Federal Register Vol. 81, No.4,

The Specialty Crop Committee was established in accordance with the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 under Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 108-465. This Committee is a permanent subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (the Board). The Committee's charge is to study the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The congressional legislation defines “specialty crops” as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops (including floriculture).

In order to carry out its responsibilities effectively, the Committee is holding a stakeholder listening session. The listening session will elicit stakeholder input from industry and state representatives, national organizations and institutions, local producers, and other groups interested in the issues with which the Specialty Crop Committee is charged. This session will be an opportunity to share ideas on the specialty crop industry with members of USDA's Specialty Crop Committee, including: Measures designed to improve the efficiency, productivity, and profitability of specialty crop production in the United States; measures designed to improve competitiveness through research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry; and programs that would: Enhance quality and shelf-life, development of new crop protection tools, preventing foreign invasive pests and diseases, developing new and improved marketing tools, and enhancing food safety, improvement of mechanization of production practices, and enhancing irrigation techniques. Input received will help formulate recommendations from the Specialty Crop Committee to USDA.

Written comments by attendees and other interested stakeholders will be welcomed as additional public input by January 22, 2016. All verbal and written statements will become part of the official public record of the REE Advisory Board Office.

Background

On September 2, 2015, based on a timely request for review by Wheatland Tube Company (“Wheatland”), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from the PRC with respect to 20 companies covering the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.1 On December 1, 2015, Wheatland withdrew its request for an administrative review of all of the companies listed in its review request.

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

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

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return 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 violation which is subject to sanction.

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

Background

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. The Department also received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for the order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip.

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

On December 17, 2015 the Department received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for the order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. However, this request was filed untimely and did not follow the procedures outlined in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)-(2); accordingly, the Department is denying this request and will initiate this review as described in this notice.

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

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than November 30, 2016.

None.

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

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

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

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

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.5 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 6 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

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

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

The Department published the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC on January 31, 1984.2 On September 1, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).3 On September 9, 2015, Carus Corporation (“Carus”), a U.S. producer of potassium permanganate, claiming interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, submitted its notice of intent to participate in this sunset review.4 On September 29, 2015, Carus submitted its Substantive Response within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC.

Imports covered by this order are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive.

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is available in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Potassium Permanganate from the PRC (“Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail is up to 128.94 percent.5

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is welded austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the orders also includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.

Imports of welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of the antidumping duty order is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. However, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.2

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. With respect to LS Metal, we relied on facts available,3 and, because it did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.4

For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the Department's main building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.

The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review and may submit case briefs no 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.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review 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.6 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.7 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.8 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the on which it is due.9

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended.10

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews. 11

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.12 This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by a respondent 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.

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 welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review except if that rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate of 6.83 percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.13 These 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

The Risk Policy Working Group will discuss the implementation and application of the Council's Risk Policy across all Council-managed species; review updated matrix of “baseline conditions” for Council-managed species, i.e., how risk and uncertainty are currently addressed; discuss baseline conditions in the Atlantic herring fishery; review available information and begin to develop recommendations regarding the application of the Risk Policy in the Atlantic Herring FMP; discuss baseline conditions in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery; plan future work and address other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action 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 Fishery Conservation and Management 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 (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Background

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

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

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

On June 9, 2015, NMFS received an application from Excelerate and Tetra Tech, on behalf of Northeast Gateway and Algonquin, for an authorization to take 14 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to operations, maintenance, and repair of an LNG port and the Pipeline Lateral facilities in Massachusetts Bay. They are: North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, long-finned pilot whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, killer whale, Risso's dolphin, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and gray seal. Since LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance, and repair activities have the potential to take marine mammals, a marine mammal take authorization under the MMPA is warranted.

NMFS first issued an IHA to Northeast Gateway and Algonquin to allow for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals resulting from the construction and operation of the NEG Port and the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral (72 FR 27077; May 14, 2007). Subsequently, NMFS issued five one-year IHAs for the take of marine mammals incidental to the operation of the NEG Port activity pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (73 FR 29485, May 21, 2008; 74 FR 45613, September 3, 2009; 75 FR 53672, September 1, 2010; and 76 FR 62778, October 11, 2011). On December 22, 2014, NMFS issued an IHA to NEG and Algonquin to take marine mammals incidental to the operations of the NEG Port as well as maintenance and repair activities (79 FR 78806, December 31, 2014). The current IHA expired on December 21, 2015.

On November 20, 2015, NMFS published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 72688) for a proposed IHA for the incidental take of small number of 14 marine mammal species incidental to NEG and Algonquin's Port and Lateral Pipeline operations and maintenance and repair activities between December 22, 2015, and December 21, 2016. There has been no change regarding the proposed activities and monitoring and mitigation measures from the proposed IHA.

The proposed NEG and Algonquin activities include the following:

NEG Port Operations: The NEG Port operations involve docking of LNG vessels and regasification of LNG for delivery to shore. Noises generated during these activities, especially from the LNG vessel's dynamics positioning thrusters during docking, could result in takes of marine mammals in the Port vicinity by level B behavioral harassment.

NEG Port Maintenance and Repair: Regular maintenance and occasional repair of the NEG Port are expected to occur throughout the NEG Port operation period. Machinery used during these activities generate noises that could result in takes of marine mammals in the Port vicinity by Level B behavioral harassment.

Algonquin Pipeline Lateral Routine Operations and Maintenance: The Algonquin Pipeline Lateral that is used for gas delivery would be inspected regularly to ensure proper operations. The work would be done using support vessels operating in dynamic positioning mode. Noises generated from these activities could result in takes of marine mammals in the vicinity of Pipeline Lateral by Level B behavioral harassment.

Unplanned Pipeline Repair Activities: Unplanned repair activities may be required from time to time at a location along the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral in west Massachusetts Bay, as shown in Figure 2.1 of the IHA application. The repair would involve the use of a dive vessel operating in dynamic positioning mode. Noise generated from this activity could result in takes of marine mammals in the vicinity of repair work by Level B behavioral harassment.

An IHA was previously issued to NEG and Algonquin for this activity on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 78806; December 31, 2014), based on activities described on Excelerate and Tetra Tech's IHA application submitted in June 2014 and on the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (78 FR 69049; November 18, 2013). The latest IHA application submitted by Excelerate and Tetra Tech on October 9, 2015, contains the same information on project descriptions as described in the June 2014 IHA application. There is no change on the NEG and Algonquin's proposed LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair. Please refer to these documents for a detailed description of NEG and Algonquin's proposed LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Northeast Gateway and Algonquin was published in the Federal Register notice on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72688). The notice described Northeast Gateway and Algonquin's activities, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals, and the proposed monitoring, mitigation, and reporting measures.

During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), which is addressed here. NMFS also received one comment letter from a private citizen. However, the contents of that letter are not relevant to our determinations under the MMPA, and therefore they are not addressed here.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the requested incidental harassment authorization, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has included the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures contained in the proposed authorization in the issued IHA.

General information on the marine mammal species found in Massachusetts Bay can be found in Waring et al. (2014), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ao2013_tm228.pdf. Refer to that document for information on these species.

Marine mammal species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the Northeast Gateway facility can be found in the IHA application and in the earlier Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (78 FR 69049; November 18, 2013). These species are summarized in Table 1 below.

The underwater noise from NEG and Algonquin's LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammal species and stocks in the vicinity of the action area. The Notice of Proposed IHA included a detailed discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, which is not repeated here. No instances of hearing threshold shifts, injury, serious injury, or mortality are expected as a result of these activities given that none of these activities general noises that are above the threshold to cause hearing impairment or injury.

The primary potential impacts to marine mammals and other marine species are associated with elevated sound levels, but the project may also result in additional effects to marine mammal prey species and short-term marine mammal prey loss caused by water usage during LNG degasification. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA and are not repeated here.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat.

For the NEG LNG Port operations and maintenance and repair activities, Excelerate and Tetra Tech worked with NMFS to develop mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammal populations in the project vicinity as a result of the LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to ensure that no marine mammal would be injured or killed by vessels transiting the LNG Port facility, and to minimize the intensity of noise exposure of marine mammals in the activity area. For the NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair, the following mitigation measures are required.

All vessels shall utilize the International Maritime Organization (IMO)-approved Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) on their approach to and departure from the NEG Port and/or the repair/maintenance area at the earliest practicable point of transit in order to avoid the risk of whale strikes.

Upon entering the TSS and areas where North Atlantic right whales are known to occur, including the Great South Channel Seasonal Management Area (GSC-SMA) and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), the Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels (EBRVTM) shall go into “Heightened Awareness” as described below.

(1) Prior to entering and navigating the modified TSS, the Master of the vessel shall:

• Consult Navigational Telex (NAVTEX), NOAA Weather Radio, the NOAA Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (SAS) or other means to obtain current right whale sighting information as well as the most recent Cornell acoustic monitoring buoy data for the potential presence of marine mammals;

• Post a look-out to visually monitor for the presence of marine mammals;

• Provide the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) required 96-hour notification of an arriving EBRV to allow the NEG Port Manager to notify Cornell of vessel arrival.

(2) The look-out shall concentrate his/her observation efforts within the 2-mile radius zone of influence (ZOI) from the maneuvering EBRV.

(3) If marine mammal detection was reported by NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, SAS and/or an acoustic monitoring buoy, the look-out shall concentrate visual monitoring efforts towards the areas of the most recent detection.

(4) If the look-out (or any other member of the crew) visually detects a marine mammal within the 2-mile radius ZOI of a maneuvering EBRV, he/she will take the following actions:

• The Officer-of-the-Watch shall be notified immediately; who shall then relay the sighting information to the Master of the vessel to ensure action(s) can be taken to avoid physical contact with marine mammals.

• The sighting shall be recorded in the sighting log by the designated look-out.

In accordance with 50 CFR 224.103(c), all vessels associated with NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral activities shall not approach closer than 500 yards (460 m) to a North Atlantic right whale and 100 yards (91 m) to other whales to the extent physically feasible given navigational constraints. In addition, when approaching and departing the project area, vessels shall be operated so as to remain at least 1 kilometer away from any visually-detected North Atlantic right whales.

In response to active right whale sightings and active acoustic detections, and taking into account exceptional circumstances, EBRVs as well as repair and maintenance vessels shall take appropriate actions to minimize the risk of striking whales. Specifically, vessels shall:

(1) Respond to active right whale sightings and/or Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) reported on the Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) or SAS by concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent detection and reducing speed to 10 knots or less if the vessel is within the boundaries of a DMA or within the circular area centered on an area 8 nautical miles (nm) in radius from a sighting location;

(2) Respond to active acoustic detections by concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent detection and reducing speed to 10 knots or less within an area 5 nm in radius centered on the detecting auto-detection buoy (AB); and

(3) Respond to additional sightings made by the designated look-outs within a 2-mile radius of the vessel by slowing the vessel to 10 knots or less and concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent sighting.

All vessels operated under NEG and Algonquin must follow the established specific speed restrictions when calling at the NEG Port. The specific speed restrictions required for all vessels (i.e., EBRVs and vessels associated with maintenance and repair) consist of the following:

(1) Vessels shall reduce their maximum transit speed while in the TSS from 12 knots or less to 10 knots or less from March 1 to April 30 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below unless an emergency situation dictates for an alternate speed. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area (ORP-SMA) and tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 224.105:

(2) Vessels shall reduce their maximum transit speed while in the TSS to 10 knots or less unless an emergency situation dictates for an alternate speed from April 1 to July 31 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the GSC-SMA and tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 224.105:

(3) Vessels are not expected to transit the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape Cod Canal; however, in the event that transit through the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape Cod Canal is required, vessels shall reduce maximum transit speed to 10 knots or less from January 1 to May 15 in all waters in Cape Cod Bay, extending to all shorelines of Cape Cod Bay, with a northern boundary of 42°12′ N. latitude and the Cape Cod Canal. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the Cape Cod Bay Seasonal Management Area (CCB-SMA).

(4) All Vessels transiting to and from the project area shall report their activities to the mandatory reporting Section of the USCG to remain apprised of North Atlantic right whale movements within the area. All vessels entering and exiting the MSRA shall report their activities to WHALESNORTH. Vessel operators shall contact the USCG by standard procedures promulgated through the Notice to Mariner system.

(5) All Vessels greater than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) shall maintain a speed of 10 knots or less, unless an emergency situation requires speeds greater than 10 knots.

(6) All Vessels less than 300 GT traveling between the shore and the project area that are not generally restricted to 10 knots will contact the Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) system, the USCG, or the project site before leaving shore for reports of active DMAs and/or recent right whale sightings and, consistent with navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots or less within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of any sighting location, when traveling in any of the seasonal management areas (SMAs) or when traveling in any active DMA.

In addition to the general marine mammal avoidance requirements identified above, vessels calling on the NEG Port must comply with the following additional requirements:

(1) EBRVs shall travel at 10 knots maximum speed when transiting to/from the TSS or to/from the NEG Port/Pipeline Lateral area. For EBRVs, at 1.86 miles (3 km) from the NEG Port, speed will be reduced to 3 knots and to less than 1 knot at 1,640 ft (500 m) from the NEG buoys, unless an emergency situation dictates the need for an alternate speed.

(2) EBRVs that are approaching or departing from the NEG Port and are within the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) surrounding the NEG Port, shall remain at least 1 km away from any visually-detected North Atlantic right whale and at least 100 yards (91 m) away from all other visually-detected whales unless an emergency situation requires that the vessel stay its course. During EBRV maneuvering, the Vessel Master shall designate at least one look-out to be exclusively and continuously monitoring for the presence of marine mammals at all times while the EBRV is approaching or departing from the NEG Port.

(3) During NEG Port operations, in the event that a whale is visually observed within 1 km of the NEG Port or a confirmed acoustic detection is reported on either of the two ABs closest to the NEG Port (western-most in the TSS array), departing EBRVs shall delay their departure from the NEG Port, unless an emergency situation requires that departure is not delayed. This departure delay shall continue until either the observed whale has been visually (during daylight hours) confirmed as more than 1 km from the NEG Port or 30 minutes have passed without another confirmed detection either acoustically within the acoustic detection range of the two ABs closest to the NEG Port, or visually within 1 km from the NEG Port.

Vessel captains shall focus on reducing dynamic positioning (DP) thruster power to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account vessel and Port safety, during the operation activities. Vessel captains will shut down thrusters whenever they are not needed.

(1) The Northeast Gateway shall conduct empirical source level measurements on all noise emitting construction equipment and all vessels that are involved in maintenance/repair work.

(2) If DP systems are to be employed and/or activities will emit noise with a source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, activities shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements for DP systems listed above.

(3) Northeast Gateway shall provide the NMFS Headquarters Office of the Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike Coordinator, and SBNMS with a minimum of 30 days' notice prior to any planned repair and/or maintenance activity. For any unplanned/emergency repair/maintenance activity, Northeast Gateway shall notify the agencies as soon as it determines that repair work must be conducted. Northeast Gateway shall continue to keep the agencies apprised of repair work plans as further details (e.g., the time, location, and nature of the repair) become available. A final notification shall be provided to agencies 72 hours prior to crews being deployed into the field.

(1) Pipeline maintenance/repair vessels less than 300 GT traveling between the shore and the maintenance/repair area that are not generally restricted to 10 knots shall contact the MSR system, the USCG, or the project site before leaving shore for reports of active DMAs and/or recent right whale sightings and, consistent with navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots or less within 5 miles (8 km) of any sighting location, when travelling in any of the seasonal management areas (SMAs) as defined above.

(2) Maintenance/repair vessels greater than 300 GT shall not exceed 10 knots, unless an emergency situation that requires speeds greater than 10 knots.

(3) Planned maintenance and repair activities shall be restricted to the period between May 1 and November 30 when most of the majority of North Atlantic right whales are absent in the area.

(4) Unplanned/emergency maintenance and repair activities shall be conducted utilizing anchor-moored dive vessel whenever operationally possible.

(5) Algonquin shall also provide the NMFS Office of the Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike Coordinator, and SBNMS with a minimum of 30-day notice prior to any planned repair and/or maintenance activity. For any unplanned/emergency repair/maintenance activity, Northeast Gateway shall notify the agencies as soon as it determines that repair work must be conducted. Algonquin shall continue to keep the agencies apprised of repair work plans as further details (e.g., the time, location, and nature of the repair) become available. A final notification shall be provided to agencies 72 hours prior to crews being deployed into the field.

(6) If DP systems are to be employed and/or activities will emit noise with a source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, activities shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements for DP systems listed in (5)(b)(ii).

(7) In the event that a whale is visually observed within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometers) of a repair or maintenance vessel, the vessel superintendent or on-deck supervisor shall be notified immediately. The vessel's crew shall be put on a heightened state of alert and the marine mammal shall be monitored constantly to determine if it is moving toward the repair or maintenance area.

(8) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) must cease any movement and/or cease all activities that emit noises with source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 meter or higher when a right whale is sighted within or approaching at 500 yards (457 meters) from the vessel. The source level of 139 dB corresponds to 120 dB received level at 500 yards (457 meters). Repair and maintenance work may resume after the marine mammal is positively reconfirmed outside the established zones (500 yards [457 meters]) or 30 minutes have passed without a redetection. Any vessels transiting the maintenance area, such as barges or tugs, must also maintain these separation distances.

(9) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) must cease any movement and/or cease all activities that emit noises with source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 meter or higher when a marine mammal other than a right whale is sighted within or approaching at 100 yards (91 meters) from the vessel. Repair and maintenance work may resume after the marine mammal is positively reconfirmed outside the established zones (100 yards [91 meters]) or 30 minutes have passed without a redetection. Any vessels transiting the maintenance area, such as barges or tugs, must also maintain these separation distances.

(10) Algonquin and associated contractors shall also comply with the following:

• Operations involving excessively noisy equipment (source level exceeding 139 dB re 1μPa @ 1 meter) shall “ramp-up” sound sources, allowing whales a chance to leave the area before sounds reach maximum levels. In addition, Northeast Gateway, Algonquin, and other associated contractors shall maintain equipment to manufacturers' specifications, including any sound-muffling devices or engine covers in order to minimize noise effects. Noisy construction equipment shall only be used as needed and equipment shall be turned off when not in operation.

• Any material that has the potential to entangle marine mammals (e.g., anchor lines, cables, rope or other construction debris) shall only be deployed as needed and measures shall be taken to minimize the chance of entanglement.

• For any material that has the potential to entangle marine mammals, such material shall be removed from the water immediately unless such action jeopardizes the safety of the vessel and crew as determined by the Captain of the vessel.

• In the event that a marine mammal becomes entangled, the marine mammal coordinator and/or protected species observer (PSO) will notify NMFS (if outside the SBNMS), and SBNMS staff (if inside the SBNMS) immediately so that a rescue effort may be initiated.

(11) All maintenance/repair activities shall be scheduled to occur between May 1 and November 30; however, in the event of unplanned/emergency repair work that cannot be scheduled during the preferred May through November work window, the following additional measures shall be followed for Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair related activities between December and April:

• Between December 1 and April 30, if on-board PSOs do not have at least 0.5-mile visibility, they shall call for a shutdown. At the time of shutdown, the use of thrusters must be minimized. If there are potential safety problems due to the shutdown, the captain will decide what operations can safely be shut down.

• Prior to leaving the dock to begin transit, the barge shall contact one of the PSOs on watch to receive an update of sightings within the visual observation area. If the PSO has observed a North Atlantic right whale within 30 minutes of the transit start, the vessel shall hold for 30 minutes and again get a clearance to leave from the PSOs on board. PSOs shall assess whale activity and visual observation ability at the time of the transit request to clear the barge for release.

• Transit route, destination, sea conditions and any marine mammal sightings/mitigation actions during watch shall be recorded in the log book. Any whale sightings within 1,000 meters of the vessel shall result in a high alert and slow speed of 4 knots or less and a sighting within 750 meters shall result in idle speed and/or ceasing all movement.

• The material barges and tugs used in repair and maintenance shall transit from the operations dock to the work sites during daylight hours when possible provided the safety of the vessels is not compromised. Should transit at night be required, the maximum speed of the tug shall be 5 knots.

• All repair vessels must maintain a speed of 10 knots or less during daylight hours. All vessels shall operate at 5 knots or less at all times within 5 km of the repair area.

Vessels associated with maintaining the AB network operating as part of the mitigation/monitoring protocols shall adhere to the following speed restrictions and marine mammal monitoring requirements.

(1) In accordance with 50 CFR 224.103 (c), all vessels associated with NEG Port activities shall not approach closer than 500 yards (460 meters) to a North Atlantic right whale.

(2) All vessels shall obtain the latest DMA or right whale sighting information via the NAVTEX, MSR, SAS, NOAA Weather Radio, or other available means prior to operations.

NMFS has carefully evaluated these mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals.

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned.

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

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

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

(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

(3) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

(4) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

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

Based on our evaluation of the measures that include vessel speed reduction, noise level related shutdown measures, and ramping up procedures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

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

Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;

(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals shall be done by trained look-outs during NEG LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities. The observers shall monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the vessels during LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral related activities. Lookout duties include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the activities; and documenting “take by harassment.” The vessel look-outs assigned to visually monitor for the presence of marine mammals shall be provided with the following:

(1) Recent NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, SAS and/or acoustic monitoring buoy detection data;

(2) Binoculars to support observations;

(3) Marine mammal detection guide sheets; and

(4) Sighting log.

All individuals onboard the EBRVs responsible for the navigation duties and any other personnel that could be assigned to monitor for marine mammals shall receive training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures.

While an EBRV is navigating within the designated TSS, there shall be three people with look-out duties on or near the bridge of the ship including the Master, the Officer-of-the-Watch and the Helmsman-on-watch. In addition to the standard watch procedures, while the EBRV is transiting within the designated TSS, maneuvering within the ATBA, and/or while actively engaging in the use of thrusters, an additional look-out shall be designated to exclusively and continuously monitor for marine mammals.

All sightings of marine mammals by the designated look-out, individuals posted to navigational look-out duties, and/or any other crew member while the EBRV is transiting within the TSS, maneuvering within the ATBA and/or when actively engaging in the use of thrusters, shall be immediately reported to the Officer-of-the-Watch who shall then alert the Master. The Master or Officer-of-the-Watch shall ensure the required reporting procedures are followed and the designated marine mammal look-out records all pertinent information relevant to the sighting.

Visual sightings made by look-outs from the EBRVs shall be recorded using a standard sighting log form. Estimated locations shall be reported for each individual and/or group of individuals categorized by species when known. This data shall be entered into a database and a summary of monthly sighting activity shall be provided to NMFS. Estimates of take and copies of these log sheets shall also be included in the reports to NMFS.

Two qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs shall be assigned to each vessel that will use DP systems during maintenance and repair related activities. PSOs shall operate individually in designated shifts to accommodate adequate rest schedules. Additional PSOs shall be assigned to additional vessels if AB data indicates that sound levels exceed 120 dB re 1 µPa, further then 100 meters (328 feet) from these vessels.

All PSOs shall receive NMFS-approved marine mammal observer training and be approved in advance by NMFS after review of their resume. All PSOs shall have direct field experience on marine mammal vessels and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico.

PSOs (one primary and one secondary) shall be responsible for visually locating marine mammals at the ocean's surface and, to the extent possible, identifying the species. The primary PSO shall act as the identification specialist and the secondary PSO will serve as data recorder and also assist with identification. Both PSOs shall have responsibility for monitoring for the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles. Specifically PSO's shall:

(1) Monitor at all hours of the day, scanning the ocean surface by eye for a minimum of 40 minutes every hour.

(2) Monitor the area where maintenance and repair work is conducted beginning at daybreak using 25x power binoculars and/or hand-held binoculars. Night vision devices must be provided as standard equipment for monitoring during low-light hours and at night.

(3) Conduct general 360° visual monitoring during any given watch period and target scanning by the observer shall occur when alerted of a whale presence.

(4) Alert the vessel superintendent or construction crew supervisor of visual detections within 2 miles (3.31 kilometers) immediately.

(5) Record all sightings on marine mammal field sighting logs. Specifically, all data shall be entered at the time of observation, notes of activities will be kept, and a daily report prepared and attached to the daily field sighting log form. The basic reporting requirements include the following:

• Beaufort sea state;

• Wind speed;

• Wind direction;

• Temperature;

• Precipitation;

• Glare;

• Percent cloud cover;

• Number of animals;

• Species;

• Position;

• Distance;

• Behavior;

• Direction of movement; and

• Apparent reaction to construction activity.

In the event that a whale is visually observed within the 2-mile (3.31 kilometers) zone of influence (ZOI) of a DP vessel or other construction vessel that has shown to emit noise with source level in excess of 139 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m, the PSO will notify the repair/maintenance construction crew to minimize the use of thrusters until the animal has moved away, unless there are divers in the water or an ROV is deployed.

Northeast Gateway shall deploy 10 ABs within the Separation Zone of the TSS for the operational life of the Project. The ABs shall be used to detect a calling North Atlantic right whale an average of 5 nm from each AB. The AB system shall be the primary detection mechanism that alerts the EBRV Master to the occurrence of right whales, heightens EBRV awareness, and triggers necessary mitigation actions as described above. Northeast Gateway shall conduct short-term passive acoustic monitoring to document sound levels during:

(1) The initial operational events in the 2015-2016 winter heating season;

(2) Regular deliveries outside the winter heating season should such deliveries occur; and

(3) Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and repair activities.

Northeast Gateway shall conduct long-term monitoring of the noise environment in Massachusetts Bay in the vicinity of the NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral using marine autonomous recording units (MARUs) when there is anticipated to be more than 5 LNG shipments in a 30-day period or over 20 shipments in a six-month period.

The acoustic data collected shall be analyzed to document the seasonal occurrences and overall distributions of whales (primarily fin, humpback and right whales) within approximately 10 nm of the NEG Port and shall measure and document the noise “budget” of Massachusetts Bay so as to eventually assist in determining whether or not an overall increase in noise in the Bay associated with the Project might be having a potentially negative impact on marine mammals.

Northeast Gateway shall make all acoustic data, including data previously collected by the MARUs during prior construction, operations, and maintenance and repair activities, available to NOAA. Data storage will be the responsibility of NOAA.

(1) Ten ABs that have been deployed since 2007 shall be used to continuously screen the low-frequency acoustic environment (less than 1,000 Hertz) for right whale contact calls occurring within an approximately 5-nm radius from each buoy (the AB's detection range).

(2) Once a confirmed detection is made, the Master of any EBRVs operating in the area will be alerted immediately.

(1) If the repair/maintenance work is located outside of the detectible range of the 10 project area ABs, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin shall consult with NOAA (NMFS and SBNMS) to determine if the work to be conducted warrants the temporary installation of an additional AB(s) to help detect and provide early warnings for potential occurrence of right whales in the vicinity of the repair area.

(2) The number of ABs installed around the activity site shall be commensurate with the type and spatial extent of maintenance/repair work required, but must be sufficient to detect vocalizing right whales within the 120-dB impact zone.

(3) Should acoustic monitoring be deemed necessary during a planned or unplanned/emergency repair and/or maintenance event, active monitoring for right whale calls shall begin 24 hours prior to the start of activities.

(4) Source level data from the acoustic recording units deployed in the NEG Port and/or Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair area shall be provided to NMFS.

(a) Throughout NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin shall provide a monthly Monitoring Report. The Monitoring Report shall include:

• Both copies of the raw visual EBRV lookout sighting information of marine mammals that occurred within 2 miles of the EBRV while the vessel transits within the TSS, maneuvers within the ATBA, and/or when actively engaging in the use of thrusters, and a summary of the data collected by the look-outs over each reporting period.

• Copies of the raw PSO sightings information on marine mammals gathered during pipeline repair or maintenance activities. This visual sighting data shall then be correlated to periods of thruster activity to provide estimates of marine mammal takes (per species/species class) that took place during each reporting period.

• Conclusion of any planned or unplanned/emergency repair and/or maintenance period, a report shall be submitted to NMFS summarizing the repair/maintenance activities, marine mammal sightings (both visual and acoustic), empirical source-level measurements taken during the repair work, and any mitigation measures taken.

(b) During the maintenance and repair of NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral components, weekly status reports shall be provided to NOAA (both NMFS and SBNMS) using standardized reporting forms. The weekly reports shall include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the repair/maintenance area during the period that maintenance and repair activities were taking place. The weekly reports shall include the following information:

• Location (in longitude and latitude coordinates), time, and the nature of the maintenance and repair activities;

• Indication of whether a DP system was operated, and if so, the number of thrusters being used and the time and duration of DP operation;

• Marine mammals observed in the area (number, species, age group, and initial behavior);

• The distance of observed marine mammals from the maintenance and repair activities;

• Changes, if any, in marine mammal behaviors during the observation;

• A description of any mitigation measures (power-down, shutdown, etc.) implemented;

• Weather condition (Beaufort sea state, wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, precipitation, and percent cloud cover etc.);

• Condition of the observation (visibility and glare); and

• Details of passive acoustic detections and any action taken in response to those detections.

(c) Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting

In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the proposed IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), NEG and/or Algonquin shall immediately cease activities and immediately report the incident to the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• The name and type of vessel involved;

• The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• The fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with NEG and/or Algonquin to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) compliance. NEG and/or Algonquin may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that NEG and/or Algonquin discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), NEG and/or Algonquin will immediately (i.e., within 24 hours of the discovery) report the incident to the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Northeast Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with NEG and/or Algonquin to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that NEG or Algonquin discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized (if the IHA is issued) (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), NEG and/or Algonquin shall report the incident to the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Northeast Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. NEG and/or Algonquin shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. NEG and/or Algonquin can continue its operations under such a case.

Prior marine mammal monitoring during NEG's LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance and repair activities and monthly marine mammal observation memorandums (NEG 2010; 2015) indicate that only a small number of marine mammals were observed during these activities. Only one LNG Port operation occurred within the dates of the previous IHA (December 22, 2014 through December 21, 2015) and no marine mammal was observed during the LNG Port operation period on December 31, 2014. No other NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral related activity occurred during this period.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated as a result of NEG's operation and maintenance and repair activities. Anticipated take of marine mammals is associated with operation of dynamic positioning during the docking of the LNG vessels and positioning of maintenance and dive vessels, and by operations of certain machinery during maintenance and repair activities. The regasification process itself is an activity that does not rise to the level of taking, as the modeled source level for this activity is 108 dB. Certain species may have a behavioral reaction to the sound emitted during the activities. Hearing impairment is not anticipated. Additionally, vessel strikes are not anticipated, especially because of the speed restriction measures that are proposed that were described earlier in this document.

The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals from the types of stressors associated with the specified activity was described in detail in the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section found earlier in this document. The potential effects of sound from the proposed NEG and Algonquin LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations, maintenance and repair activities might include one or more of the following: Masking of natural sounds and behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995). The most common impact will likely be from behavioral disturbance, including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in speed, direction, and/or diving profile of the animal. As discussed previously in this document, hearing impairment (TTS and PTS) is highly unlikely to occur based on low noise source levels from the proposed activities that would preclude marine mammals from being exposed to noise levels high enough to cause hearing impairment.

For non-pulse sounds, such as those produced by operating dynamic positioning (DP) thruster during vessel docking and supporting underwater construction and repair activities and the operations of various machineries that produces non-pulse noises, NMFS uses the 120 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level B harassment.

For the purposes of understanding the noise footprint of operations at the NEG Port, measurements taken to capture operational noise (docking, undocking, regasification, and EBRV thruster use) during the 2006 Gulf of Mexico field event were taken at the source. Measurements taken during EBRV transit were normalized to a distance of 328 feet (100 meters) to serve as a basis for modeling sound propagation at the NEG Port site in Massachusetts Bay.

Sound propagation calculations for operational activities were then completed at two positions in Massachusetts Bay to determine site-specific distances to the 120/160/180 dB isopleths:

• Operations Position 1—Port (EBRV Operations): 70°36.261′ W. and 42°23.790′ N.

• Operations Position 2—Boston TSS (EBRV Transit): 70°17.621′ W. and 42°17.539′ N.

At each of these locations sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the operation activity at each of the specified locations. Updated acoustic modeling was completed using Tetra Tech's underwater sound propagation program which utilizes a version of the publicly available Range Dependent Acoustic Model (RAM). Based on the U.S. Navy's Standard Split-Step Fourier Parabolic Equation, this modeling methodology considers range and depth along with a geo-referenced dataset to automatically retrieve the time of year information, bathymetry, and seafloor geoacoustic properties along the given propagation transects radiating from the sound source. The calculation methodology assumes that outgoing energy dominates over scattered energy, and computes the solution for the outgoing wave equation. An approximation is used to provide two-dimensional transmission loss values in range and depth, i.e., computation of the transmission loss as a function of range and depth within a given radial plane is carried out independently of neighboring radials, reflecting the assumption that sound propagation is predominantly away from the source. Transects were run along compass points at angular directions ranging from 0 to 360° in 5 degree increments. The received underwater sound levels at any location within the region of interest are computed from the 1/3-octave band source levels by subtracting the numerically modelled transmission loss at each 1/3-octave band center frequency and summing across all frequencies to obtain a broadband value. The resultant underwater sound pressure levels to the 120 dB isopleth is presented in Table 2.

Modeling analysis conducted for the construction of the NEG Port concluded that the only underwater noise of critical concern during NEG Port construction would be from vessel noises such as turning screws, engine noise, noise of operating machinery, and thruster use. To confirm these modeled results and better understand the noise footprint associated with construction activities at the NEG Port, field measurements were taken of various construction activities during the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral Construction period. Measurements were taken and normalized as described to establish the “loudest” potential construction measurement event. One position within Massachusetts Bay was then used to determine site-specific distances to the 120/180 dB isopleths for NEG Port maintenance and repair activities:

• Construction Position 1. Port: 70°36.261′ W. and 42°23.790′ N.

Sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the construction activity. The results showed that the estimated distance from the loudest source involved in construction activities fell to 120 dB re 1 µPa at a distance of 3,500 m.

Modeling analysis conducted during the NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral construction concluded that the only underwater noise of critical concern during such activities would be from vessel noises such as turning screws, engine noise, noise of operating machinery, and thruster use. As with construction noise at the NEG Port, to confirm modeled results and better understand the noise footprint associated with construction activities along the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral, field measurements were taken of various construction activities during the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral construction period. Measurements were taken and normalized to establish the “loudest” potential construction measurement event. Two positions within Massachusetts Bay were then used to determine site-specific distances to the 120/160/180 dB isopleths:

• Construction Position 2. PLEM: 70°46.755′ W. and 42°28.764′ N.

• Construction Position 3. Mid-Pipeline: 70°40.842′ W. and 42°31.328′ N.

Sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the construction activity. The results of the distances to the 120-dB are shown in Table 2.

The basis for Northeast Gateway and Algonquin's “take” estimate is the number of marine mammals that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of 120 dB, which is the threshold used by NMFS for non-pulse sounds. For the NEG LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities, the take estimates are determined by multiplying the 120-dB ensonified area by local marine mammal density estimates, and then multiplying by the estimated dates such activities would occur during a year-long period. For the NEG Port operations, the 120-dB ensonified area is 56.8 km2 for a single visit during docking when running DP system. Although two EBRV docking with simultaneous DP system running was modeled, this situation would not occur in reality. For NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair activities, modeling based on the empirical measurements showed that the distance of the 120-dB radius is expected to be 3.5 km, making a maximum 120-dB ZOI of approximately 40.7 km2.

Since the issuance of an IHA to NEG on December 19, 2014, there was only one LNG delivery at the NEG Port which occurred on December 31, 2014. NEG expects that when the Port is under full operation, it will receive up to 65 LNG shipments per year, and would require 14 days for NEG Port maintenance and up to 40 days for planned and unplanned Algonquin Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair.

NMFS recognizes that baleen whale species other than North Atlantic right whales have been sighted in the project area from May to November. However, the occurrence and abundance of fin, humpback, and minke whales is not well documented within the project area. Nonetheless, NMFS uses the data on cetacean distribution within Massachusetts Bay, such as those published by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS 2006), to estimate potential takes of marine mammals species in the vicinity of project area.

The NCCOS study used cetacean sightings from two sources: (1) The North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC) sightings database held at the University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 2001); and (2) the Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO) database, held at NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data contained survey efforts and sightings data from ship and aerial surveys and opportunistic sources between 1970 and 2005. The main data contributors included: Cetacean and Turtles Assessment Program (CETAP), Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, PCCS, International Fund for Animal Welfare, NOAA's NEFSC, New England Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of Rhode Island. A total of 653,725 km (406,293 mi) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean observations were provisionally selected for the NCCOS study in order to minimize bias from uneven allocation of survey effort in both time and space. The sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) was calculated for all cetacean species by month covering the southern Gulf of Maine study area, which also includes the project area (NCCOS, 2006).

The MBO's Cetacean and Seabird Assessment Program (CSAP) was contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS NEFSC to provide an assessment of the relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States (MBO, 1987). The CSAP program was designed to be completely compatible with NMFS NEFSC databases so that marine mammal data could be compared directly with fisheries data throughout the time series during which both types of information were gathered. A total of 5,210 km (8,383 mi) of survey distance and 636 cetacean observations from the MBO data were included in the NCCOS analysis. Combined valid survey effort for the NCCOS studies included 567,955 km (913,840 mi) of survey track for small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226 mi) for large cetaceans (whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS study then combined these two data sets by extracting cetacean sighting records, updating database field names to match the NARWC database, creating geometry to represent survey tracklines and applying a set of data selection criteria designed to minimize uncertainty and bias in the data used.

Owing to the comprehensiveness and total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean distribution and abundance study, NMFS calculated the estimated take number of marine mammals based on the most recent NCCOS report published in December 2006. A summary of seasonal cetacean distribution and abundance in the project area was provided in the 2013 Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (78 FR 69049; November 18, 2013). For a detailed description and calculation of the cetacean abundance data and SPUE, please refer to the NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006). These data show that the relative abundance of North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, sei, and pilot whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins for all seasons, as calculated by SPUE in number of animals per kilometer, is 0.0082, 0.0097, 0.0118, 0.0059, 0.0084, 0.0407, and 0.1314 n/km, respectively.

In calculating the area density of these species from these linear density data, NMFS used 0.5 mi (0.825 km) as the hypothetical strip width (W). This strip width is based on the distance of visibility used in the NARWC data that was part of the NCCOS (2006) study. However, those surveys used a strip transect instead of a line transect methodology. Therefore, in order to obtain a strip width, one must divide the visibility or transect value in half. A 0.825 km hypothetical strip width was chosen for density calculation, which roughly equals to 0.5 mi as half the distance of the radius for visual monitoring. The hypothetical strip width used in the analysis is less than half of that derived from the NARWC data. Therefore, the analysis provided here is more protective in calculating marine mammal densities in the area. Based on this information, the area density (D) of these species in the project area can be obtained by the following formula:

Based on this calculation method, the estimated take numbers per year for North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, sei, minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins by the NEG Port facility operations (maximum 65 visits per year), NEG Port maintenance and repair (up to 14 days per year), and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operation and maintenance (up to 40 days per year), are 29, 35, 42, 30, 21, 145, and 469, respectively (Table 3). Since it is very likely that individual animals could be “taken” by harassment multiple times, these percentages are the upper boundary of the animal population that could be affected. The actual number of individual animals being exposed or taken would likely be far less. There is no danger of injury, death, or hearing impairment from the exposure to these noise levels.

NOAA is publishing this notice to announce webinars designed to promote conversation between federal representatives and stakeholders on a number of topics related to HABs and hypoxia, which impact human and animal health, local and regional economies, and long-term national security. The IWG-HABHRCA will consult with stakeholders on topics that include:

• Regional, Great Lakes-specific priorities for ecological, economic, and social research on the causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia; need for improved monitoring and early warning; new approaches to improving scientific understanding, prediction and modeling, and socioeconomic analyses of these events; and mitigating causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia;

• Communication and information dissemination methods that state, tribal, local, and international governments and organizations may undertake to educate and inform the public concerning HABs and hypoxia in the Great Lakes; and

• Perceived needs for handling Great Lakes HAB and hypoxia events, as well as an action strategy for managing future situations.

Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments and questions in advance of and following each webinar, pertaining to the aforementioned topics or on other areas of concern or interest related to Great Lakes HABs and hypoxia. Electronic comments and questions may be submitted via email ([email protected]). Written comments may be submitted to Caitlin Gould at NOAA, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, SSMC-4, #8237, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Meeting dates:

The webinars will be available at the following addresses:

○ To join the teleconference only:

Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone. Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 747 264 241

• Interested Parties (January 13, 2016)—

○ To join the teleconference only:

Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.

Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:

• Interested Parties (as needed; January 20, 2016)—

Paperwork Reduction Act: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Title: Clearing Member Risk Management (OMB Control No. 3038-0094). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 3(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act” or “CEA”) provides that one of the purposes of the Act is to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Act and to avoid systemic risk. Section 8a(5) authorizes the Commission to promulgate such regulations that it believes are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. Risk management systems are critical to the avoidance of systemic risks.

Section 4s(j)(2) requires each Swap Dealer (“SD”) and Major Swap Participant (“MSP”) to have risk management systems adequate for managing its business. Section 4s(j)(4) requires each SD and MSP to have internal systems and procedures to perform any of the functions set forth in Section 4s.

Section 4d requires FCMs to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”). It further requires Futures Commission Merchants (“FCMs”) to segregate customer funds. Section 4f requires FCMs to maintain certain levels of capital. Section 4g establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for FCMs.

Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission adopted § 1.73 which applies to clearing members that are FCMs and § 23.609 which applies to clearing members that are SDs or MSPs. These provisions require these clearing members to have procedures to limit the financial risks they incur as a result of clearing trades and liquid resources to meet the obligations that arise. The regulations require clearing members to:

(1) Establish credit and market risk-based limits based on position size, order size, margin requirements, or similar factors;

(2) use automated means to screen orders for compliance with the risk-based limits;

(3) monitor for adherence to the risk-based limits intra-day and overnight;

(4) conduct stress tests of all positions in the proprietary account and all positions in any customer account that could pose material risk to the futures commission merchant at least once per week;

(5) evaluate its ability to meet initial margin requirements at least once per week;

(6) evaluate its ability to meet variation margin requirements in cash at least once per week;

(7) evaluate its ability to liquidate the positions it clears in an orderly manner, and estimate the cost of the liquidation at least once per month; and

(8) test all lines of credit at least once per quarter.

Each of these items has been observed by Commission staff as an element of an existing sound risk management program at an SD, MSP, or FCM. The Commission regulations require each clearing member to establish written procedures to comply with this regulation and to keep records documenting its compliance. The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, including ensuring that registrants exercise effective risk management and for the efficient operation of trading venues among SDs, MSPs, and FCMs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-day Federal Register notice, 80 FR 65217, dated October 26, 2015.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 2 hours per response for an estimated annual burden of 504 hours per respondent. This estimate includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants.

Estimated number of respondents: 240 (106 Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants and 134 Futures Commission Merchants).1

Estimated number of responses per respondent: 252.2

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 120,960 hours.

Frequency of collection: As needed.

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

None.

Communities in which public meetings and hearings are scheduled are as follows (all communities are in Alaska):

Aniak—January 20, 2016, Crooked Creek—January 21, 2016, Anchorage—January 28, 2016, Bethel—February 1, 2016, Akiak—February 2, 2016, Nunapitchuk—February 3, 2016, Quinhagak—February 16, 2016, McGrath—February 26, 2016, Holy Cross—March 30, 2016, Tyonek—To be determined, Lower Kalskag—To be determined. Please note that no preliminary 810 finding of potential substantial significant restriction of subsistence has been made for Holy Cross. An 810 Hearing will be held due to its proximity to the proposed project and the existing level of subsistence use information (mapping) available.

Communities in which only public meetings are scheduled, as no preliminary 810 finding of potential substantial significant restriction of subsistence has been made, includes (all communities are in Alaska):

Kipnuk—February 17, 2016, St. Mary's—March 1, 2016, Emmonak—March 2, 2016, Toksook Bay—March 15, 2016, Hooper Bay—March 16, 2016.

Any changes to these dates and locations, as well as specific meeting and hearing locations and times in each community can be found at www.donlingoldeis.com.

1. Background. Wright Patman Lake is a USACE operated reservoir that encompasses approximately 30,000 surface acres of water and has the primary purposes of flood control and water conservation for the communities downstream of the dam. Wright Patman Lake is also a major water supply source for the cities of Texarkana (Texas and Arkansas) and the surrounding area. The City of Texarkana is the non-Federal sponsor for the existing water supply storage in Wright Patman Lake and holds a State of Texas water right for 180,000 acre-feet (AF) per year of raw water for diversion to municipal and industrial users. International Paper (IP), the largest single water user in the Sulphur River Basin and one of the region's major employers, has a long term contract with TWU for the provision of 118,000 AF of water for its industrial operations.

Operational changes would be required with a reallocation of flood control storage to water supply and would produce effects on upstream and downstream flood patterns, recreational opportunities, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. In determining whether to reallocate storage within the reservoir and change operational regimes, the USACE must comply with requirements including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act.

2. Proposed Action. The USACE is studying the feasibility of reallocating some flood control storage capacity in Wright Patman Lake for the purpose of water supply. The reallocation is needed to enable the SRBA to provide water to local and regional users for municipal and industrial uses in response to population growth in Region C which includes all or portions of 16 North Central Texas counties and the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area.

3. Alternatives Considered. The USACE, working with the SRBA, has identified and conducted preliminary analysis on potential pool increases at Wright Patman Lake for further consideration during the study. These alternatives would consider alternative pool raises above the maximum monthly conservation elevation of Wright Patman Lake operating under the ultimate rule curve. These elevations considered in the preliminary study would be anticipated to have different levels of impacts on upstream and downstream flood patterns, recreational opportunities, water quality, vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat. The USACE's no action alternative would also be considered. Additional alternatives, which could include different storage volumes and varying operational regimes, could also be developed during the scoping and evaluation process.

4. Scoping/Public Involvement. The USACE invites all affected Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Native American tribes, and other interested parties to participate in the NEPA process during development of the Draft Feasibility Report/Draft EIS. The public scoping process will provide information about the reallocation study to the public, serve as a mechanism to solicit agency and public input on alternatives and issues of concern, and ensure full and open participation in scoping and review of the Draft EIS. A public scoping meeting is being planned and will be scheduled in the January-March 2016 timeframe. The specific date and location of the meeting will be announced in news releases issued through the local news media, as well as on the USACE Fort Worth District's Web site under public notices (http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/). The meeting will be conducted in an informal setting designed to present information about the reallocation study and to answer questions and accept comments from the public. The USACE invites other Federal agencies, Native American Tribes, State and local agencies and officials, private organizations, and interested individuals to attend the scoping meeting and provide comments. Once completed, the Draft Feasibility Report/Draft EIS will be circulated for public review and comment. The USACE will issue a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register announcing the release of the Draft EIS for public comment as well as the date and time of a subsequent public review meeting regarding the Draft EIS through the local news media. Information on the Notice of Intent, Draft Feasibility Report/Draft EIS, public meeting dates and other important information related to the study will be available for review at USACE Web sites.

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: Private School Universe Survey (PSS) June 2016-May 2019.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0641.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 27,200.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,260.

Abstract: The Private School Universe Survey (PSS) is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to collect basic information from the universe of private elementary and secondary schools in the United States. The PSS is designed to gather biennial data on the total number of private schools, teachers, and students, along with a variety of related data, including: Religious orientation; grade-levels taught and size of school; length of school year and of school day; total student enrollment by gender (K-12); number of high school graduates; whether a school is single-sexed or coeducational; number of teachers employed; program emphasis; and existence and type of its kindergarten program. The PSS includes all schools that are not supported primarily by public funds, that provide classroom instruction for one or more of grades K-12 or comparable ungraded levels, and that have one or more teachers. No substantive changes have been made to the survey or its procedures since its last approved administration (OMB# 1850-0641 v.6-7). The PSS is also used to create a universe list of private schools for use as a sampling frame for NCES surveys of private schools. This request is to conduct the 2017-18 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) data collection and the 2017-18 and 2019-20 PSS frame-development activities.

The current guidance document for human exposure assessment, Guidelines for Exposure Assessment, was published in 1992, reflecting the state-of-the-science in the 1970s and 1980s. Since its publication, the field of exposure science has undergone significant transformation in methods and approaches, which EPA has incorporated into its policies and practices to better align with the current state-of-the-science. The 1992 guidelines are being updated to reflect the updated methods and approaches.

The draft guidelines benefit from over two decades of experience with EPA assessments conducted by Agency programs under their respective authorities and constraints, and from input from external panels, including the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's Science Advisory Board. This draft document builds on topics covered in the 1992 exposure guidelines including planning and scoping for an assessment, data acquisition and use, modeling, and considerations of uncertainty in exposure assessment. It also includes new material on planning and conducting an observational human exposure measurement study and considerations of lifestages and sensitive populations in exposure assessments. These draft guidelines present the most current science used in EPA exposure assessments and incorporates information about the Agency's current policies.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(2).

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

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 29, 2016. Write “Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0215” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

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

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0215” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 29, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from Rangers Renal Holdings LP (“Rangers Holdings”), the parent of US Renal Care, Inc. (“USRC”), and Dialysis Holdco, LLC (“Dialysis Holdco”), the parent of Dialysis Newco, Inc. d/b/a DSI Renal (“DSI”). The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Rangers Holdings' purchase of Dialysis Parent, LLC (“Dialysis Parent”). Dialysis Parent is the parent of Dialysis Holdco. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, USRC is required to divest DSI's three dialysis clinics in Laredo, Texas.

The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

Pursuant to an agreement dated August 21, 2015, Rangers Holdings proposes to acquire all of the outstanding membership interest in Dialysis Holdco from Dialysis Parent in a transaction valued at approximately $640 million. Dialysis Parent is currently the sole owner of all membership interests in Dialysis Holdco. The Commission 's Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in one market—Laredo, Texas—for the provision of outpatient dialysis services.

Privately owned and headquartered in Plano, Texas, USRC is the third-largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States. USRC operates more than 200 outpatient dialysis clinics in 20 states and treats approximately 15,500 patients.

DSI, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, is a privately held company and the sixth-largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States. DSI operates 100 dialysis centers, providing dialysis services to approximately 7,500 patients in 22 states.

Outpatient dialysis services is the relevant product market in which to assess the effects of the proposed transaction. For patients suffering from End Stage Renal Disease (“ESRD”), dialysis treatments are a life-sustaining therapy that replaces the function of the kidneys by removing toxins and excess fluid from the blood. Most ESRD patients receive dialysis treatment three times per week in sessions lasting between three and five hours. Kidney transplantation is the only alternative to dialysis for ESRD patients. However, the wait-time for donor kidneys—during which ESRD patients must receive dialysis treatments—can exceed five years. Additionally, many ESRD patients are not viable transplant candidates. As a result, ESRD patients have no alternative to dialysis treatments. ESRD patients who are not hospitalized must obtain dialysis treatments from outpatient dialysis clinics.

Dialysis services are provided in local geographic markets limited by the distance ESRD patients are able to travel to receive treatments. ESRD patients are often very ill and suffer from multiple health problems, making travel further than 30 miles or 30 minutes very difficult. As a result, competition among dialysis clinics occurs at a local level, corresponding to metropolitan areas or subsets thereof. The exact contours of each market vary depending on traffic patterns, local geography, and the patient's proximity to the nearest center.

Entry into the outpatient dialysis services markets identified in the Commission's Complaint is not likely to occur in a timely manner at a level sufficient to deter or counteract the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction. The primary barrier to entry is the difficulty associated with locating nephrologists with established patient pools to serve as medical directors. By law, each dialysis clinic must have a nephrologist medical director. As a practical matter, medical directors are also essential to the success of a clinic because they are the primary source of referrals. In the relevant geographic market, there are few unencumbered nephrologists and few outside nephrologists willing to move into the area. These obstacles make entry in the affected market more challenging and less likely to avert the anticompetitive effects of the transaction.

The geographic market identified in the Complaint is highly concentrated. The proposed acquisition would cause the number of providers to drop from three to two in this market leaving USRC with a dominant position in Laredo, Texas. The post-acquisition HHI for this market exceeds 4000, and the change in HHI is more than 1200. The evidence shows that health insurance companies and other private payers who pay for dialysis services used by their members benefit from direct competition between USRC and DSI when negotiating rates charged by dialysis providers in this market. The high post-acquisition concentration level, along with the elimination of USRC's and DSI's head-to-head competition suggest the proposed combination likely would result in higher prices for outpatient dialysis services in this geographic market. In addition, the evidence shows that market participants compete for patients on a number of quality measures—including quality of facilities, wait times, operating hours, and location. Given the high post-acquisition concentration level, the proposed combination would likely result in diminished service and quality for patients in Laredo, Texas.

The Consent Agreement remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the Laredo, Texas market by requiring USRC to divest DSI's three outpatient dialysis clinics to Satellite Healthcare Inc. (“Satellite”).

As part of these divestitures, USRC is required to obtain the agreement of the medical director affiliated with the divested clinics to continue providing physician services after the transfer of ownership to the buyer. Similarly, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to obtain the consent of all lessors necessary to assign the leases for the real property associated with the divested clinics to the buyer. These provisions ensure that the buyer will have the assets necessary to operate the divested clinics in a competitive manner.

The Consent Agreement contains several additional provisions designed to ensure that the divestitures are successful. First, the Consent Agreement provides the buyer with the opportunity to interview and hire employees affiliated with the divested clinics and prevents USRC from offering these employees incentives to decline the buyer's offer of employment. This will ensure that the buyer has access to patient care and supervisory staff who are familiar with the clinics' patients and the local physicians. Second, the Consent Agreement prevents USRC from contracting with the medical director affiliated with the divested clinics for three years. This provides the buyer with sufficient time to build goodwill and a working relationship with its medical director before USRC can attempt to capitalize on DSI's prior relationship in soliciting his services. Third, to ensure continuity of patient care and records as the buyer implements its quality care, billing, and supply systems, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide transition services for a period up to 12 months. Firewalls and confidentiality agreements have been established to ensure that competitively sensitive information is not exchanged. Fourth, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide the buyer with a license to use USRC's policies, procedures, and medical protocols, as well as the option to obtain USRC's medical protocols, which will further enhance the buyer's ability to continue to care for patients in the clinics that will be divested. The Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide notice to the Commission prior to any acquisitions of dialysis clinics in the market addressed by the Consent Agreement in order to ensure that subsequent acquisitions do not adversely impact competition in that market or undermine the remedial goals of the proposed order. Finally, the Consent Agreement allows the Commission to appoint a monitor to oversee USRC's compliance with the Consent Agreement.

The Commission is satisfied that Satellite is a qualified acquirer of the divested assets. Satellite is currently a significant operator of dialysis clinics, operating over 70 outpatient and home dialysis clinics since 1973.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Decision and Order or the Order to Maintain Assets, or to modify their terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 28, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 27, 2016. Write “ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0149” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

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

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0149” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 27, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted from ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P. (“ArcLight”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from ArcLight's proposed acquisition of Gulf Oil Limited Partnership (“Gulf”) and related assets from Cumberland Farms, Inc. (“Cumberland”). Under the terms of the proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) contained in the Consent Agreement, ArcLight must divest four of Gulf's terminals located in Pennsylvania—in Mechanicsburg, Altoona, Pittston Township, and Williamsport—to Arc Logistics Partners, LP (“Arc Logistics”).

The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.

ArcLight invests in energy infrastructure. Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pyramid LLC, ArcLight owns and operates twelve light petroleum product (“LPP”) terminals in Pennsylvania. ArcLight uses its terminals to meet its own marketing needs and offers terminaling services to third parties for a fee.

Cumberland, one of the largest convenience store operators in the country, operates a petroleum marketing, terminaling, and distribution business through its Gulf subsidiary. Gulf owns and operates twelve LPP terminals in the Northeast, including seven in Pennsylvania. Gulf also uses its terminals to meet its own marketing needs and provides terminaling services to third parties for a fee.

Pursuant to two contingent Purchase and Sale Agreements dated May 15, 2015, ArcLight proposes to acquire Gulf, and certain other assets, from Cumberland (the “Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for gasoline and distillate terminaling services in relevant geographic markets within Pennsylvania.

Terminals are critical to the efficient distribution of LPPs. Transporting bulk quantities of LPPs via pipeline or marine vessel is significantly less expensive on a per gallon basis than trucking LPPs the same distance. Terminals serve as the delivery points on pipeline and marine routes and are capable of receiving bulk quantities of LPPs, holding LPPs in storage tanks, and loading smaller quantities of LPPs onto tanker trucks for local delivery. Tanker trucks pick up product from the terminals through specialized loading systems and transport LPPs to retail locations and end-use customers. Terminaling services include the off-loading, temporary storage, and dispensing of LPPs into trucks.

The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant product markets within which to analyze the Acquisition are gasoline terminaling services and distillates terminaling services. Gasoline terminaling service customers can only use terminals that meet gasoline-specific environmental regulations. A terminal must have specialized equipment, including vapor recovery units and tanks with internal floating roofs, to offer gasoline terminaling services. While distillate terminaling customers may be able to use gasoline terminals, the reverse is not possible due to the more stringent regulatory requirements for the storage and handling of gasoline.

The Commission's Complaint alleges three relevant geographic markets in Pennsylvania in which to assess the competitive effects of the Acquisition: (1) Altoona, which includes terminals in Altoona; (2) Scranton, which includes terminals in Pittston Township and Edwardsville; and (3) Harrisburg, which includes terminals in Northumberland, Williamsport, Mechanicsburg, and Highspire.

The Acquisition would substantially increase concentration in relevant markets that are already highly concentrated. In the Altoona market, ArcLight and Gulf are the only firms that offer gasoline terminaling services, and two of three firms that offer distillate terminaling services. ArcLight and Gulf are two of only three firms that offer gasoline or distillate terminaling services in the Scranton market. In the Harrisburg market, ArcLight and Gulf are two of three firms that offer gasoline terminaling services, and two of four firms that offer distillate terminaling services.

The Acquisition would substantially lessen competition for terminaling services in the relevant markets by enabling ArcLight to exercise market power unilaterally, and enhancing the likelihood of collusion or coordinated interaction among the few remaining terminaling services providers. Post-acquisition, ArcLight would be the sole firm offering gasoline terminaling services in Altoona. It would own most of the LPP storage capacity in each of the other relevant markets and would be able to raise terminaling service fees or reduce access to terminaling services unilaterally. The remaining firms have limited ability to accommodate additional throughput customers and would likely be unable to constrain ArcLight from exercising market power. To the extent the remaining firms could offer some limited constraint on ArcLight's ability to exercise market power unilaterally, they are unlikely to do so because the transaction would increase their incentives to coordinate tacitly with ArcLight.

Entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. Barriers to entry are significant and include high sunk costs associated with the construction of a new terminal, and the substantial amount of time required to design, build, and permit a new facility. ArcLight has significant excess capacity in the relevant markets, and this capacity would also discourage new entry.

The Order resolves the competitive concerns raised by the Acquisition by requiring that ArcLight divest Gulf's terminals in Altoona, Pittston Township, Mechanicsburg, and Williamsport. The Order requires ArcLight to divest to Arc Logistics, or another acquirer approved by the Commission, the four terminals and all associated assets, as well as enter into certain transitional arrangements necessary for the acquirer to become established and compete successfully in the relevant markets. ArcLight is required to divest the terminals within 20 days of closing the Acquisition.

Arc Logistics is a publicly-traded logistics service provider principally engaged in the terminaling, storage, throughput, and transloading of crude oil and LPPs. The company owns twelve LPP terminals in several states, not including Pennsylvania. To ensure that the acquirer has sufficient throughput at the divested terminals while it negotiates contracts with new terminal customers, the Order requires ArcLight to enter a transitional throughput agreement with Arc Logistics, whereby ArcLight commits to throughput certain volumes at Arc Logistics' terminals for two years. The Order also requires ArcLight to supply Arc Logistics with renewable fuels, at Arc Logistics' request, for a period of five years, an option that will help Arc Logistics attract throughput customers. Finally, the Order requires ArcLight to let any customer in the relevant markets out of its terminaling service contract without penalty for a period of six months after the divestiture, allowing Arc Logistics to compete for those customers.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Order or to modify its terms in any way.

For many consumers, aside from housing costs, a car purchase is their most expensive financial transaction. With prices averaging more than $33,500 for a new vehicle and $20,000 for a used vehicle from a dealer, most consumers seek to finance the purchase of a new or used car.1 Consumers may seek financing from their local bank or credit union, as well as from the dealer selling the vehicle. Financing obtained at the dealership, whether it is provided by a third party or directly by the dealer, may provide benefits for many consumers, such as convenience, special manufacturer-sponsored programs, access to a variety of banks and financial entities, or access to credit otherwise unavailable to a buyer. Financing that is offered or arranged by dealers, however, can be a complicated, opaque process and potentially involve unfair or deceptive practices.

As the nation's consumer protection agency, the Commission is committed to protecting consumers in connection with auto-related transactions. The Commission has broad authority to protect consumers in this area. The agency enforces the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices by a wide variety of entities, including automobile dealers.2 Also pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act,3 the FTC is authorized to prescribe rules under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 4 with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices by motor vehicle dealers.5

In recent years, the FTC has been particularly active in enforcement and other initiatives related to automobile transactions. Since 2011, the FTC has brought more than twenty-five cases protecting consumers in this area, including a sweep of ten actions against automobile dealers for deceptive advertising, and a coordinated federal-state effort that yielded more than two hundred automobile actions for fraud, deception, and other illegal practices.6 In 2011, the FTC conducted three automobile “roundtables” around the country, where panelists from government, consumer advocacy groups, and industry discussed consumer protection issues related to sales, financing, and leasing practices involving automobiles; the Commission also sought and received public comments on these issues.7 Additionally, the FTC has produced many consumer education and business education materials related to automobile purchasing and financing.8

The FTC's proposed survey will explore in more detail the experience of actual consumers who recently purchased and financed an automobile from a dealer.9 The survey is intended to inform the Commission about current consumer protections issues that may exist and that could be addressed through FTC action, including enforcement initiatives, rulemaking, or education.

The FTC plans to conduct a qualitative survey of consumer experiences in recent purchases of automobiles that were financed through automobile dealers. The survey will involve an initial sample of five in-person consumer interviews to test the survey questionnaire, followed by in-person interviews of 40 consumers, with the option to interview 40 more, if the FTC deems the additional interviews likely to be helpful. For the initial 40 consumers, the FTC seeks to interview approximately 20 consumers who have “prime” credit scores and approximately 20 consumers who have “subprime” credit scores in order to learn about the consumer's experience with purchasing and financing in these two market segments.10 Generally, the sample group of consumers will be racially diverse and will include participants of both sexes. The FTC will use a survey research firm to locate the participants, conduct the survey, and write a brief methodological report, and other written report as requested by the FTC. The survey research firm will select the consumers from a pool of people who previously have indicated that they are willing to participate in surveys but who have not participated in any in-depth survey interviews in the past year. The firm will identify interview subjects who have purchased an automobile from a dealer in the previous six months and used financing offered or arranged by the dealer to make the purchase. The interview subject also must have kept the documentation (e.g., credit contract) he or she received as part of the purchase and financing. The consumer's credit score will be used in the survey; if survey participants do not have their credit score, the consumer may obtain it through services that provide this information or the contractor will obtain it for the consumer, with the consumer's permission. The interview subjects and their personal identifying information will be anonymized in material received by the FTC, and will be vigorously protected by the survey firm.11

The survey research firm will conduct interviews lasting approximately 90 minutes with each consumer. The interviews will focus on, among other things:

• The consumer's experience in shopping for and choosing an automobile;

• the process of agreeing to a price for the automobile;

• the process of trading in the consumer's old automobile, if applicable;

• the consumer's experience in obtaining financing;

• additional products or services the dealer may have offered;

• contacts between the consumer and the dealer after the purchase; and

• the consumer's overall perception of the purchase experience.

The interviews will conclude by reviewing the consumer's documentation and exploring the consumer's understanding of that documentation. Participation in the survey will be voluntary. While the results will not be generalizable to the U.S. population, the Commission believes that they can provide useful insights into consumer understanding of the automobile purchasing and financing process at the dealership.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The FTC seeks clearance for the automobile buyer study and the FTC's associated PRA burden estimates that follow.

A. Estimated number of respondents: 170.

B. Burden Hours: 351.5 hours.

C. Labor Costs: Negligible.

More specifically, staff estimates that the contractor's preliminary review of consumers to ascertain consumers for the survey would involve no more than 170 consumers (at most twice the maximum number of consumers—85 —that would be involved in the survey).

The estimated hours are a total of the time for preliminary review, the pretest, the interviews, and obtaining credit scores. The preliminary review will include topics such as whether the consumer has recently purchased a car and has participated in a survey in the past year, as well as the consumer's self-identified race and origin. This review, done by phone, would require no more than 15 minutes per consumer, for 42.5 hours (170 respondents × 15 minutes). Staff also estimates that at most, each of the 170 consumers would take approximately 30 minutes to locate or ascertain whether they have their documentation and their credit score for the survey, for 85 hours. Thus, the preliminary review total would be 127.5 hours.

Staff will pretest the questionnaire and interview materials with approximately five respondents to ensure that questions are easily understood. Staff estimates that each interview (including the documentation review) will take approximately 90 minutes, plus 60 minutes travel time to and from the survey. Allowing for an extra ten minutes for questions unique to the pretest, the pretest will total approximately 13.33 hours (5 respondents × 160 minutes each).

Once the pretest is completed, the initial 40 interviews will take 100 hours (60 hours for the interviews plus 40 hours travel time to and from the survey). If an additional 40 consumers are interviewed, that will require an additional 100 hours, respectively. Thus, for the interviews of 80 consumers, staff estimates that 200 hours will be required (80 × 150 minutes each).

Staff further estimates that approximately 75%, or 64, of the 85 survey participants (pretest and interviews) do not already have their credit score and will thus procure it through the contractor or services that provide this information. Staff estimates that 10 minutes per consumer will be required for this purpose, for a total of 10.67 hours (64 respondents × 10 minutes each).

Thus, the FTC's survey will require 351.5 hours (127.5 hours for preliminary review + 13.33 hours for pretest + 200 hours for interviews + 10.67 hours for obtaining credit scores). The monetary cost per respondent should be negligible. The contractor will assist those consumers who seek the contractor's assistance in obtaining their credit score if the consumers do not have it. Alternatively, costs to obtain their credit score through other means should be nil or negligible. Increasingly, Web sites offer free credit scores; additionally, credit score information often is available to consumers through credit sources they already have, such as credit card or other credit statements, in some cases.

The survey research firm may pay respondents a reasonable and customary financial incentive for participation. Participation will not require start up, capital, or labor expenditures by interview subjects.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.12 As required by Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB provide clearance for this matter.

Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on:

(1) Whether the reporting requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.

Additionally, the FTC seeks comments on the proposed survey methodology and specific issues or questions that should be included in the interview process.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 7, 2016. Write “Auto Buyer Consumer Survey, Project No. P154800” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).13 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Auto Buyer Consumer Survey, Project No. P154800” on your comment and on the envelope and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 7, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The National Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (NHTVAP) provides funding for comprehensive case management services to victims of trafficking and certain family members on a per capita basis. The NHTVAP grantees help clients gain access to housing, employability services, mental health screening and therapy, medical care, and some legal services. During FY 2015, a grantee, Heartland Human Care Services (HHCS), served more clients than it had planned for in its budget for the year. Without the additional funding, HHCS would have to make significant cuts in services to current clients and limit the enrollment of new clients. With the supplemental funding, HHCS will be able to ensure that all of the clients' essential needs will be met.

Statutory Authority: Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, Section 107(b)(1)(B), 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(B), authorizes funding for benefits and services to foreign victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States, potential victims of trafficking seeking HHS Certification, and certain family members.

Over 35 million people in the United States have some degree of hearing loss. However, it is estimated that only 20 percent of individuals who could benefit from hearing aids are using them. There are several well-recognized reasons or “barriers” causing underuse of hearing aids, including the high cost of these devices, the stigma associated with hearing aid use, and the fact that hearing aids do not restore hearing to normal the way that eyeglasses can correct visual problems. On October 26, 2015, the President's Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report in recognition of the substantial national public health problem of barriers to accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for Americans with “normal, age-related, progressive, mild-to-moderate hearing loss” and the underuse of these devices in the older American population. The report includes a number of recommendations regarding possible modifications to Federal Regulation of hearing aids by FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, which PCAST believes could “enhance the pace of innovation and level of competition, leading to rapid decrease in cost and improvement in capability, convenience, and use of assistive hearing devices” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_hearing_tech_letterreport_final2.pdf). Among these recommendations, PCAST recommended FDA exempt hearing aids indicated for bilateral, gradual onset, mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss from the Quality System Regulation (QSReg) in its present form and “substitute compliance with standards for product quality and recordkeeping appropriate for the consumer electronics industry, developed by an appropriate third-party organization and approved by FDA.”

In response to PCAST's recommendations outlined in this document, the workshop will discuss the current GMPs that are required under the QSReg and gather suggestions for an alternative model for quality verification. Invited speakers will discuss how the current regulations may be unsuitable for air-conduction hearing aids and may hinder innovation, reduce competition, and lead to increased cost and reduced use of these devices by Americans with age-related hearing loss. Additionally, the potential exemption of hearing aids from the QSReg, through use of alternative standards developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and standards development organizations, and recognized by FDA and recordkeeping to ensure product quality, will be discussed.

Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by 4 p.m. on April 13, 2016. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, 301-796-5661, [email protected] no later than April 7, 2016.

To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.) Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan (contact for special accommodations) to register. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.

Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be Webcast. The Webcast link will be available on the workshop Web page after April 14, 2016. Please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list.) If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

Requests for Oral Presentations: This public workshop includes a public comment session and topic-focused sessions. During online registration, you may indicate if you wish to present during a public comment session or participate in a specific session, and which topics you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this document. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations, and request time for a joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives to participate in the focused sessions. Following the close of registration, FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin, and will select and notify participants by April 15, 2016. All requests to make oral presentations must be received by the close of registration on April 13, 2016, 4 p.m. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to Srinivas Nandkumar (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than April 19, 2016. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public workshop.

FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain information on the appropriate level of good manufacturing practices for hearing aids. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is May 19, 2016.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov. A link to the transcripts will also be available approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.)

In the Federal Register of November 7, 2013 (78 FR 66940), FDA published a notice of availability with a 90-day comment period to request comments on the draft guidance entitled “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products.”

Since issuance of the November 7, 2013, draft guidance entitled “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products,” FDA has become aware of other efforts by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) regarding hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAP). In order to allow FDA and other interested parties to consider the PCAST recommendations and information presented and discussed during the recent public IOM meetings on this issue, FDA is reopening the comment period. This will further allow FDA to ensure consistent interpretation, consistent application of relevant regulatory requirements, and adequate protection of the public health.

FDA is reopening the comment period for 120 days. The Agency believes that a 120-day extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments without significantly delaying finalizing the draft guidance on these important issues.

FDA is soliciting comments on the availability, accessibility, and use of hearing aids and PSAPs for consumers with hearing impairment. Further, FDA requests interested parties to comment on the key issues and recommendations identified in the PCAST reporting, including: (1) The degree to which current FDA regulatory requirements may be acting as a barrier to hearing aid accessibility, affordability, and use of hearing aids; (2) the appropriateness of creating a “basic” category of hearing aids for consumers with “bilateral, gradual onset, mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss” with appropriate labeling for over-the-counter sale; and (3) whether the benefits of expanded, over-the-counter access to hearing aids in this age-related hearing loss population outweigh the risks of forgoing the condition for sale (that the consumer may waive) that requires a medical evaluation to rule out treatable, potentially progressive causes of hearing loss.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number1832 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.

Notice is hereby given that on December 23, 2015, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain intermodal containers, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H267876, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the processing in the United States does not result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the intermodal containers is the country of origin of the imported panels for purposes of U.S. Government procurement for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.

The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.

The Council will meet in an open session between 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. EST. The Council will swear in new members, receive reports from the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel and the DHS Grant Review Task Force, and receive verbal progress reports from the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and the Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee.

The Council will meet in a closed session from 10:10 a.m. to 1:25 p.m. and 3:05 p.m. to 4:35 p.m. EST to receive sensitive operational counterterrorism information from senior officials and information on current threats and security measures from the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee leadership.

Basis for Partial Closure: In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has determined this meeting requires partial closure. The disclosure of the information relayed would be detrimental to the public interest for the following reasons:

The Council will receive closed session briefings from senior officials and both the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittees. The Council will receive operational counterterrorism updates on the current threat environment and security measures associated with countering such threats. The session is closed under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) because disclosure of that information could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally available to the public, allowing terrorists and those with interests against the United States to circumvent the law and thwart the Department's strategic initiatives. These briefings will concern matters sensitive to homeland security within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E)and 552b(c)(9)(B). The session is closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because disclosure of these techniques and procedures could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe.

Participation: Members of the public will have until 5 p.m. EST on Monday, January 18, 2016, to register to attend the Council meeting on January 21, 2016. Due to limited availability of seating, admittance will be on a first-come first-serve basis. Participants interested in attending the meeting can contact Mike Miron at [email protected] or (202) 447-3135. You are required to provide your full legal name, date of birth, and company/agency affiliation. The public may access the facility via public transportation or use the public parking garages located near the Wilson Center. Wilson Center directions can be found at: http://wilsoncenter.org/directions. Members of the public will meet at 1:00 p.m. EST at the Wilson Center's main entrance for sign in and escorting to the meeting room for the public session. Late arrivals after 1:45 p.m. EST will not be permitted access to the facility.

Facility Access: You are required to present a valid original government issued ID, to include a State Driver's License or Non-Driver's Identification Card, U.S. Government Common Access Card (CAC), Military Identification Card or Person Identification Verification Card; U.S. Passport, U.S. Border Crossing Card, Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Card; or Native American Tribal Document.

Information of Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mike Miron at [email protected] or (202) 447-3135 as soon as possible.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0045 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-131; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole, in need to apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter the United States; eligible recipients of deferred action under childhood arrivals (DACA) may now request an advance parole documents based on humanitarian, educational and employment reasons. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-131 is 501,590 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; 78,165 respondents providing biometrics at 1.17 hours; and 300,233 respondents providing passport-style photographs at .50 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,194,591 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $150,469,790.

I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; January 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken. Under the MMPA, you may request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service Director.

The applicant requests a renewal of their permit to obtain through interstate commerce fibroblast cell culture samples from bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), orangutans (Pongo spp.), gibbons (Hylobatidae), lemurs (Lemuridae), spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi frontatus and A. g. panamensis), Goeldi's marmoset (Callimico goeldii), red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus), L'Hoest's monkey (Cercopithecus lhoesti), aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis), lion-tailed macaque (Macaca silenus), mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx), drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus), proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus), and Northern Plains gray langur (Semnopithecus entellus) and Francois' langur (Trachypithecus francoisi), and cottontop tamarin (Saguinus oedipus) from Coriell Institute, Camden, New Jersey, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests the renewal of the permit to export/re-export and re-import non-living museum specimens and non-living herbarium specimens of endangered and threatened species previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) for the purpose of the survival of the species/scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests authorization to rescue, rehabilitate, and release northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) that are stranded along the Alaskan coast for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and as per section 109(h)/112(c) of the MMPA. The request also includes authorization to humanely euthanize animals, such as when they are too ill or injured to recover, for the protection or welfare of the animals. This request is for a continuation of activities previously authorized under MA-837414. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal Register, we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review.

The BLM proposes to offer 39 parcels of public land in the southwest and southeast areas of the Las Vegas Valley. The subject public lands are legally described as:

A sales matrix is available on the BLM Web site at http://www.blm.gov/snplma. The sales matrix provides information specific to each sale parcel such as legal description, physical location, encumbrances, acreage, and FMV. The FMV for each parcel will be available in the sales matrix as soon as approved by the BLM and no later than 30 days prior to the sale.

This competitive sale is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and decision LD-1, approved by Record of Decision on October 5, 1998, and complies with Section 203 of FLPMA. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the sale parcels and the Record of Decision on December 23, 2004 approved the suitability for the sale of these parcels. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy document numbered DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2015-0120-DNA was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action.

Submit comments on this sale Notice to the address in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The BLM will also publish this Notice once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Sale procedures: Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m. PT and will end at 10 a.m. PT at the Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155, on the day of the sale, April 26, 2016. There will be no prior registration before the sale date. To participate in the competitive sale, all registered bidders must submit a bid guarantee deposit in the amount of $10,000 by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management on the day of the sale or submit the bid guarantee deposit along with the sealed bids. The public sale auction will be through sealed and oral bids. Sealed-bids will be opened and recorded on the day of the sale to determine the high bids among the qualified bids received. Sealed-bids above the FMV will set the starting point for oral bidding on a parcel. Parcels that receive no qualified sealed bids will begin at the established FMV. Bidders who are participating and attending the oral auction on the day of the sale are not required to submit a sealed-bid but may choose to do so.

Sealed-bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the lower front left corner with the parcel number and name of the sale, for example: “N-XXXXX, 39-parcel SNPLMA Spring Sale 2016.” Sealed bids must include an amount not less than 20 percent of the total bid amount and the $10,000 bid guarantee noted above by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the “Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management.” The bid guarantee and bid deposit may be combined into one form of deposit; the bidder must specify the amounts of the bid deposit and the bid guarantee. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks. The sealed-bid envelope must contain the 20 percent bid deposit, bid guarantee, and a completed and signed “Certificate of Eligibility” form stating the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the entity or person submitting the bid. Certificate of Eligibility and registration forms are available at the BLM LVFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section and on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma/Land_Auctions.html. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-1(c), if two or more sealed-bid envelopes containing valid bids of the same amount are received, oral bidding will start at the sealed-bid amount. If there are no oral bids on the parcel, the authorized officer will determine the winning bidder. Bids for less than the federally approved FMV will not be qualified. The highest qualifying bid for any parcel will be declared the high bid. The apparent high bidder must submit a deposit of not less than 20 percent of the successful bid by 3 p.m. PT on the day of the sale in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management.” Funds must be delivered no later than 3 p.m. PT on the day of the sale to the BLM Collection Officers at the Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155. The BLM-LVFO will not accept any funds. The BLM will send the successful bidder(s) a high-bidder letter with detailed information for full payment.

All funds submitted with unsuccessful bids will be returned to the bidders or their authorized representative upon presentation of an acceptable photo identification at the BLM-LVFO or by certified mail. The apparent high bidder may choose to apply the bid guarantee towards the required deposit. Failure to submit the deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid guarantee. If the successful bidder offers to purchase more than one parcel and fails to submit the 20 percent bid deposit resulting in default on any single parcel following the sale, the BLM will retain the $10,000 bid guarantee, and may cancel the sale of all the parcels to that bidder. If a high bidder is unable to consummate the transaction for any reason, the BLM may offer the parcel to the second highest bidder for their bid. If there are no acceptable bids, a parcel may remain available for sale at a future date in accordance with competitive sale procedures without further legal notice.

Federal law requires that bidders must be: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) A corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; (3) A State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada.

Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Failure to submit the above requested documents to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high-bidder letter will result in cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the bid deposit. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM-LVFO for each sale. The successful bidder is allowed 180 days from the date of the sale to submit the remainder of the full purchase price.

According to SNPLMA as amended, Public Law 105-263 section 4(c), lands identified within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary are withdrawn from location and entry, under the mining laws and from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until such time as the Secretary terminates the withdrawal or the lands are patented. Any subsequent applications will not be accepted, will not be considered as filed, and will be returned to the applicant. The segregative effect of this Notice terminates upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance to such lands.

Terms and Conditions: All minerals for the sale parcels will be reserved to the United States. The patents will contain a mineral reservation to the United States for all minerals. The BLM refers interested parties to the regulation at 43 CFR 3601.71(b), which provides that the owner of the surface estate of lands with reserved Federal minerals may “use a minimal amount of mineral materials for personal use” within the boundaries of the surface estate without a sales contract or permit. The regulation provides that all other use, absent statutory or other express authority, requires a sales contract or permit. We also refer interested parties to the explanation of this regulatory language in the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register in 2001, which stated that minimal use “would not include large-scale use of mineral materials, even within the boundaries of the surface estate.” 66 FR 58894 (Nov. 23, 2001). Further explanation is contained in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-085 (April 23, 2014), available on BLM's Web site at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2014/im_2014-085__unauthorized.html.

The parcels are subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and certain encumbrances in favor of third parties. Prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way (ROW) within the sale parcels will have the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or conversion to an easement. The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of record of their ability to convert their compliant ROWs to perpetual ROWs or easement. In accordance with Federal regulations at 43 CFR 2807.15, once notified, each valid holder may apply for the conversion of their current authorization.

The following numbered terms and conditions will appear on the conveyance documents for the sale parcels:

1. All mineral deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights;

2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);

3. The parcels are subject to valid existing rights;

4. The parcels are subject to reservations for road, public utilities and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' transportation plans; and

5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.

Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620(h) (CERCLA), as amended, notice is hereby given that the lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for 1 year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.

No warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, future uses, or any other circumstance or condition. The conveyance of a parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 120(h) of the CERCLA.

Unless the BLM authorized officer approved other satisfactory arrangements in advance, conveyance of title will be through escrow. Designation of the escrow agent will be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow will be borne by the prospective patentee.

The BLM-LVFO must receive the request for escrow instructions prior to 30 days before the prospective patentee's scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.

All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM-LVFO 30 days from the date on the high-bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. PT. There are no exceptions. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder must submit the name change in writing on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM-LVFO.

The remainder of the full bid price for the parcel must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. PT, within 180 days following the day of the sale. Payment must be submitted in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, cashier's check, or made available by electronic fund transfer made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management” to the BLM-LVFO. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks.

Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM for payment of the balance due must be made a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the payment date. Failure to pay the full bid price prior to the expiration of the 180th day will disqualify the high bidder and cause the entire 20 percent bid deposit to be forfeited to the BLM. Forfeiture of the 20 percent bid deposit is in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the remainder of the bid price after the 180th day of the sale date.

The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of such an exchange is the bidder's responsibility. The BLM cannot be a party to any 1031 Exchange.

In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), within 30 days the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale if the BLM authorized officer determines consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons as may be provided by applicable law or regulations. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.

The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Information concerning the sale, encumbrances of record, appraisals, reservations, procedures and conditions, CERCLA, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for the proposed sale parcels are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday, at the BLM-LVFO, except during Federal holidays.

In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government.

It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may affect the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.

Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in response to such comments. In the absence of any comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

The NSSI STAP provides advice and recommendations to the NSSI Oversight Group regarding priority information needs for management decisions across the North Slope of Alaska. These priority information needs may include recommendations on inventory, monitoring, and research activities that contribute to informed resource management decisions. This meeting will include introductions of new appointees, review of STAP procedures, continued review of emerging issues, and application of North Slope Scenarios implications to inventory, monitoring and research priorities. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the NSSI Director. The public may present written comments to the STAP through the NSSI Acting Director. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The withdrawal created by PLO No. 7254 (62 FR 17633 (1997)), as corrected (62 FR 22964 (1997)), will expire April 9, 2017, unless it is extended, and is incorporated herein by reference. The BLM has filed an application requesting that the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management extend PLO No. 7254 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7254 withdrew 19,687 acres of public mineral estate in Toole and Liberty Counties, Montana, from location and entry under the United States mining law, subject to valid existing rights. This notice amends the land description as the result of a resurvey due to the cancellation of mineral survey 3418. The public mineral estate withdrawn by PLO No. 7254 is now described as follows:

The purpose of the proposed extension is to continue to protect the unique resources within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC and surrounding areas.

The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection.

There are no suitable alternative sites available where the withdrawal would facilitate the protection necessary.

No water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension.

All persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Havre Field Manager by April 6, 2016, at the address above.

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Havre Field Office, 3990 HWY 2 West, Havre, Montana 59501, during regular business hours.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Notice is hereby given that a public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension will be held at the Chester Senior Center, 618 E. Adams Ave., Chester, Montana 59522 on February 10, 2016 from 3 to 5 p.m. The BLM will publish a notice of the time and place in at least one newspaper of general circulation no less than 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

This application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, Tucson, AZ. The human remains were removed from areas around Pyramid Lake, Washoe County, NV.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.

In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a site located on the Northwest corner of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by F.A. Riddell (State of California Division of Beaches and Parks) and H. Norcross, and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

At an unknown date prior to 1955, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a small cave in “Paul Bunyan's Corral” located on the east side of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. They were donated by M. Wheat to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1955. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

At an unknown date prior to 1922, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the east side of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by Peterson Pancho and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1922. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

At an unknown date prior to 1923, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from south of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by Peterson Pancho and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1923. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on physical characteristics including cranial and dental morphology.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 11 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (15), the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the tribal land of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, may proceed.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains were removed from San Juan County, WA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation and the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Jack Allen property, Waldron Island, San Juan County, WA. The human remains were collected by an unknown individual from the surface after ploughing. The human remains were identified as adult of indeterminate gender. The American Museum of Natural History accessioned these human remains as a gift from Miss June Wetherell Frame, in 1959. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the presence of cranial deformation.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the Court of Federal Claims, Treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, NY, NY 10024, 212-769-5837, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, CT. The human remains were removed from the Blue Earth Village Site (14-Po-0024), near Manhattan, Pottawatomie County, KS.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana.

In 1868, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a cemetery at the Blue Earth Village Site (14-Po-0024), near Manhattan, Pottawatomie County, KS. The human remains were removed by Benjamin Mudge (the first state geologist of Kansas) who, in the same year, donated the human remains to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

According to historical documentation and archaeological evidence, the Kaw (Kanza) people lived at the Blue Earth Village from approximately 1757 to 1825. In 1846, the Kaw moved to Council Grove, Kansas and in 1873, the group was forcibly removed to Kay County, OK where they reside today as the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752 by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma may proceed.

The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma, the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, and that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. The human remains were removed from an unknown location along the Northwest Coast of the United States.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington), Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington), Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington), Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington), Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington), the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington), and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”.

In July of 1941, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a “shell mound” at an unknown location in the “Northwest Coast”. This collection was transferred to Indiana University from the University of Chicago during the 1950s. The boxes containing the collection recorded the collection as having previously been located at the University of Washington. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Notes accompanying this collection indicate that two of the individuals from this collection were excavated from a shell mound in July of 1941 by Tom Harmon. The geographic location is listed as “Northwest Coast.” The third individual from this collection is listed as having been excavated from the same shell mound in July of 1941 by Harry Smith. Extensive efforts have been made to collect information about Tom Harmon, who was a Road Commissioner in 1941; however, no further information has been found.

During the 1940s, Harry Everett Smith gifted cultural objects to the Thomas Burke Museum Memorial of Natural History and Culture (Burke Museum) at the University of Washington, including objects Smith had collected from Skagit County. Harry Smith grew up in the Anacortes area of Skagit County, Washington State, and is known to have worked with the tribal communities in Skagit and Whatcom Counties in the late 1930s and early 1940s, recording their language and songs. Between 1942 and 1944 he studied anthropology at the University of Washington, focusing on Native American tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Indiana University and the Burke Museum have concluded that by a preponderance of the evidence, `Harry Smith' who excavated the `shell mound' in 1941, and the Harry Smith who collected artifacts from Skagit County and worked with the University of Washington, are the same person. This conclusion is supported by the Burke Museum's accession records and other UW archival information.

“Shell Mounds” or shell middens are archaeological sites common along the shorelines of the Northwest Coast including the northern Puget Sound region, where Skagit and Whatcom Counties are located. The shell middens of this area are between 200 and 4000 years old; both burials and isolated human remains are commonly found in these sites.

Officials of Indiana University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and collection history.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• On January 22, 1855, the Point Elliot Treaty was signed by representatives from The Tribes. The Point Elliot Treaty established an agreement between the United States Government and The Tribes for lands in western Washington. The lands around Anacortes, Washington from which the Native American human remains were removed were a part of the aboriginal lands ceded by the Point Elliot Treaty.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington), Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington), Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington), Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington), Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington), the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington), and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe may proceed.

Indiana University is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Albuquerque, NM. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Cibola County, NM.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (63 FR 65218-65219). A re-inventory of archeological collections from NA 21566, NA 23177, and NA 23178 by the professional staff of the Department of Anthropology at Northern Arizona University discovered additional human remains and associated funerary objects in the collections from NA 23177 and NA 23178. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (63 FR, 65218), paragraph 3 is corrected by substituting the following paragraph:

In the Federal Register (63 FR, 65219) paragraph 2, sentences 1 and 2 are corrected by substituting the following sentences:

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to: Dr. Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Boulevard Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone (505) 842-3238, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Hopi Tribe, Arizona; and the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico may proceed.

The Cibola National Forest is responsible for notifying the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Hopi Tribe, Arizona; and the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico that this notice has been published.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 5 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control and possession of TVA. The human remains were removed from sites 1LI14 and 1LI37, in Limestone County, Alabama.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Tennessee Valley Authority professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (Previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Shawnee Tribe.

In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were collected by James Cambron, a resident of Decatur, Alabama from site 1LI14, in Limestone County, AL. The human remains were identified as a female between the ages of 20-24. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1L114, in Limestone County, AL. These human remains were located during a recent validation of the Tennessee Valley Authority NAGPRA cultural items stored at the University of Alabama. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Archaeological site 1LI14 is located on the Tennessee River across from the mouth of Flint creek in Limestone County, Alabama. It is located on the pre-inundation right descending bank of the Tennessee River within the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. The Alabama state site form describes this site as a truncated pyramidal mound and associated shell mound or village near Decatur, Alabama. The mound is 100 ft. from the river and is 135 ft. long by 80 ft. wide at the base and 90 ft. long by 60 ft. wide at the plateau. The long axis of the mound is parallel to the river. Tennessee Valley Authority purchased the land encompassing this site on June 4, 1935. Although not subject to excavation during the construction of the Wheeler Reservoir, this site is generally believed to have Middle Woodland through Mississippian occupations.

In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were collected by James Cambron from site 1L137 in Limestone County, AL. The human remains were identified as a 15-year-old of indeterminate gender. Lack of funerary objects makes chronology of these human remains uncertain. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Archaeological site 1LI37 is 6.8 miles northeast of 1LI14 on Beaverdam Creek near Interstate 565. It is also within the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. It was recorded in the Alabama site file in 1978. The University of Alabama recovered one reworked Early Archaic projectile point/knife during shovel testing of the site. An anvil-stone was also recovered. Available evidence suggests this site was occupied sometime during the Archaic period. Tennessee Valley Authority purchased the land intersecting this site on November 6, 1934.

Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological contexts.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 3 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. Furthermore, Limestone County was recognized as the aboriginal lands of the Chickasaw Nation in a ratified treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw dated September 20, 1816.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation.

Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation may proceed.

Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (Previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Shawnee Tribe that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. The human remains were removed from near Anacortes, WA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Nation of the Lummi Reservation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington, Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Upper Skagit Tribe (hereafter referred to as `The Tribes'.)

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown location near Anacortes, Washington. This collection was transferred to Indiana University from the University of Chicago during the 1950s. The boxes are recorded as having been previously from the University of Washington; however efforts in collaboration with NAGPRA personnel at the University of Washington have failed to locate additional information regarding the collection's presence at the University of Washington and its subsequent transfer to the University of Chicago. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of Indiana University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and collection history.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• On January 22, 1855, the Point Elliot Treaty was signed by representatives from The Tribes. The Point Elliot Treaty established an agreement between the United States Government and The Tribes for lands in western Washington. The lands around Anacortes, WA, from which the Native American human remains were removed were a part of the aboriginal lands ceded by the Point Elliot Treaty.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

Indiana University is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object under the control of the Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains and associated funerary object were probably removed from the northern Puget Sound region, WA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington); Nooksack Indian Tribe; Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington); Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington); Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington); Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Prior to 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were probably removed from a shell midden in the northern Puget Sound region, WA, possibly from the 45-SK-7 archaeological site in Skagit County, WA. These human remains were identified in 1995 while completing an inventory for NAGPRA compliance. These human remains and associated funerary object were found in a box with a yellow Post-It note with “45-SK-7?” written on it. Also in the box were four human bones, one from King County and three from Siberia, identified by the catalog numbers written on them. While there is no known concrete documentation indicating the human remains were ever removed from 45-SK-7, human remains have been found in adjacent sites, and are commonly found in shell middens in the northern Puget Sound region. These human remains and funerary object are consistent with other burials from this area, therefor the Burke Museum feels these are most likely from that region. The Burke Museum is unable to make a cultural affiliation due to the lack of context and exact location information from which the burial was removed. Site 45-SK-7 is located on State Parks land. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a lot of animal bone, shell and wood.

Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and museum collecting and accessioning history.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one lot of objects described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian tribe.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes. The Treaty of Point Elliot was signed on January 22, 1855 by representatives from The Tribes whose ceded aboriginal land includes the northern Puget Sound region.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and one associated funerary object may be to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849x2, [email protected] February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to The Tribes may proceed.

The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Knik Arm, near Anchorage, AK.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Knik Tribal Council, Alaska.

In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Fisher-Hong Site, about a mile south of the village of Knik, on the edge of an unnamed creek draining White Lake, Alaska, during legally authorized excavations by archeologists from the University of Oregon. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Based on archeological context and skeletal morphology, the individual described above is determined to be Native American. Based on provenience, the Native American human remains are reasonably believed to be affiliated with the Knik Tribe. Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Knik people have occupied Knik Arm since pre-contact times.

Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Knik Tribe, Alaska.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Knik Tribe, Alaska, may proceed.

The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Knik Tribe, Alaska, that this notice has been published.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Department of Defense. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites near Point Barrow in North Slope Borough, AK.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that had control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (79 FR 18058-18059, March 31, 2014). The transfer of these items to the Native Village of Barrow Traditional Government occurred on June 6, 2014. Because the Tribe intended to bury the individuals in their own separate coffins, the human remains were re-examined by a forensic anthropologist at the University of Alaska Museum of the North where they were temporarily stored prior to transfer, to separate the human remains into discrete burials. This resulted in a slight decrease in the number of individuals, from the originally stated 58 to 56 individuals. Concurrently, a comprehensive inventory of the associated funerary objects was made, leading to the discovery that three items of cultural patrimony had been included in the original inventory of associated funerary objects. As these are not considered associated funerary objects, the total number of associated funerary objects decreased from 124 to 121.

In the Federal Register (79 FR 18058-18059, March 31, 2014), paragraph 7, sentence 1 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Between 1951 and 1953, human remains representing, at minimum 56 individuals were removed from the sites of Birnirk, Nunavah, Nuvuk, and other locations near Point Barrow in North Slope Borough, AK

In the Federal Register (79 FR 18058-18059, March 31, 2014), paragraph 7, sentence 5 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

The 121 associated funerary objects include: 32 wooden objects (wound plugs, dish, dart or arrow shafts, drill shaft; scoop, whale effigy, sod pick handle, seal scratcher, paddles, and other objects); 24 ivory objects (needle case, kayak paddle, harpoon heads, lance point, pins, awl, handles, and other objects); 25 bone and tooth objects (harpoon heads, bow brace, ice pick, bola weights, trap components, weapon tips or points, worked bear canines, and other objects); 11 antler objects (bird dart heads, harpoon heads, and worked antler); 7 stone objects (burin, ground stone knife, whetstone, project point, hearthstone, and other stone objects); 4 objects made from skin, fur, or baleen (2 sewn sealskins, baleen effigy, bear fur), 2 marine shells, and 16 ceramic sherds.

The U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy is responsible for notifying the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI. The human remains were removed from Kamā'oa Pu'u'eo, Kaū District, Hawai'i Island, HI.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Hawaii at Hilo professional staff, in consultation with representatives of The Hawai'i Island Burial Council, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hui Malama i Nā Kūpuna o Hawai'i Nei, Aha Moku Advisory Committee, and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū.

In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Pu'u Ali'i Sand Dune Site (site H1) in Kamau'oa Pu'u'eo ahupua'a, in the district of Ka'ū, Hawai'i Island, State of Hawai'i, under the direction of Professor William Bonk at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. These human remains were identified in bags of midden deposit in the summer of 2014, which had been stored with the other excavated material from the site at University of Hawaii at Hilo until the present time. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The Pu'u Ali'i Sand Dune site is a Native Hawaiian fishing village and cemetery dating to pre-European contact.

Officials of the University of Hawaii at Hilo have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and Aha Moku Advisory Committee (Moku o Keawe), the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter R. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences Division, 200 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720-4091, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to Aha Moku Advisory Committee (Moku o Keawe), the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs may proceed.

The University of Hawaii at Hilo is responsible for notifying the The Hawai'i Island Burial Council, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Aha Moku Advisory Committee, and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, Springdale, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a rock shelter on the Graham farm near Butler Ford, Benton County, AR, in 1923.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

In 1923, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from a rock shelter on the Graham farm near Butler Ford, Benton County, AR. The human remains were purchased by the Shiloh Museum as part of the William Guy Howard Collection of Native American and pre-historic materials in 1966. One set of human remains consists of a skull, femur, and sternum (cataloged as S-66-1-116-1 through 3). The skull of a dog (cataloged as S-66-1-116-4) is associated with the human remains. Another set of human remains consists of a skull and two femurs (cataloged as S-66-1-490 1 through 3). There is no lineal descendent or culturally affiliated contemporary Indian tribe that can be determined. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is the skull of a dog.

Officials of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on determination of burial in a rock shelter.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of, at minimum, two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the dog skull described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains (S-66-1-116) at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(15), the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the tribal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Carolyn Reno, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, 118 W. Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, telephone (479) 750-8165, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) may proceed.

The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from San Miguel Island, Channel Islands in Santa Barbara County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by History Colorado professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

In 1913, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from San Miguel Island, Channel Islands, in Santa Barbara County, CA. Museum documentation does not list a specific site from which the human remains were removed. They were anonymously donated to the museum in 1930. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Osteological analysis conducted at the Metropolitan State University Human Identification Laboratory concludes that the remains are of an adult female of Native American ancestry. Archaeological evidence and oral history indicate San Miguel Island is traditional territory of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California. Historical and archaeological findings support the continuous occupation of the island by the Chumash dating back several thousand years, and their relocation to the mainland to Spanish missions by 19th century. In 1855, the Santa Ynez Reservation was created for the Chumash and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash was federally recognized in 1901.

Officials of History Colorado have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Sheila Goff, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 866-4531, email [email protected] by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to may proceed.

History Colorado is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO, and in the custody of the Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores, CO.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the White River National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Hereafter all tribes listed above are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

In 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were delivered by a private citizen to the White River National Forest office in Glenwood Springs, CO. The private citizen did not leave personal information but did indicate that the human remains may have originated from southeastern Utah. The human remains consisted of two largely intact crania, and one mandible, likely associated with one of the intact skulls. A separate plastic bag containing a soil matrix (presumably from the site(s) of discovery), three disassociated teeth, and one human bone fragment was also found in the box. It is unknown if the bone fragment(s) and the dissociated teeth were part of the two human skulls although both crania and the single mandible were missing teeth. A cursory anatomical examination revealed the human remains were Native American, one female and one male, both of adult age. The colorations of the individual crania, along with associated soils, suggested that they did not originate from the same site of discovery or excavation. No craniometric examinations were made of the human remains and no destructive (e.g., DNA) analyses were performed. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the White River National Forest have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of, at minimum, two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the lands from which the Native American human remains were likely removed from one the aboriginal lands of The Consulted and Invited Tribes.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, telephone (970) 945-3200, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed.

White River National Forest is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that his notice has published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND. The human remains were removed from Camp Grafton, Ramsey County, ND.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the State Historical Society of North Dakota professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Crow Tribe of Montana; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.

In 2003, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, were removed from site 32RY147 on state land at Camp Grafton in Ramsey County, ND. The human remains (a toe bone) were recovered during a testing project undertaken by the Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota for the North Dakota Army National Guard. The site, described in the final report as an artifact scatter, is located in the north-central portion of Camp Grafton North, Ramsey County, ND, on top of a densely forested hill. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

No artifacts, burial mounds, or funerary structures suggesting the presence of a burial at or near the location were reported to exist at the site. The presence of ceramics and the recovery of a Besant-like projectile point fragment at the site suggest that it was probably occupied during the Woodland or Early Plains Village period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1300).

Officials of the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remain described in this notice is Native American based on the context of its recovery. They were recovered from a prehistoric Native American site, which also generated ceramic, lithic, and other artifacts consistent with prehistoric Native American occupation.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendi Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, email [email protected], by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota, may proceed.

The State Historical Society of North Dakota is responsible for notifying the the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT. The human remain and associated funerary objects were removed from Pine Island, Marshall County, AL.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

Prior to 1915, human remains representing, at minimum, one adult individual were removed from Pine Island in Marshall County, AL by John H. Gunter and donated to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. The 82 associated funerary objects are one ceramic vessel fragment, parts of two flint-lock muskets, two lead balls, 65 brass tinklers, one lot of blue and white glass trade beads, two brass bells (variety Circarch), four ramrod thimbles, two metal springs, and three textile fragments.

Historical and archeological documentation has identified the early inhabitants of the Guntersville Basin as the Koasati (as called by the English) or Kaskinampo (as called by the French), with the Cherokee moving into the region later in the 18th century. Archeological investigations on Pine Island in the late 1800s and again in the 1930s identified both proto-historic and historic occupations. The historic McKee Island Phase occupation dates to approximately A.D. 1650 to 1715. After 1715, it is believed the Koasati abandoned the island and moved south to the Coosa-Tallapoosa River junction. The associated funerary objects are consistent with the earlier historic McKee Island phase occupation of Pine Island by the Koasati. Historical, linguistic, and tribal evidence indicates that descendants of the Koasati are members of four federally recognized tribes: The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma.

Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 82 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remain and associated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation may proceed.

The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

The Commission was created by Public Law 64-271 enacted on September 8, 1916. The Commission is planning to commemorate the 100th anniversary of its founding by publishing a Centennial History of the agency.

The Commission's strategic plan describes the agency in the following terms: “For decades, the Commission, an independent, nonpartisan agency, has fulfilled its mandate to provide Congress and the President with objective, thorough, and succinct analysis on the most critical trade issues of the day.” The Commission seeks to place the agency and its mandate for independence, lack of partisanship, and objectivity in its historical context. The Commission intends to focus on this mandate as a theme of the book.

The book is planned to include the following chapters:

This table of contents is preliminary and has not yet been finalized. The Commission is willing to entertain suggestions from prospective authors for modifications to the table.

The Commission is seeking authors to prepare chapters for the book (other than the Conclusion). Each submission for a chapter on one of the Commission's functions would need to address the following: Why Congress felt the need for legislation on the subject of the chapter (e.g., antidumping and countervailing duty determinations); why the Commission was selected to provide such determinations (such as the need for objectivity); and how the Commission has implemented the law. The Commission is willing to accept submissions that are a joint effort of two or more co-authors. Submissions should be consistent with the above-described mandate of non-partisanship and objectivity.

Once filed, each submission will undergo an extensive review process. The Commission reserves the right to edit each submission for form, style, and content. The agency provides no guarantee that a submission will be published in the Centennial History. Publication of a chapter will not result in monetary remuneration.

The Commission is considering convening a conference at which submissions for the Centennial History would be discussed. All authors whose contributions have been accepted for the book would have an opportunity to participate in the conference. In addition, authors whose contributions do not become part of the book may be permitted to participate. Their contributions would also be considered for inclusion in the proceedings of the conference.

As stated above, a prospective author must provide written notice to the Commission by January 29, 2016, of the intent to file a submission. This intent to file must include the following information:

Once the Commission has received the notices, each author will receive a packet including: A tentative offer to publish, a voluntary services agreement, and guidelines on editorial styles and compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.

Ari S. Friedlaender, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365

Waste Permit. The applicant will conduct research around the Antarctic Peninsula to determine the ecological role of baleen whales. Recently developed sensor tags will be used to collect data on the underwater movement and behavior of the whales. Over time, the applicant will be able to determine how changes in the whales' behavior correspond to changes in sea ice, krill, and other critical aspects of the Antarctic marine ecosystem that are at risk from rapidly changing climates. The applicant will also collect skin and blubber biopsy samples to gain a better understanding of the identity, population structure, and health of the whales. The applicant will collaborate with Antarctic tour operators that will provide platforms to the applicant's research team in order to gather data during time periods that are undersampled. The applicant is seeking a waste permit to cover any accidental releases that may occur if the biopsy darts and/or tags are lost.

Multi-sensor, suction cup tags. The tags contain electronic sensors that are contained in a syntactic foam housing (400g in weight). The tags also contain a VHF radio beacon that aids in tag retrieval via standard radio tracking equipment. The tags remain on whales for up to 24 hours via silicon suction cups. When they are shed, they float and are retrieved using radio telemetry tracking tools. The applicant's research team remains in visual or radio contact with the tag continuously while it is deployed and until it is recovered. While tag failure is rare, if the VHF transmitter fails the tag would likely remain floating until it became beach-cast. In the applicant's experience, VHF failure occurs rarely, less than 1% of all deployments. A lost tag would constitute waste in the form of 300 grams of syntactic foam, 100 grams of electronics and 20 grams of silicon suction cups. The research teams are comprised of experienced researchers with many years of field time. By employing personnel such as this, the applicant minimizes the risk of generating waste and losing any equipment due to human error.

Biopsy darts. Biopsy sampling is done with a crossbow firing a floating dart, made of aluminum and carbon fiber, that bounces off the whale's body after extracting a tiny plug of tissue. The biopsy tips are a 40 mm stainless steel barrel. The bolts also contain a 5x2cm foam float that is used to aid in dart retrieval. The bolts are highly visible and remain at the surface for retrieval. The applicant will only collect samples when weather and light conditions are good and offer the best chance at retrieving the bolt. The applicant's research team generally takes samples at a range of 10-30 meters that allows them to maintain visual contact with the bolt when it is in the water. During biopsy sampling, the team has an observer whose job is to maintain visual contact with the bolt until retrieval. The applicant's research team has collected over 500 biopsy samples in Antarctica on various projects and has only failed to retrieve two bolts to date. When bolts are lost, it is likely that they would remain floating for some time unless the foam breaks in which case the bolt would likely sink quickly.

Antarctic Peninsula

February 23, 2016 to April 30, 2020

On October 6, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit modification application received. The permit modification was issued on December 31, 2015 to:

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 173 to the competitive product list.1

The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.

To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-50 and CP2016-65 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 173 product and the related contract, respectively.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-50 and CP2016-65 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 172 to the competitive product list.1

The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.

To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-49 and CP2016-64 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 172 product and the related contract, respectively.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-49 and CP2016-64 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add First-Class Package Service Contract 40 to the competitive product list.1

The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.

To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-51 and CP2016-66 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 40 product and the related contract, respectively.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-51 and CP2016-66 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.