification of health data, as outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule.32 The Bureau's current scrubbing standard is modeled after the HIPAA Safe Harbor Method, which is generally considered to represent a best practice for de-identifying data. In addition to adopting (and removing) most of the specific HIPAA identifiers, the Bureau also plans to remove: (1) Demographic information such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity; (2) appropriate analogues to HIPAA identifiers in the consumer financial domain, e.g., credit card numbers; and (3) identifiers which the Bureau knows appear in complaints and could reasonably be used to identify individuals, e.g., personal information pertaining to third parties other than the company that is the subject of the complaint. All consumer complaint data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database will be subject to this standard and methodology, including, e.g., ZIP code. The Bureau plans to make this scrubbing standard available on the Bureau's Web site. The scrubbing methodology contemplates a computer-based automated step and a quality assurance step or steps performed by human reviewers.

The Bureau plans to give companies the opportunity to respond publicly to the substance of the consumer complaints they receive from the Bureau. Within the secure web portal companies use to respond to complaints, the Bureau intends to add a set list of structured company response options; a responding company will be given an opportunity to recommend to the Bureau which option, if any, it would like included as a public-facing response to address the substance of the consumer's complaint. Companies will be under no obligation to avail themselves of this opportunity.

The Bureau plans to implement a testing and continuous improvement process to ensure that as applied, the Bureau's standard and methodology for scrubbing personal information adequately protects consumers. The Bureau intends to continue to adjust its scrubbing standard and methodology, guided by the goal of simultaneously maximizing data utility and individual privacy.

This Policy Statement is intended to provide information regarding the Bureau's plans to exercise its discretion to publicly disclose certain data derived from consumer complaints. The Policy Statement does not impose any legal obligations on third parties, nor does it create or confer any substantive or procedural rights on third parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil proceeding.

Authority:

12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

Background: The Bureau, established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), hears directly from the American public about their experiences with the nation's consumer financial marketplace. An important element of the Bureau's mission is the handling of individual consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products and services. In June 2012, the Bureau began making certain de-identified individual-level complaint data available via its Web-based, public facing database (the “Consumer Complaint Database”). Since launch, the Consumer Complaint Database has been expanded multiple times to include additional consumer financial products and data fields. Concurrent with this RFI, the Bureau is publishing a final policy statement to provide guidance on how the Bureau plans to exercise its discretion to disclose publicly unstructured consumer complaint narrative data via the Consumer Complaint Database. As part of the public comment process associated with that policy, several trade associations and companies commented that the Consumer Complaint Database should include positive feedback in conjunction with complaint narratives. One commenter suggested that if the Database is to function as a marketplace of ideas, then it should reflect the entire market and not solely consumers submitting complaints. Several trade associations stated that if the database is to be likened to private Web-based review sites, then positive feedback is necessary.

Current Bureau Operations: The Bureau currently collects and shares some positive feedback regarding company complaint handling. For example, the public Consumer Complaint Database currently shares information that can be used to highlight a company's positive complaint handling relative to its peers, e.g., whether company responses are timely or disputed by the consumer.

Positive Consumer Feedback: Broadly speaking, the Bureau conceives of two potential avenues for sharing positive consumer feedback about companies: (1) By providing more information about a company's complaint handling, and (2) by collecting and providing consumer compliments (independent of the complaint process). Each will be discussed in turn.

In 2014, the Bureau sent approximately 156,600 consumer complaints to companies for response. In 2013 and 2012, that figure was 113,200 and 75,400, respectively. When a company receives a complaint from the Bureau, it has 15 calendar days for its initial response and up to 60 calendar days to provide a final response. The company reviews the information, communicates with the consumer as needed, and determines what action to take in response. Once the company responds, the Bureau alerts the consumer and invites him or her to review the response and provide feedback.

The data shared via the Consumer Complaint Database can reveal positive company behavior. The purposes of publishing the Consumer Complaint Database include providing consumers with timely and understandable information about consumer financial products and services, and improving the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of markets for such products and services. Consumer complaints are a natural part of doing business. Therefore, it is not the existence of a routine complaint, by itself, that draws the attention of the market, but instead it is factors such as the number of complaints relative to comparable companies, how a company handles its complaints, the patterns and categories that identify and show the frequency of certain complaints, and perhaps the occasional notable fact pattern. The Bureau believes there are opportunities to highlight positive company behavior within at least the first two of these characteristics—relative volume and quality of response to the consumer. With this RFI, the Bureau is specifically interested in responses that identify potential ways the Bureau could record, calculate, standardize, sort, share, and visualize the data associated with the consumer complaints the Bureau sends to companies in ways that reveal positive company behavior. The following represents a non-exhaustive list of potential metrics that the Bureau could share on its Web site:

i. Total number of complaints, by product and issue.

ii. Normalized number of complaints by company, by product and issue.

iii. Company Final Responses. Controlling for other variables, e.g., product and issue, comparison of how companies choose to close complaints.

iv. Timeliness and speed:

a. Average time between complaint receipt and initial/final response.

b. Frequency of exceeding either the 15 or 60 day allowance.

v. Consumer Sentiment Analysis. Refers to the use of automated textual analysis to identify and extract subjective information in source materials, e.g., classifying the various complaint narratives fields across a spectrum of emotional states.

The Bureau also seeks comment on a potential adjustment of the consumer “dispute” function. Under one potential scenario, the dispute function would be replaced with a two-part consumer feedback process. The consumer would have the ability to rate the company's handling of his or her complaint on a one to five scale of satisfaction and provide a description in support of the rating. Positive feedback about the company's handling of the consumer's complaint would be reflected by both high satisfaction scores and by the narrative in support of the score. The Bureau would consider whether and how these data elements could be disclosed to the public.

The Bureau is also seeking input on the most effective and user-friendly ways to make the above data available to the public. The ability to download the raw data may be an option. Other options may include comparison tools, dashboards, and visualizations. Lastly, the Bureau could release tables listing, e.g., the “Top Ten” (and bottom) companies across some number of the above metrics. The Bureau is interested in hearing not only whether the public believes these to be good ideas, but mechanically how they could work. The following represents some of the issues to be considered:

• Timing. How often should the lists be updated, e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly?

• Normalization. Should the lists include normalized results or just those metrics that do not require normalization, e.g., time from receipt to final company response?

• Size Threshold. Should there be a minimum complaint volume threshold to be included on the list?

• Metrics. Which metric should be subject to listing, e.g., volume of normalized complaints, types of resolutions, consumer satisfaction/dispute rates, consumer sentiment?

Outside of the Bureau's current complaint handling operation, another possible avenue for highlighting positive company behavior would be to solicit, collect, and share consumer compliments. This could entail a new submission type, channel, and process for the Bureau as well as a new database to list such compliments. The Bureau is seeking input from the public on this idea generally, as well as focused comments across the following elements:

The Bureau maintains a feature on its Web site called Tell Your Story, which gives consumers the opportunity to share their experiences with consumer financial products and services. These submissions are reviewed by CFPB staff and help the Bureau understand current issues in the financial marketplace. This channel could operate as-is and instances of consumer compliments could be shared with the public (with the appropriate consumer consent). Alternatively, Tell Your Story could be altered to solicit consumer compliments more directly. Or a new channel could be launched that is specifically designed to intake only consumer compliments. The Bureau requests public comment on the possibility of expanding the Tell Your Story channel, and/or specific suggestions for alternate channels to facilitate positive feedback.

As detailed previously, consumer complaints follow a specific process path, from the consumer to the Bureau to the company and back to the consumer. If the Bureau established a new database to intake and publish consumer compliments, should the same process apply? How should the Bureau confirm that a commercial relationship exists between the consumer submitting the compliment and the company? Specifically, should consumer compliments be sent to the relevant company for the company to confirm that a commercial relationship exists between the consumer and the company? Are there any other operational considerations that would benefit the public that the Bureau should consider when designing, developing, and implementing a system for collecting consumer compliments?

The Consumer Complaint Database does not disclose every complaint the Bureau receives. Examples of complaints that are withheld from disclosure include complaints where the commercial relationship could not be confirmed, complaints that are referred to other regulators, complaints where the information is incomplete, complaints involving ongoing litigation with the company, and anonymous complaints. As with complaints, the Bureau would have to determine (1) what elements of a consumer compliment to disclose publicly, and (2) which compliments should be excluded from disclosure, and (3) how scrubbing and consent should be applied. The Bureau is seeking input from the public on these questions.

Creative and Innovative Solutions. The above framework for considering positive company feedback should be considered as just that, a framework. The Bureau is seeking innovative and creative input on the idea of highlighting positive consumer experiences and company performance. Therefore, while the above provides some focus for this solicitation, the Bureau is hopeful that it will receive a number of innovative ideas that it can evaluate and potentially implement.

The United States European Command notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov.

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on January 27, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

A partially exclusive license (exclusive with respect to the fields of footwear and circuit boards) in any right, title, and interest of the Air Force in: U.S. Application No. 13/624,151, entitled, “SYNTHESIS OF FUNCTIONAL FLUORINATED POLYHEDRAL OLIGOMERIC SILSESQUIOXANE,” by Timothy S. Haddad et al., filed on 21 September 2012, published as U.S. Application Publication No. 2013/0072609, and claiming benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Application 61/537,122, filed 21 September 2011; and U.S. Application No. 14/013,600, entitled, “CONTROLLED POLYMERIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL FLUORINATED POLYHEDRAL OLIGOMERIC SILSESQUIOXANE MONOMERS,” by Sean M. Ramirez et al., and filed on 29 August 2013.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150). Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), the DFO was unable to approve the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery's meeting agenda for the scheduled meeting of March 26, 2015, to ensure compliance with the requirements of 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations.

Proposed Agenda: The Committee will receive updates on major construction and expansion projects, sustainment planning and visitor enhancements. Additionally, the Committee will review a specific request for placement of a commemorative monument at Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate Vietnam Helicopter Pilots in accordance with the requirements of title 38 United States Code section 2409.

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

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Renea Yates, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Committee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) days in advance to the Committee's Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Designated Federal Official.

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

Title of Collection: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,300.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,800.

Abstract: The purpose of Indian Education Formula Grant to Local Agencies, as authorized under title VII, part A, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended sections 7111-7119, 20 U.S.C. 7421-7429 is to assist applicants to provide Indian students with the opportunity to meet the same challenging state standards as all other students and meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The Indian Education Formula Grant (CFDA 84.060A) is not competitive or discretionary and requires the annual submission of the application from either a local education agency (LEA) and/or tribe. The amount of the award for each applicant is determined by a formula based on the reported number of American Indian/Alaska Native students identified in the application, the state per pupil expenditure, and the total appropriation available. The 524B Annual Performance Report (APR) was designed for discretionary grants, however the title VII program is a formula grant program. Therefore, the EASIE APR goes beyond the generic 524B APR and facilitates the collection of more specific and comprehensive data due to grantees entering project specific data into an online database. This will allow for a comparison of LEAs across objectives. By entering information into the EASIE APR database, data will be able to be generated quickly and uniformly to facilitate data collection, as required under 34 CFR 75.720, and 2 CFR part 200.301. This APR will improve the quality of data collected that can be used for evaluation and to help make policy decisions, reduce burden on the grantees, and allow ED to inform Congress on the outcomes of this grant program.

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

Title of Collection: Transition to Teaching Survey.

OMB Control Number: 1855-0018.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 144.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 42.

Abstract: This is a request for approval to collect information from Transition to Teaching (TTT) grantees that will be used to describe the extent to which local education agencies that received TTT grant funds have met the goals relating to teacher recruitment and retention described in their application. TTT grantees are funded for a period of five years. Currently, grantees are required by statute to submit an interim project evaluation to the Department of Education (ED) at the end of the third project year and a final project evaluation at the project's end. In turn, the TTT program is required to prepare and submit to the Secretary and to Congress interim and final program evaluations containing the results of these grantee project evaluation reports. An analysis of these reports has provided some data on grantee activities, prior to the usage of the TTT survey, missing or incomplete data made it difficult to aggregate data across grantees in order to accurately describe to Congress the extent of program implementation. This data collection allows ED to gather data on a common set of indicators across grantees in order to describe and improve program implementation with the end goal of improving program performance.