Federal Register Vol. 82, No.106,

Background and Purpose: Several species of animal pollinators in the United States have experienced significant population declines. The most economically important pollinators include managed bees (e.g., European honey bee, bumble bees, alfalfa leafcutter bee, etc.) as well as wild native bees. Numerous biotic and abiotic causes are responsible for these declines. Frequently reported factors include:

• Invasive pests, parasites, and diseases;

• Increased exposure to pesticides, pollutants or toxins;

• Nutritional deficits;

• Extreme weather events;

• Agricultural intensification and habitat loss;

• Reduced genetic diversity; and

• Changes in pollinator or crop management practices.

The loss of both managed and wild bees would have severe impacts on crops that depend on pollinators, and would ultimately impact food security. This loss would also negatively impact natural ecosystem services dependent on pollinators.

In June 2014, a Presidential memorandum directed the formation of a National Pollinator Task Force chaired by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Task Force released a Pollinator Research Action Plan in May 2015. The Plan included actions needed to assess native bee populations, including developing baseline data, assessing trends in pollinator populations, expanding bee identification capacities, and expanding collaboration between government and university scientists.

During 2015, Senators Barbara Boxer, Kristen Gillibrand, and Diane Feinstein asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review USDA and EPA efforts to protect bee health.

In their 2016 report, a key GAO findings was,

The GAO Report recommended that USDA coordinate with members of the Pollinator Task Force to develop a monitoring plan that would:

• Establish roles and responsibilities of lead and support agencies;

• Establish shared outcomes and goals; and

• Obtain input from relevant stakeholders, such as states.

A first step towards developing a national monitoring plan, the listening session will gather input from a diverse range of people who are interested in native bee diversity, abundance, and large scale national monitoring strategies.

Prospectus: The morning portion of the listening session will include brief introductions and opening remarks by USDA leaders and relevant federal agencies followed by five-minute oral presentations. Approximately 15 minutes of questions and discussion will follow every fifth presentation. After lunch, public presentations will continue, followed by closing remarks. The NIFA Web site (www.nifa.usda.gov) will include a link to a detailed schedule approximately a week before the listening session.

Background

This Notice is specific to the Forest Service. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline route would cross 5.1 miles of lands managed by the Monongahela National Forest (MNF), in Pocahontas County, West Virginia and 15.9 miles of lands managed by the George Washington National Forest (GWNF), in Highland, Bath, and Augusta Counties, Virginia. The Supply Header Project would not affect the Monongahela or George Washington National Forests.

The FERC is the NEPA Lead Federal Agency for the environmental analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed ACP and Supply Header Project. The Forest Service is the Federal agency responsible for authorizing this use and issuing special use permits for natural gas pipelines across National Forest System (NFS) lands under its jurisdiction. As a condition of issuing a Special Use Permit (SUP) for ACP to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas transmission pipeline that crosses NFS lands, the Forest Service would include such terms and conditions deemed necessary to protect Federal property and otherwise protect the public interest.

The Forest Service intends to adopt FERC's EIS for its decision to authorize the construction and operation of ACP, along with the necessary project-specific amendments to the LRMPs, if the analysis provides sufficient evidence to support those decisions and the Forest Service is satisfied that its comments and suggestions have been addressed.

On December 15, 2016 the Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment issued a final rule that amended the 36 CFR 219 regulations pertaining to National Forest System Land Management Planning (the planning rule) (81 FR 90723, 90737). The amendment to the 219 planning rule clarified the Department's direction for amending LRMPs. The Department also added a requirement for amending a plan for the responsible official to provide notice “about which substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the amendment” (36 CFR 219.13(b)(2), 81 FR at 90738). Whether a rule provision is directly related to an amendment is determined by any one of the following: The purpose for the amendment, a beneficial effect of the amendment, a substantial adverse effect of the amendment, or a lessening of plan protections by the amendment.

The following descriptions of the proposed or potential LRMP amendments that are anticipated to be addressed in the Final EIS include a description of the “substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11” likely to be directly related to each amendment.

The FERC's Draft EIS for the ACP and the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 included the consideration of a Forest Service authorization for construction and operation of the ACP across NFS lands and the associated Forest Service LRMP amendments that would be needed to make the project consistent with the respective LRMPs if the Forest Service were to approve the authorization (36 CFR 219.15).

The Draft EIS identified “project-specific plan amendments” that would be needed for the construction and operation of the ACP that otherwise could not, or potentially could not, meet certain standards in the MNF or GWNF LRMPs. These amendments are considered project-specific amendments because they would apply only to ACP and would not change LRMP requirements for other projects.

Since the Draft EIS, the Forest Service has reconsidered whether a project-specific amendment would still be necessary to ensure the ACP was consistent with some of the LRMP standards, has identified the need for a project-specific amendment with respect to several other LRMP standards, and has determined that a management prescription reallocation would not be necessary to approve the project.

The following potential amendment to the MNF LRMP would be a project-specific amendment, applicable only to the ACP Project. This amendment would not change the applicability of LRMP requirements for other, future projects.

Potential Amendment to the MNF LRMP: The MNF LRMP may need to be amended to allow for the construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to exceed two LRMP standards that were developed for the protection of soils, specifically Forestwide Standards SW06 and SW07 which are:

The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the ACP Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly related to this proposed amendment are:

If this potential amendment is determined to be “directly related” to the substantive rule requirements, the Responsible Official must apply those requirements within the scope and scale of the amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the amendment to meet these rule requirements (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

The following proposed amendment to the GWNF LRMP would be a project-specific amendment, applicable only to the ACP Project. This amendment would not change the applicability of LRMP requirements for other, future projects.

Proposed Amendment, Part 1: In the Draft EIS for the ACP and the January 6, 2017 Federal Register Notice of Availability, the original proposed amendment, part 1 was to amend the LRMP to reallocate 102.3 acres to Management Prescription 5C-Designated Utility Corridors from Management Prescriptions 7E1-Dispersed Recreation Areas (7 acres) and 13-Mosaics of Habitat (95 acres). Management Prescription 11-Riparian Corridors would have remained embedded within the new Management Prescription 5C area. The basis for this proposed amendment was from Forestwide Standards FW-243 and FW-244:

This Management Prescription (Rx) allocation change would change management direction for any future activities within the designated Rx 5C corridor, and would not have been considered a project-specific amendment.

However, upon further examination, the Forest Service has determined it would be preferable to not reallocate the ACP operational corridor to a Management Prescription that would encourage future co-location opportunities. Instead the proposal is to now amend the LRMP with a project-specific amendment that would exempt the ACP Project from the requirements in Forestwide Standards FW-243 and FW-244. With this change, the 53.5 foot wide right-of-way needed for the ACP would remain within the existing management prescription areas (of Rx 4A—Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor, Rx 7E1—Dispersed Recreation Areas; Rx 11—Riparian Corridors; and Rx 13—Mosaics of Wildlife Habitat).

This change from a plan amendment affecting future management to a project-specific amendment would also change the administrative review process for this proposed amendment from the 36 CFR 219, Subpart B procedures as described in the January 6, 2017 Federal Register Notice of Availability, to the 36 CFR 218 administrative review process that applies to the other proposed project-specific amendments for this project.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment is:

Proposed Amendment, Part 2: The Forest Service proposes to amend Forestwide Standards FW-5, FW-8, FW-16, FW-17 and Management Area Prescription Standard 11-003 to allow for the construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to exceed these soil and riparian corridor protection measures. Standards FW-8 and 11-003 were not originally identified in the Draft EIS for the ACP as standards that may need to be amended. These standards are:

The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the ACP Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly related to amending the above standards are:

The Draft EIS for the ACP and the January 6, 2017 Federal Register Notice of Availability had also identified that Forestwide Standard FW-15 and Management Prescription Area Standard 11-019 may need to be amended. However, a further review of these standards has determined that the proposed pipeline project can be made consistent with these standards and an amendment to these two standards will not be needed. These standards are:

Proposed Amendment, Part 3: The GWNF LRMP would be amended to allow the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to be exempt from Management Prescription Area Standard 4A-025 and cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in Augusta County, Virginia. This standard is:

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment is:

Potential Amendment, Part 4: The GWNF LRMP may need to be amended to allow removal of old growth trees within the construction zone of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The forestwide standard in the LRMP that may need to be amended is FW-85, which states that any stands identified as meeting the criteria for Dry Mesic Oak or Dry & Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine old growth forest communities may be suitable for timber harvest and any decision to harvest such stands would be made after consideration of their contribution to the distribution and abundance of these old growth forest community types. Stands identified as meeting the age criteria for any of the other old growth community types found on the forest would be unsuitable for timber production.

A determination on the need for this amendment will be made following completion of an old growth inventory of the stands within the ACP Project's construction zone.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment, if needed, is:

Potential Amendment, Part 5: The GWNF may need to amend Management Area Prescription Standard 2C3-015 to allow for a major reconstruction of a National Forest System Road within Management Prescription Area 2C3 for the purposes of providing access for pipeline construction. This standard is:

This potential amendment is contingent on the final location of access roads needed for the pipeline.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment, if needed, is:

Potential Amendment, Part 6: The GWNF may need to amend Forestwide Standard FW-182 to allow for the construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to deviate from the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) established in the LRMP. This standard is:

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment is:

If any of the six parts of the proposed amendment to the GWNF LRMP described above are determined to be “directly related” to a substantive rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the rule requirement (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5) and (6)).

The Forest Service's January 6, 2017 Notice of Availability in the Federal Register indicated that following the issuance of FERC's Final EIS, the Forest Service would prepare separate records of decision for the authorization to construct and operate the ACP and for the plan amendment decisions. However, the Regional Foresters now intend to sign one record of decision for both the authorizations to construct and operate the pipeline on the MNF and GWNF and for the project-specific plan amendment decisions to the MNF LRMP and the GWNF LRMP. Two Regional Foresters are involved with the ACP Project since the pipeline will cross both the MNF, which is in the Eastern Region of the Forest Service, and the GWNF, which is in the Southern Region of the Forest Service. Doing so will simplify the decisionmaking process for internal Forest Service administrative purposes as well as for the public's right to participate in the predecisional review process. A Forest Service decision to authorize the construction and operation of the ACP will be subject to the Forest Service predecisional administrative review procedures established in 36 CFR 218. At the same time, project-specific amendments to the MNF and GWNF LRMPs will also be subject to the administrative review procedures under the 36 CFR 218 regulations (per 36 CFR 219.59(b)).

Since the Regional Foresters will be the Responsible Officials for both the decisions to authorize the construction and operation of the ACP as well as the LRMP amendments, the Reviewing Official for all of the decisions will be the National Forest System Associate Deputy Chief (36 CFR 218.3(a)).

Responsible Officials for Forest Service Authorizations To Construct and Operate the Atlantic Coast Pipeline: The Regional Forester Eastern Region for NFS lands on the MNF and the Regional Forester Southern Region for NFS lands on the GWNF are the Responsible Officials. (Note that Forest Service Manual 2704.32 provides that the Regional Forester has authority to issue special use authorizations for pipelines 24 inches or more in diameter, and may not delegate that authority to a lower-level official.)

Responsible Officials for Forest Service LRMP Amendments: The January 6, 2017 Federal Register Notice of Availability had identified the Forest Supervisor for the Monongahela National Forest and the Forest Supervisor for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests as the Responsible Officials for the MNF LRMP Amendment and the GWNF LRMP Amendment, respectively. However, since the Regional Foresters for the Eastern and Southern Region will be the Responsible Officials for the decision to authorize the construction and operation of ACP, in the interest of administrative efficiencies as well as to simplify the administrative review process for the public, the Responsible Officials for the LRMP Amendments will now be the Regional Forester Eastern Region for the MNF LRMP Amendment and the Regional Forester Southern Region for the GWNF LRMP Amendment.

The Stibnite Gold Project (Project) is located in both the PNF and BNF. The PNF will be the lead unit for processing and administering the Plan on NFS lands.

The purpose of the Forest Service's action is to provide for approval of the Plan, which would govern occupancy and use of NFS lands for operations that are reasonably incident to mining. To provide for such approval, the Responsible Official needs to determine whether reasonable changes or additions to the Plan are necessary in order to meet the requirements of regulations set forth in 36 CFR 228 Subpart A and other applicable laws, regulations, or policies, prior to approval.

Midas Gold submitted a plan of operations for mining on NFS lands, titled “Stibnite Gold Plan of Restoration and Operations” (Plan) to the Forest Service in September 2016, in accordance with Forest Service regulations for locatable minerals set forth at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 228 Subpart A. In order to comply with its statutory and regulatory obligations to respond to the Plan submitted by Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. (Midas Gold), the Forest Service must: (1) Evaluate the Plan; (2) consider requirements set forth at 36 CFR 228.8, including those to minimize adverse effects to the extent feasible, comply with applicable laws, regulations, and standards for environmental protection, and provide for reclamation; and (3) respond to the Plan as set forth at 36 CFR 228.5(a). The Responsible Official determined the Plan to be administratively complete in December 2016. Approval of the Plan and issuance of permits under the CWA would be major federal actions subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Accordingly, the federal land management and regulatory agencies must also prepare an EIS to consider and publicly disclose the potential environmental effects of the proposed action.

The Responsible Official proposes to approve the Plan submitted by Midas Gold, with any modifications determined necessary through the analysis to comply with applicable laws and regulations. USACE would review the Plan and EIS for purposes of evaluating Midas Gold's application for a Department of the Army Permit under Section 404 of the CWA. EPA would review the Plan and EIS for purposes of evaluating Midas Gold's application for a related NPDES Permit under Section 402 of the CWA. As described in the Plan, the Project would affect federal, state, and private lands. The proposed action by the Forest Service would only authorize approval of mining-related operations on NFS lands, because the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction to regulate mining operations that occur on private or state land. However, the EIS will consider and disclose environmental effects of mining-related operations that would occur on private and state lands. Connected actions related to the Plan, including but not necessarily limited to CWA permitting by USACE and EPA and related amendments of the Payette and Boise Forest Plans, will be considered. Impacts of past, present, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project area will be considered in combination with the impacts of the Project to estimate the potential cumulative impacts of Project implementation.

The Project area is located in the upper East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River (EFSFSR) drainage, approximately 44 air miles northeast of the City of Cascade and three miles east of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Valley County, Idaho. Operations would impact approximately 500 acres of patented mining claims owned or controlled by Midas Gold and approximately 1,500 acres of federal public lands comprised of adjacent NFS lands administered by the PNF and two supporting-infrastructure corridors located primarily in the BNF. Parts of the Project area, such as the Stibnite mine site, have been impacted by historic mining and ore processing operations. Some of these impacts have been remediated, but legacy mining impacts remain.

Midas Gold's stated objective is to economically develop and operate a modern mine, while providing environmental restoration of impacts related to historic mining activities at the site and socioeconomic benefits in surrounding areas. Midas Gold's Plan includes descriptions of the following operations and activities to be conducted on a mixture of NFS, State, and private lands:

• Redevelopment and Construction (2 to 3 years): Developing supporting infrastructure, including upgraded and reconstructed powerline, communication sites, upgraded and/or new roads (including a long-term, temporary mine access and public by-pass route), maintenance facility, and onsite housing, oxygen plant, and water management infrastructure; relocation and reuse of spent ore and construction of a lined tailings storage facility; modifying stream channel to reduce sedimentation and restore wetland function and fish passage (including temporarily rerouting the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River [EFSFSR] through a fish-passable tunnel); planting burned areas; initial mining of one open pit (which will require closure of the Stibnite road through the mine site); and constructing development rock storage and temporary ore stockpile facilities, crusher, and ore processing facilities.

• Mining and Ore Processing (12 to 15 years): Resuming mining from two historical and one new open pit at a rate of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 tons of material per day; processing up to 25,000 tons per day of ore to recover gold/silver dorè and antimony concentrate; historical tailings reprocessing and clean-up; placing neutralized new and reprocessed tailings in the tailings storage facility; placing development rock in four engineered facilities, backfilling Yellow Pine pit; and concurrent reconstruction of stream channels, riparian areas, wetlands, and upland habitat, including restoring the EFSFSR to its approximate original gradient across the backfilled Yellow Pine pit.

• Initial Closure and Reclamation (2 to 3 years): Removing structures and facilities; decommissioning temporary roads; recontouring and drainage; additional wetland mitigations; reconstructing the Stibnite Road and various stream channels in the project area; and growth media placement and revegetation.

• Post-Closure and Monitoring (5 to 7 years): Establishing a wetland on top of the tailings storage facility; reclaiming rock storage facilities; monitoring reclamation and remediation projects.

An initial review of the consistency of the Plan with both the Payette and Boise Forest Plans indicates that approval of the Plan as submitted would result in conditions that are inconsistent with the forest plans. Amendments to the forest plans may be required to address inconsistencies with Forest Plan standards including standards for recreation, roadless areas, vegetation, visual quality, and wildlife.

The EIS will disclose the effects of the no-action alternative, which, while not within the Responsible Official's discretion, would provide a baseline against which action alternatives can be compared, and the proposed action, approval of Midas Gold's Plan. Additional alternatives and Project design features may be evaluated in the EIS. Alternatives and design features determined reasonable and necessary to meet Forest Service regulations for locatable minerals set forth at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A may require changes and/or additions to the Plan. Further information regarding the nature of the decision(s) to be made is presented in the following section.

The Forest Service will be the lead agency preparing the EIS. Currently, five Cooperating agencies have been identified, they are:

The Forest Supervisor of the PNF has been delegated authority for decisions related to the Plan on the BNF and will be the Responsible Official who prepares the record of decision (ROD) necessary to approve the portions of the Plan on NFS lands. USACE and EPA will prepare final decisions for their respective permitting action(s).

The Responsible Official will consider the beneficial and adverse impacts of each alternative. With respect to the portions of the Plan on NFS lands, the Forest Service Responsible Official has discretion to determine whether changes in, or additions to, the Plan will be required prior to approval. However, the Responsible Official cannot categorically prohibit operations that are reasonably incident to mining of locatable minerals on NFS lands in the area of the proposed Plan.

Using the analysis in the EIS and supporting documentation, the Forest Service Responsible Official will make the following decisions regarding the Plan:

1. Decide whether to approve the Plan as submitted by Midas Gold, or to require changes or additions to the Plan to meet the requirements for environmental protection and reclamation set forth at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A before approving a final Plan. The Forest Service decision may be to approve a plan of operations composed of elements from one or more of the alternatives considered. The alternative that is selected for approval in the final Plan must minimize adverse impacts on NFS surface resources to the extent feasible.

2. Decide whether to approve amendments to the forest plans, if required in order to approve the final Plan.

3. Decide whether and/or how to mitigate the effects of the proposed mining operation to existing public motorized access.

The Forest Service would release a draft ROD in conjunction with the final EIS. The draft ROD would address approval of the Plan, and any related project-specific Forest Plan or Travel Plan amendments that may be required. The draft decision would be subject to 36 CFR 218, “Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process.” Depending on the nature of the forest plan amendments required, the draft decisions may also be subject to 36 CFR 219 Subpart B, “Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process.”

Following resolution of objections to the draft ROD, a final ROD would be issued. As the operator, Midas Gold would have an opportunity to appeal the decision as set forth at 36 CFR 214, “Postdecisional Administrative Review Process for Occupancy and Use of National Forest System Lands and Resources.”

Prior to approval of the Plan, Midas Gold may be required to modify the September 2016 Plan to comply with the description of the selected alternative in the final ROD. In addition, the PNF Forest Supervisor would require Midas Gold to submit a reclamation bond or provide proof of other acceptable financial assurance to ensure that NFS lands and resources involved with the mining operation are reclaimed in accordance with the approved Plan and Forest Service requirements for environmental protection (36 CFR 228.8 and 228.13). After the Forest Service has determined that the Plan conforms to the ROD as well as other regulatory requirements, including acceptance of financial assurance for reclamation, it would approve the Plan. Implementation of mining operations that affect NFS lands and resources may not commence until the reclamation bond or other financial assurance is in place and a plan of operations is approved.

Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will be developed during this scoping process. Preliminary issues expected to be analyzed include potential impacts to: Access and transportation; aesthetics and visual resources; botanical resources, including wetlands and threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species; climate and air quality; cultural and heritage resources; environmental justice; federal land management and environmental protection; fire and fuels management; fisheries and wildlife, including threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species; geochemistry; geology; hazardous materials; land use; long-term, post-closure site management; noise; public health and safety; recreation; roadless and wilderness resources; socioeconomics; soils and reclamation cover materials; timber resources; water resources (groundwater and surface water); and water rights.

Aspects of the Plan will also require other permitting, including by the Idaho Departments of Lands, Environmental Quality, and Water Resources.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping (public involvement) process, which guides the development of the EIS. Public comments may be submitted to the PNF in a variety of ways, including: via email, via the project Web site, by mail, and via FAX. In addition, the PNF will conduct scoping meetings, during which members of the public can learn about the Forest Service proposed action and the NEPA process and submit written comments. Comments sought by the PNF include comments specific to the proposed action, information that could be pertinent to analysis of environmental effects, identification of significant issues, and identification of potential alternatives.

Written comments may be sent to: Payette National Forest, ATTN: Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom—Stibnite Gold EIS, 500 N. Mission St., McCall, ID 83638. Comments may also be sent via email with a Subject Line reading “Stibnite Gold EIS Scoping Comment” to [email protected], submitted via Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/payette/StibniteGold, or sent via FAX to 1-208-634-0744.

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

Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, without an associated name and address, receiving further correspondences concerning the proposed action will not be possible and those individuals will not have standing for objection.

This Notice is specific to the Forest Service. The Mountain Valley Pipeline route would cross about 3.4 miles of lands managed by the Jefferson National Forest (JNF), in Monroe County, West Virginia and Giles and Montgomery Counties, Virginia. The Equitrans Expansion Project would not cross the Jefferson National Forest.

The FERC is the NEPA Lead Federal Agency for the environmental analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed MVP and Equitrans Expansion Project. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185 et seq.), the BLM is the Federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas pipelines across Federal lands under the jurisdiction of two or more Federal agencies. The BLM is therefore, considering the issuance of a right-of-way grant to Mountain Valley for pipeline construction and operation across the lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Before issuing the right-of-way grant, the BLM would need to acquire the written concurrences of the Forest Service and the USACE. Through this concurrence process, the Forest Service would submit to the BLM any stipulations for inclusion in the right-of-way grant that are deemed necessary to protect Federal property and otherwise protect the public interest.

The FERC's Draft EIS for the MVP Project included the consideration of a BLM right-of-way grant across Federal lands, along with the associated proposed Forest Service LRMP amendments. The BLM and Forest Service can adopt FERC's EIS for agency decisions, including the necessary amendments to the LRMP, if the analysis provides sufficient evidence to support those decisions and the Forest Service is satisfied that its comments and suggestions have been addressed.

On December 15, 2016 the Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment issued a final rule that amended the 36 CFR 219 regulations pertaining to National Forest System Land Management Planning (the planning rule) (81 FR 90723, 90737). The amendment to the 219 planning rule clarified the Department's direction for amending LRMPs. The Department also added a requirement for amending a plan for the responsible official to provide notice “about which substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the amendment” (36 CFR 219.13(b)(2), 81 FR at 90738). Whether a rule provision is directly related to an amendment is determined by any one of the following: The purpose for the amendment, a beneficial effect of the amendment, a substantial adverse effect of the amendment, or a lessening of plan protections by the amendment.

The following descriptions of the proposed amendments to the JNF's LRMP that are anticipated to be addressed in the Final EIS include a description of the “substantive requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.11” likely to be directly related to each amendment.

The FERC's Draft EIS for the MVP and the Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016 included the consideration of Forest Service LRMP amendments that would be needed to make the proposed pipeline construction and operation consistent with the JNF LRMP (36 CFR 219.15). These amendments would need to be approved before the Forest Service could issue a letter of concurrence to the BLM.

The Draft EIS identified project-specific plan amendments that would be needed for the construction and operation of the MVP that otherwise could not, or potentially could not, meet certain standards in the JNF LRMP. These amendments are considered project-specific amendments because they would apply only to MVP and would not change LRMP requirements for other projects.

Since the Draft EIS, the Forest Service has reconsidered whether a project-specific amendment would still be necessary to ensure the MVP was consistent with some of the LRMP standards, has identified the need for a project-specific amendment with respect to several other LRMP standards, and has determined that a management prescription reallocation would not be necessary to approve the project.

The following proposed amendment to the JNF LRMP would be a project-specific amendment, applicable only to the MVP Project. This amendment would not change the applicability of LRMP requirements for other, future projects.

Proposed Amendment, Part 1: In the Draft EIS for the MVP and the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability, the original proposed amendment, part 1 was to amend the LRMP to reallocate 186 acres to Management Prescription 5C—Designated Utility Corridors from Management Prescriptions 4J—Urban/Suburban Interface (56 acres), 6C—Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbance (19 acres) and 8A1—Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes (111 acres). Management Prescription 11—Riparian Corridors would have remained embedded within the new Management Prescription 5C area. The basis for this proposed amendment was from Forestwide Standards FW-247 and FW-248:

This Management Prescription (Rx) allocation change would change management direction for any future activities within the designated Rx 5C corridor, and would not have been considered a project-specific amendment.

However, upon further examination, the Forest Service has determined it would be preferable to not reallocate the MVP corridor to a Management Prescription 5C Utility Corridor that would be 500 feet wide and would encourage future co-location opportunities. Instead the proposal is to now amend the LRMP with a project-specific amendment that would exempt the MVP Project from the requirements in Forestwide Standards FW-247 and FW-248. With this change, the 50 foot wide right-of-way needed for the MVP would remain within the existing management prescription areas (of Rx 4A—Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor, Rx 4J—Urban/Suburban Interface, Rx 6C—Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbance; Rx 8A1—Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes; and Rx 11—Riparian Corridors).

This change from a plan amendment affecting future management to a project-specific amendment would also change the administrative review process for this proposed amendment from the 36 CFR 219, Subpart B procedures as described in the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability, to the 36 CFR 218 administrative review process that applies to the other proposed project-specific amendments for this project.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment is:

Proposed Amendment, Part 2: The Forest Service proposes to amend Forestwide Standards FW-5, FW-8, FW-9, FW-13, FW-14 and Management Prescription Area Standard 11-003 to allow for the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to exceed these soil and riparian corridor protection measures. Standards FW-8 and 11-003 were not originally identified in the Draft EIS for the MVP as standards that may need to be amended. These standards are:

The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for the MVP Project and include specific mitigation measures and project design requirements for the project.

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly related to amending the above standards are:

The Draft EIS for the MVP and the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability had also identified that Management Prescription Area Standard 11-017 may need to be amended. However, a further review of this standard has determined that the proposed pipeline project can be made consistent with this standard and an amendment to this standard will not be needed. This standard is:

Potential Amendment, Part 3: The Draft EIS for the MVP and the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability had identified that Forestwide Standard FW-77 may need to be amended. However, a further review of this standard has determined that the proposed pipeline project can be made consistent with this standard and an amendment to this standard will not be needed. This standard is:

However, while an amendment to Standard FW-77 will not be needed, since proposed amendment—part 1 has been changed and the lands will not be reallocated to Management Prescription 5C, the pipeline will be located on lands in Management Prescription 6C. As such, the following standards in Management Prescription 6C will need to be amended to allow for a new utility right-of-way within this prescription area:

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment are:

Proposed Amendment, Part 4: The JNF LRMP would be amended to allow the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be exempt from Management Prescription Area Standard 4A-028 and cross beneath the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in Giles County, Virginia. This standard is:

The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly related to this part of the amendment is:

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a land management plan, often called a Forest Plan. On April 9th, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule, referred to as the 2012 Planning Rule, which describes requirements for the planning process and provides programmatic direction to National Forests and National Grasslands for developing and implementing their forest plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time, in order to remain relevant for their intended application period of 10-15 years.

Similar to the 2008 Planning Rule, the 2012 Planning Rule requires the forests to outline desired conditions for each management area, specify objectives to achieve those conditions, and engage the public extensively throughout the plan revision process. However, the 2012 Planning Rule diverges from previous iterations in several guiding concepts and substantive components, particularly in relying on the concept of ecological integrity to frame plan assessment, develop plan components, and fulfill monitoring requirements. Based on current estimates, it is expected to take four years to produce a revised Forest Plan.

Pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule (CFR part 219), the revision process encompasses three stages: Assessment, plan revision and monitoring.

Assessment—This notice announces the start of the first stage of the process, during which updated information from the public, other federal agencies, and non-governmental parties, as well as still applicable data from the previous revision effort will be compiled in an assessment report. Information relevant to the assessment report may include the current, changed, and changing status of ecological, social and economic conditions within the planning area and their interconnected relationships within the context of the broader landscape. The development of the assessment includes opportunities for the public to contribute information and engage in the planning process and build a common understanding prior to entering formal plan revision. Information gathered will be documented in assessment reports that form the basis for the need for change document, which identifies changes to be included in the new plan to provide management direction adaptable enough to address changing environmental, social and economic conditions.

Plan Revision—Using the need for change as a foundation, the GMUG, in coordination with partners and the public, will then begin the plan revision phase of the process. During this phase, a vision statement will be developed that will lead the forests into the future, specifying desired conditions and objectives to help achieve these goals. In compliance with the NEPA, this phase will include the development of alternatives, a proposed action, an environmental impact statement (EIS), and eventually a revised Forest Plan, with announced opportunities for public review and comment. Once the Forest Plan is finalized, all projects and actions that will be implemented on the ground must be in compliance with the Forest Plan.

Monitoring—As part of the plan revision, the public will assist the Forest Service in developing a monitoring program, which will be carried out after the revised plan is approved and will continue throughout the life of the plan. The monitoring program should be designed to help evaluate progress towards meeting the desired conditions and objectives established by the Forest Plan, and may include monitoring questions that address the status of watershed conditions, visitor use and satisfaction, effects of management activities, and more. Monitoring efforts should be within the financial and technical capability of the agency and will help the Forest Service and the public evaluate the effectiveness of the Forest Plan by providing feedback and helping determine whether a change in the plan is necessary.

To identify as much relevant information as possible, the GMUG is encouraging contributors to share their concerns and perceptions of the conditions and trends in social, economic and environmental systems within the GMUG planning area. Meetings, review and comment periods, and other opportunities for public engagement throughout the plan revision process will be publicized, with announcements posted on the Forests' planning Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/main/gmug/landmanagement/planning. Information will also be sent out to the Forests' mailing list. If anyone is interested in being included in these notifications, please send an email to [email protected].

The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests is Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, 2250 HWY 50, Delta, CO 81416.

On December 27, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wood flooring from the PRC.1 On January 26, 2017, the Department received case briefs from multiple interested parties.2 Additionally, on January 26, 2017, we received from Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd. a letter in lieu of case brief. On February 6, 2017, the Department received rebuttal briefs from Fine Furniture, Old Master Products Inc. (Old Master), Senmao and the HB Respondents, and CAHP. Also, on January 26, 2017, the Department received requests for a hearing from CAHP and Penghong. All parties later withdrew their requests for a hearing.3 On March 31, 2017, we extended the time period for issuing the Final Results of this review by 30 days, until May 26, 2017.4

The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.5 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices and constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see Issues and Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice.6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

In the Preliminary Results, we found that nine companies had no shipments during the POR.7 Power Dekor submitted comments stating the Department made an inadvertent error in the Preliminary Results by not recognizing Power Dekor's timely filed no-shipment letter.8 We have reviewed Power Dekor's comments and no-shipment letter and have found that Power Dekor had no shipments during this POR.9 Therefore, for these Final Results, we find that a total of ten companies had no shipments during the POR.10 Consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification, we will issue appropriate instructions with respect to these companies to CBP based on our Final Results.11 In addition, as discussed below, these companies will maintain their rate from the most recent segment in which they participated.

• We granted Power Dekor no shipment status during the POR.12

• We assigned a separate rate to the Fusong Jinlong Group, which includes all four members of the group: Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., and Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.13

• We revised the calculation of the surrogate value for water in Penghong's margin program by converting MT to KG before applying the water surrogate value to the reported water consumption.14

• We added the value of free of charge inputs to Penghong's calculation of export price as applicable.15

• We corrected the surrogate values for red oak, jatoba, plastic strip, and overlaying glue that are applicable for Senmao; that were inadvertently assigned incorrect surrogate values in the Preliminary Results. 16

• We revised the surrogate value for plywood for Senmao to reflect Romanian Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 441232 rather than using a simple average of Romanian HTS 44123210 and 44123190.17

The Department determines that twenty companies subject to this review did not establish eligibility for a separate rate. As such, we determine they are part of the PRC-wide entity.18 Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,19 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the rate for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change as a result of this review. For companies subject to this review that have established their entitlement to a separate rate the Department calculated a separate rate based on the expected method according to 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. For further discussion see accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at comment 3.

For companies subject to this review that have established their eligibility for a separate rate, the Department determines that the following dumping margins exist for the POR from December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. withdrew its respective request for an administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. 24 Accordingly, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd., in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).25 The Department reviewed Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. as part of its concurrent new shipper review and intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the results therein.26

With respect to Dongtai Zhangshi Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd., the Department has found each of these company's one sale during the POR to be a non-bona fide sale in a concurrent new shipper review (“NSR”).27 Because the sale subject to this administrative review is the same sale found to be a non-bona fide sale in the new shipper review, and there are no other reviewable sales by either company during the POR, we are rescinding this review with respect to Dongtai Zhangshi Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd.

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.28 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these Final Results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer- (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. In these Final Results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews. 29 Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.30 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the current rate for the PRC-wide entity (which, as noted above, is not subject to change in this review).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Final Results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the Final Results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these Final Results of review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above the cash deposit rate will be their respective rate established in the Final Results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), then the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these Final Results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice.31

This notice also 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return 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 these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

Background

On December 7, 2009, the Department published its final determination in the CVD investigation of OCTG from the PRC.1 On January 20, 2010, the Department published an amended final determination and the CVD order.2

The Court remanded aspects of the Department's findings for further consideration.3 In particular, in the Remand and Opinion Order, the CIT ordered the Department to clarify or reconsider: (1) Its use of the date of the PRC accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a uniform cut-off date for identifying and measuring subsidies in the PRC; (2) its attribution methodology for subsidies received by certain of Changbao's and TPCO's subsidiaries; (3) its decision to include Jianli's freight quote in the benchmark price for steel rounds and billets; and (4) its decision not to tie the benefit received by TPCO from the provision of steel rounds and billets at less-than-adequate remuneration to its sales of seamless steel pipe.4 Finally, the Court granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand to recalculate the benchmark for steel rounds without Steel Business Briefing (SBB) East Asia pricing data.5

On December 20, 2016, the Department issued its Remand Redetermination. 6 In its Remand Redetermination, the Department: (1) Evaluated certain subsidies and determined a date prior to the WTO accession date on which subsidies provided to the respondents could be identified and measured for purposes of the remand; (2) changed the methodology for attributing to Changbao and TPCO subsidies provided to certain of their subsidiaries; (3) continued to find that the freight rates used by the Department in the investigation to adjust the benchmark for steel rounds are representative of what an importer paid or would pay if it imported the product; (4) clarified the finding that the provision of steel rounds was not tied to TPCO's seamless steel pipe production; and (5) removed SBB East Asia pricing data from the benchmark for steel rounds. The resulting calculations changed the CVD rates calculated for Changbao, Jianli, TPCO, and Wuxi, as well as their respective cross-owned companies, and the all-others rate.

On May 3, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Remand Redetermination. 7 In particular, the Court held that the Remand Redetermination “adequately address{ed} the concerns raised in the court's prior decision” and was “supported by substantial evidence.” 8

In its decision in Timken,9 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 10 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's May 3, 2017, final judgment affirming the Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court which is not in harmony with the Amended Final Determination and Order. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

As there is now final court decision, the Department amends its Amended Final Determination and Order. The Department finds that the following revised net countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Because there has been a subsequent administrative review for Wuxi, the cash deposit rate for Wuxi will remain the rate established in the final results of the 2012 administrative review, which is 59.29 percent.11 Because there have been no subsequent administrative reviews for Changbao, TPCO, and Jianli, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to set the cash deposit rates for these companies to the rates listed above, again, pending a final and conclusive court decision.12

Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, companies not individually investigated are assigned an “all-others” countervailable duty rate. As a general rule, the all-others rate is equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for individually investigated producers and producers, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates.13 The Department will instruct CBP that the “all-others” cash deposit rate is to be amended to reflect the weighted-average of the revised subsidy rates calculated for Changbao, TPCO, Wuxi, and Jianli, as listed above.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 705(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On April 17, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated countervailing duty investigations (CVD) on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Italy and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey).1 Currently, the preliminary determinations of these investigations are due no later than June 21, 2017.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

On May 25, 2017, Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a petitioner in the underlying investigation, submitted timely requests pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determinations.2 For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the requests, the Department, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 130 days after the day on which the investigations were initiated. Accordingly, the Department will issue the preliminary determinations no later than August 25, 2017. In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background

On January 30, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, 2 but no comments were received.

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

Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:

(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);

(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).

“Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.

Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.

Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the Preliminary Results on the record of this segment of the proceeding. As there are no changes from, or comments on, the Preliminary Results, the Department finds that there is no reason to modify its analysis. Thus, we continue to find that TMI/TMM 3 had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR.4 Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the Preliminary Results.

The Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).5 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy cases, because the Department determined that TMI/TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from TMI/TMM will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.6

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI/TMM, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI/TMM in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 111.73 percent; 7 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

On April 12, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated countervailing duty investigations (CVD) on biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia.1 Currently, the preliminary determinations of these investigations are due no later than June 16, 2017.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) allow the Department to postpone the preliminary determination at the request of the petitioner.

On May 22, 2017, the petitioner 2 submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determinations.3 For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 130 days after the day on which the investigations were initiated. Accordingly, the Department will issue the preliminary determinations no later than August 20, 2017. However, because August 20, 2017 falls on a Sunday, the preliminary determinations are now due no later than August 21, 2017.4 In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On December 28, 2016, the Department published its Preliminary Results 1 of the NSRs of the AD order on MLWF from the PRC. The period of review (POR) for the new shipper reviews (NSR) is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. These reviews cover two producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Simite Wooden and Keri Wood.2 As discussed below, we preliminarily found that the single sale made by Simite Wooden is not bona fide, and announced our preliminary intent to rescind its NSR. We also preliminarily determined that Keri Wood made a single bona fide sale which was not below NV and that it is eligible for a separate rate. Simite Wooden submitted its case brief on February 17, 2017.3 For the final results of this review, although we have made certain further adjustments to our bona fide analysis for Simite Wooden, we continue to find Simite Wooden's sale to be non-bona fide. Therefore, we are rescinding the NSR with respect to Simite Wooden. We also continue to find that Keri Wood did not make a sale at less than NV and is eligible for a separate rate. Therefore, with respect to Keri Wood, our final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results.

For a complete description of the events that followed the publication of the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.5 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case brief submitted by Simite Wooden are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.6 A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department analyzed the bona fides of Simite Wooden's sale and preliminarily found it was not a bona fide sale.7 Based on the Department's analysis of all of the comments and record evidence of this review, the Department has made certain changes to its analysis, but still continues to find that Simite Wooden's sale is not a bona fide sale. Accordingly, we have determined to rescind this NSR with respect to Simite Wooden.

For a complete discussion, see the Simite Wooden Prelim Bona Fide Memo and the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

No party filed a case brief in response to the Department's invitation to comment on the Preliminary Results with respect to our findings for Keri Wood. Therefore, for these final results, the Department has made no changes to its calculations announced in the Preliminary Results for this company. For the final results of Kerri Wood's new shipper review, the Department continues to determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR from December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the NSR with respect to Keri Wood.8 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise Keri Wood without regard to antidumping duties because its weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero.9 For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by Keri Wood, the Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the PRC-wide entity.10

As the Department is rescinding the NSR with respect to Simite Wooden, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Simite Wooden. Simite Wooden's entries covered by this NSR will be assessed at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry, which is the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 25.62 percent).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results and partial rescission of this NSR for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For Kerri Wood, because it has received a separate rate, and the rate established in the final results of this NSR is zero, a zero cash deposit will be required. For Simite Wooden, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Simite Wooden. Because we did not calculate a dumping margin for Simite Wooden or otherwise find that Simite Wooden is eligible for a separate rate in this review, Simite Wooden continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 25.62 percent. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a 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 these segments 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.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and (C) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 28, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Thursday, June 29, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and Friday, June 30, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g-4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/index.html.

The agenda is expected to include the following items:

Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media. Pre-registration is not required to attend this meeting.

Public Participation: The ISPAB agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments from the public (Wednesday, June 29, 2017, between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.). Speakers will be selected on a first-come, first served basis. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are requested to contact Matthew Scholl at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930.

After introductions and brief announcements, the meeting will begin with reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), liaisons from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, representatives from NOAA General Counsel and the Office of Law Enforcement, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the U.S Coast Guard. Following these reports, the Council will hear from its Whiting Committee, which will provide a brief progress report on Amendment 22 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The amendment is being developed to potentially limit access to the small-mesh multispecies fishery. Next, the Council will review and discuss the status of Amendment 6 to the Monkfish FMP. This amendment initially was intended to consider potential catch share management approaches for the monkfish fishery. The Council also will discuss and approve research priorities for the Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. The Groundfish Committee report then will commence with a preview of the extensive afternoon agenda. Discussion of the first agenda item potentially could begin prior to lunch. For this item, the Council will receive a summary of the scoping comments for Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23 and discuss the amendment's purpose and need, as well as the likely range of alternatives.

Following the lunch break, the Council will resume the groundfish monitoring discussion if necessary and spend the remainder of the afternoon on groundfish. The Council will initiate Framework Adjustment 57 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which will include: (1) 2018-2020 fishery specifications and other management measures; (2) 2018 total allowable catches (TACs) for U.S./Canada stocks of Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder; (3) Atlantic halibut accountability measures (AMs); and (4) recreational management measures. The Council will review a draft letter with comments on the Marine Recreational Information Program Strategic Plan. Finally, the Council will consider comments on the interim final rule for 2017 and 2018 Sector Operations Plans, including whether measures or restrictions should be recommended for Sector IX due to misreporting by sector vessels. The Council then will adjourn for the day.

The second day of the meeting will begin with a presentation on NMFS's Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP), which will be immediately followed by a presentation on NMFS's guidance regarding the use of Best Scientific Information Available (BSIA). The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) then will provide: (1) Comments on both the SAIP and BSIA; (2) comments on the Council's draft five-year research recommendations; and (3) a progress report on terms of reference for operational stock assessments when models are not feasible. The Council will discuss and consider the SSC's comments on NMFS's SAIP and BSIA guidance. Next, the Council will receive an Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Report with an update on developing a worked example of harvest control rules for ecosystem management. This item will be followed by the Skate Committee report. The Council is scheduled to: (1) Take final action on Framework Adjustment 4 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP to modify the skate bait trigger and possession limits currently in place for the fishery; and (2) initiate Framework Adjustment 5 to allow barndoor skate landings and develop fishing year 2018-2019 specifications. Members of the public then will be able to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes.

After a lunch break, the Scallop Committee first will present a report on the Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota Five-Year Review. The Council then will approve research priorities for the 2018-2019 Scallop RSA Program. Next, the Council will receive a progress report on the development of Framework Adjustment 29, which includes: (1) Fishery specifications for the 2018 fishing year and default specifications for 2019; (2) flatfish AMs for the scallop fishery; (3) Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Management Area issues; and (4) Closed Area I Scallop Access Area modifications to be consistent with pending habitat area revisions. Finally, the Council will discuss and potentially request a control date to address movement between the LAGC NGOM and LAGC incidental permit categories. The day will end with a NMFS presentation and update on the Fishery Dependent Data Visioning Project.

The third day of the meeting will begin with an overview of draft alternatives for a Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology omnibus framework adjustment that is being developed to address assigning at-sea observers to the lobster pot fleet in an unbiased manner through the Northeast Fishery Observer Program. The Council then will hold a Habitat Committee meeting as a Committee of the Whole to review public comments on the Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment and develop final recommendations for Council consideration. Once the Committee of the Whole adjourns, the Habitat Committee report will get underway, starting with the Council taking final action on the Coral Amendment. Also under habitat, the Council will review and approve comments to the Department of the Interior on: (1) National monument designations under the Antiquities Act of 1906, including the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument; and (2) potential environmental effects of offshore oil development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.

Following a lunch break, the Council may resume the habitat discussion if necessary. Then, the Council will develop comments on NMFS's Draft Council Conflict of Interest Policy Directives. The Council next will review Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization legislation and potentially develop Council positions on the draft legislation. The Council will close out the meeting with “other business.”

Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

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.

After introductions and brief announcements, the meeting will begin with reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), liaisons from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, representatives from NOAA General Counsel and the Office of Law Enforcement, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the U.S Coast Guard. Following these reports, the Council will hear from its Whiting Committee, which will provide a brief progress report on Amendment 22 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The amendment is being developed to potentially limit access to the small-mesh multispecies fishery. Next, the Council will review and discuss the status of Amendment 6 to the Monkfish FMP. This amendment initially was intended to consider potential catch share management approaches for the monkfish fishery. The Council also will discuss and approve research priorities for the Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. The Groundfish Committee report then will commence with a preview of the extensive afternoon agenda. Discussion of the first agenda item potentially could begin prior to lunch. For this item, the Council will receive a summary of the scoping comments for Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23 and discuss the amendment's purpose and need, as well as the likely range of alternatives.

Following the lunch break, the Council will resume the groundfish monitoring discussion if necessary and spend the remainder of the afternoon on groundfish. The Council will initiate Framework Adjustment 57 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which will include: (1) 2018-2020 fishery specifications and other management measures; (2) 2018 total allowable catches (TACs) for U.S./Canada stocks of Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder; (3) Atlantic halibut accountability measures (AMs); and (4) recreational management measures. The Council will review a draft letter with comments on the Marine Recreational Information Program Strategic Plan. Finally, the Council will consider comments on the interim final rule for 2017 and 2018 Sector Operations Plans, including whether measures or restrictions should be recommended for Sector IX due to misreporting by sector vessels. The Council then will adjourn for the day.

The second day of the meeting will begin with a presentation on NMFS's Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP), which will be immediately followed by a presentation on NMFS's guidance regarding the use of Best Scientific Information Available (BSIA). The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) then will provide: (1) Comments on both the SAIP and BSIA; (2) comments on the Council's draft five-year research recommendations; and (3) a progress report on terms of reference for operational stock assessments when models are not feasible. The Council will discuss and consider the SSC's comments on NMFS's SAIP and BSIA guidance. Next, the Council will receive an Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Report with an update on developing a worked example of harvest control rules for ecosystem management. This item will be followed by the Skate Committee report. The Council is scheduled to: (1) Take final action on Framework Adjustment 4 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP to modify the skate bait trigger and possession limits currently in place for the fishery; and (2) initiate Framework Adjustment 5 to allow barndoor skate landings and develop fishing year 2018-2019 specifications. Members of the public then will be able to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes.

After a lunch break, the Scallop Committee first will present a report on the Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota Five-Year Review. The Council then will approve research priorities for the 2018-2019 Scallop RSA Program. Next, the Council will receive a progress report on the development of Framework Adjustment 29, which includes: (1) Fishery specifications for the 2018 fishing year and default specifications for 2019; (2) flatfish AMs for the scallop fishery; (3) Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Management Area issues; and (4) Closed Area I Scallop Access Area modifications to be consistent with pending habitat area revisions. Finally, the Council will discuss and potentially request a control date to address movement between the LAGC NGOM and LAGC incidental permit categories. The day will end with a NMFS presentation and update on the Fishery Dependent Data Visioning Project.

The third day of the meeting will begin with an overview of draft alternatives for a Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology omnibus framework adjustment that is being developed to address assigning at-sea observers to the lobster pot fleet in an unbiased manner through the Northeast Fishery Observer Program. The Council then will hold a Habitat Committee meeting as a Committee of the Whole to review public comments on the Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment and develop final recommendations for Council consideration. Once the Committee of the Whole adjourns, the Habitat Committee report will get underway, starting with the Council taking final action on the Coral Amendment. Also under habitat, the Council will review and approve comments to the Department of the Interior on: (1) National monument designations under the Antiquities Act of 1906, including the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument; and (2) potential environmental effects of offshore oil development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.

Following a lunch break, the Council may resume the habitat discussion if necessary. Then, the Council will develop comments on NMFS's Draft Council Conflict of Interest Policy Directives. The Council next will review Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization legislation and potentially develop Council positions on the draft legislation. The Council will close out the meeting with “other business.”

Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

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.

The notice published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24944). The meeting will be rescheduled at a later date and announced in the Federal Register.

Title of Collection: Debt Collection Quantitative Disclosure Testing.

OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

Type of Review: New Collection (Request for a New OMB Control Number).

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 17,750.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,555.

Abstract: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and other Federal consumer financial laws authorize the Bureau to engage in consumer protection rule writing. The Bureau plans to seek approval from OMB to conduct a Web survey of 8,000 1 individuals as part of the Bureau's research on debt collection disclosures. The survey will explore consumer comprehension and decision making in response to debt collection disclosure forms.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.1

1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089 (“CPSA”) and 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., and Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. (collectively, “Kawasaki”), and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve staff's charges set forth below.

2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for, the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20(b). The Commission issues this Order under the provisions of the CPSA.

3. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“KHI”) is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Japan.

4. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (“KMC”) is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, CA. KMC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KHI.

5. Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. (“KMM”) is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Nebraska, with its principal place of business in Lincoln, NE. KMM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KHI.

6. Between October 2011 and December 2015, Kawasaki manufactured, distributed, and offered for sale in the United States approximately 11,000 model year 2012 and 2013 Teryx4 750 4x4s (“Teryx4 750”) and approximately 19,500 2014-2016 model year Teryx4 800 4×4s (“Teryx4 800”) and Teryx 800 4×4s (“Teryx 800”) (collectively, “Teryxs” or “Subject Products”). The Teryxs are four-wheel recreational off-highway vehicles that have automotive style controls and seating for two or four persons, depending on model type.

7. KMM manufactures and assembles the Subject Products, which are then sold to KMC for distribution.

8. KMC is responsible for, among other things, the distribution, marketing, and Quality Assurance of the Subject Products in the United States.

9. KHI is primarily responsible for the design, development, and engineering of the Subject Products. KHI retains ultimate control over the operations of KMC and KMM, including retaining recall authority.

10. The Teryxs are a “consumer product,” “distribut[ed] in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5) and (8) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5) and (8). Kawasaki is a “distributor” or a “manufacturer” of the Teryxs, as such terms are defined in section 3(a)(7) and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(7) and (11).

11. The Teryxs contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard and create an unreasonable risk of serious injury because sticks or other debris can break through the Teryxs' floor board and protrude into the foot rest area, posing an injury hazard to the operator and front passenger.

12. Between April 2012 and July 2014, Kawasaki received more than 400 incident reports of Teryx4 750 floorboards cracking or breaking during normal operation due to impact with, or penetration by, debris from outside the vehicle. At least three of the incident reports resulted in injuries to consumers, including one serious injury.

13. In April 2012, Kawasaki began an investigation into the Teryx4 750 incidents. In October 2012, Kawasaki approved a design change to the Teryx4 750. The design change consisted of a metal strike plate to address the hazard and was implemented on Teryx4 750 models beginning in early 2013.

14. In May 2013, Kawasaki stopped manufacturing the Teryx4 750 and began manufacturing the Teryx 800 and Teryx4 800.

15. In December 2013, in anticipation of production for the 2015 model year, Kawasaki approved an additional design change. This design change involved enhanced floorboard guards for implementation on the 2015 model year Teryx 800 and Teryx4 800.

16. Kawasaki did not immediately inform the Commission under 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b) regarding the defect and risk posed by the Teryx4 750 and did not file a Full Report as required by 16 C.F.R. § 1115.13(d) until July 9, 2014.

17. Kawasaki and the Commission jointly announced a recall of approximately 11,000 Teryx4 750s on July 30, 2014.

18. Between July 2013 and August 2015, Kawasaki received more than 150 incident reports of Teryx4 800 or Teryx 800 floor boards cracking or breaking during normal operation due to impact with, or penetration by, debris from outside the vehicle. At least three of the incident reports resulted in injuries to consumers, including two serious injuries.

19. Kawasaki did not immediately inform the Commission under 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b) regarding the defect and risk posed by the Teryx4 800 and Teryx 800 and did not file a Full Report as required by 16 C.F.R. § 1115.13(d) until August 19, 2015.

20. Kawasaki and the Commission jointly announced a recall of approximately 19,500 Teryx4 800s and Teryx 800s on December 15, 2015.

21. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Teryxs contained a defect and created an unreasonable risk of serious injury, Kawasaki did not immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b)(3) and (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4).

22. Because the information in Kawasaki's possession constituted actual and presumed knowledge, Kawasaki knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d).

23. Pursuant to Section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069, Kawasaki is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4).

24. Kawasaki's July 9, 2014, Full Report reported a single incident and an unspecified number of injuries related to the Subject Products' floorboards. The Full Report did not identify more than 400 similar incidents involving the Subject Products about which Kawasaki had actual or presumed knowledge, and excluded any incidents relating to the Teryx4 800 and Teryx 800. This omission constitutes a material misrepresentation under section 19(a)(13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(13).

25. Kawasaki's misrepresentation impeded CPSC staff's investigation into the hazard posed by the Subject Products' floorboards and Kawasaki's proposed repair, and hampered staff's ability to accurately communicate the prevalence of the hazard to the public.

26. By knowingly making a material misrepresentation to an officer or employee of the CPSC in the course of an investigation under the CPSA, Kawasaki knowingly violated section 19(a)(13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(13), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d). Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069, Kawasaki is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(13).

27. The signing of this Agreement does not constitute an admission in any respect by Kawasaki of the staff charges, set forth above in paragraphs 6 through 26, including, but not limited to, that: (a) the Teryx4 750, Teryx4 800, and Teryx 800 contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard and created an unreasonable risk of serious injury; (b) Kawasaki failed to inform the Commission of any reportable issues related to the Teryxs in a timely manner, in accordance with sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2064(b)(3) and (4); (c) Kawasaki failed to furnish information as required by the statute (sections 15(b)(3) and (4), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2064(b)(3) and (4)), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4); and (d) there was any “knowing” violation of the CPSA as that term is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d).

28. The Teryx4 750, Teryx4 800, and Teryx 800 are side-by-side recreational off-highway vehicles which are used in a variety of challenging off-road environments where breakage of various parts, including floor boards, can occur.

29. Kawasaki conducted a reasonable and diligent investigation of reported incidents of floor board breakage, including the smaller number of reported instances of stick penetration and the handful of reports of injury. Due to the nature of the products and the variety of ways and environments in which they are used, incident reports can be difficult to evaluate, since use of the Teryx4 750, Teryx4 800, and Teryx 800, like all side-by-side recreational off-highway vehicles, involves the possibility of parts breakage.

30. The voluntary recalls of the Teryx4 750, Teryx4 800, and Teryx 800 and related reporting to the Commission under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b), were conducted by Kawasaki out of an abundance of caution and without having determined or concluded that the Teryx4 750, Teryx4 800, and Teryx 800 contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury. Kawasaki may submit a corrective action plan to the Commission without admitting that either reportable information or a substantial product hazard exists. See 16 C.F.R. § 1115.20(a)(1)(xiii). Kawasaki also makes design changes to its products to address customer satisfaction.

31. Kawasaki denies the staff charges that Kawasaki committed a material misrepresentation by omission in the July 9, 2014 Full Report in violation of section 19(a)(13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(13), and further denies that Kawasaki committed a “knowing” violation of section 19(a)(13) as that term is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d).

32. Pursuant to section 20(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(a)(1), the amount of the agreed civil penalty which can be attributable to the claim of material misrepresentation by omission under section 19(a)(13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(13), cannot exceed $100,000.

33. Kawasaki believes that it did nothing wrong in this matter and that it complied with the CPSA in all respects. Kawasaki disputes the staff's allegations that Kawasaki had information that the Teryxs contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard and created an unreasonable risk of injury. Kawasaki believes that it informed the Commission of any reportable issues regarding the Teryxs in a timely manner and furnished information to CPSC as required by the CPSA. Kawasaki does not believe that it knowingly violated the CPSA as that term is defined in the statute.

34. Pursuant to paragraphs 43 through 45, Kawasaki will maintain its program for current and future compliance with the CPSA.

35. Kawasaki enters into this Agreement in order to settle this matter without the delay and unnecessary expense of litigation.

36. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Subject Products and over Kawasaki.

37. The parties enter into this Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Kawasaki, or a determination by the Commission, that Kawasaki violated the CPSA's reporting requirements or made material misrepresentations to an officer or employee of the Commission.

38. In settlement of staff's charges, and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings, Kawasaki shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of five million, two hundred thousand dollars ($5,200,000) within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. All payments to be made under the Agreement shall constitute debts owing to the United States and shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the United States via: http://www.pay.gov, for allocation to, and credit against, the payment obligations of Kawasaki under this Agreement. Failure to make such payment by the date specified in the Commission's final Order shall constitute Default.

39. All unpaid amounts, if any, due and owing under the Agreement, shall constitute a debt due and immediately owing by Kawasaki to the United States, and interest shall accrue and be paid by Kawasaki at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) and (b) from the date of Default, until all amounts due have been paid in full (hereinafter “Default Payment Amount” and “Default Interest Balance”). Kawasaki shall consent to a Consent Judgment in the amount of the Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, and the United States, at its sole option, may collect the entire Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, or exercise any other rights granted by law or in equity, including, but not limited to, referring such matters for private collection, and Kawasaki agrees not to contest, and hereby waives and discharges, any defenses to any collection action undertaken by the United States, or its agents or contractors, pursuant to this paragraph. Kawasaki shall pay the United States all reasonable costs of collection and enforcement under this paragraph, respectively, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.

40. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of Kawasaki, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date the Agreement is published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20(f).

41. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Kawasaki, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and shall be binding upon the parties.

42. Effective upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Kawasaki, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, Kawasaki hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement: (i) an administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission of whether Kawasaki failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

43. Kawasaki shall maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by the Firm, and which shall contain the following elements: (i) written standards, policies and procedures, including those designed to ensure that information that may relate to or impact CPSA compliance (including information obtained by quality control personnel) is conveyed effectively to personnel responsible for CPSA compliance, whether or not an injury is referenced; (ii) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary; (iii) effective communication of company compliance-related policies and procedures regarding the CPSA to all applicable employees through training programs or otherwise; (iv) the Firm's senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, CPSA compliance; and (v) retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to staff upon request.

44. Kawasaki shall maintain and enforce a system of internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that, with respect to all consumer products imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by Kawasaki: (i) information required to be disclosed by Kawasaki to the Commission is recorded, processed and reported in accordance with applicable law; (ii) all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate and in accordance with applicable law; and (iii) prompt disclosure is made to Kawasaki's management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, Kawasaki's ability to record, process and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law.

45. Upon reasonable request of staff, Kawasaki shall provide written documentation of its internal controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, the effective dates of the procedures and improvements thereto. Kawasaki shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials, and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate Kawasaki's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

46. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.

47. Kawasaki represents that the Agreement: (i) is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever; (ii) has been duly authorized; and (iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Kawasaki, enforceable against Kawasaki in accordance with its terms. Kawasaki will not directly or indirectly receive any reimbursement, indemnification, insurance-related payment, or other payment in connection with the civil penalty to be paid by Kawasaki pursuant to the Agreement and Order. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of Kawasaki represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by Kawasaki to execute the Agreement.

48. The signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.

49. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.

50. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Kawasaki and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns; and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject Kawasaki, and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, to appropriate legal action.

51. The Agreement and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.

52. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party, for that reason, in any subsequent dispute.

53. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

54. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Kawasaki agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., and Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. (collectively, “Kawasaki”), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Kawasaki, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is:

ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement be, and is, hereby, accepted; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Kawasaki shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of five million, two hundred thousand dollars ($5,200,000) within thirty (30) days after service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov. Upon the failure of Kawasaki to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Kawasaki at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) and (b). If Kawasaki fails to make such payment or to comply in full with any other provision of the Settlement Agreement, such conduct will be considered a violation of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 31st day of May, 2017.

By Order of the Commission:

Present-day energy and water systems are in many cases interconnected. Water is used in most phases of energy production and electricity generation. Energy is required to extract, convey, and deliver water of appropriate quality for diverse human uses, and then again to treat wastewaters prior to their return to the environment. Historically, energy and water systems have been developed, managed, and regulated independently and without significant acknowledgement of the connections between them. The energy and water policy landscape is thus highly fragmented, which can make it difficult for industry, utilities, government, and other stakeholder groups to effectively balance energy and water goals.

Furthermore, much of the authority for water policy lies at the level of individual states. For example, allocation of water rights and permitting for water discharge are managed primarily at the state level. The particularly complex and fragmented nature of water policies affecting energy systems, as well as their variation across different states, suggests that a centralized, public database of water policies affecting energy systems could enable enhanced policy analysis, modeling, visualization, and communication by states, industry, utilities, academia, federal agencies, and other stakeholders.

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, utilities, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on the draft version of the Energy-Water Nexus State Policy Database available at http://energywaterpolicy.org. Regarding the draft version of the Energy-Water Nexus State Policy Database, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party's use or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference in the draft version of the Energy-Water Nexus State Policy Database to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. This RFI is solely an effort to gather information from stakeholders to help inform DOE-EPSA on whether a finalized version of such a database would be useful and how it might be designed.

DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and data on the following:

1. Quality and Completeness of Information. Are the policy descriptions accurate and complete? Are they current? Are the key functional pieces of the policy easily accessible? What additional information would be useful? How could the descriptions be streamlined? What other policies should be included?

2. Functionality. How could the functionality be improved in areas such as user interface, search functionality, sorting functionality, site structure, etc.?

3. Uses. How might you or your organization use the database? What key important questions could the database help to answer? What visualizations might you or your organization consider using the database to develop?

4. Connection to Other Data Sources or Initiatives. Are there other data sources in industry, government, academia, or other sectors that could be connected to this database? If so, what are these data sets and how might they be beneficially connected or coordinated with the database?

5. Users. Which stakeholder groups—including groups in industry, government, academia, etc.—might find the database most useful and for what purpose?

6. Maintenance. How should policy developments be tracked and at what frequency to keep the database current and useful?

Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to [email protected] no later than 11:59 p.m. (ET) on August 4, 2017. Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) or Microsoft Excel (.xslx) attachment to the email. Only electronic responses will be accepted.

Please identify your answers by responding to a specific question or topic if applicable. Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish. DOE-EPSA will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly a compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed.

Respondents are requested to provide the following information at the start of their response to this RFI:

• Company/institution name;

• Company/institution contact;

• Contact's address, phone number, and email address.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1905-0211; (2) Information Collection Request Title: CIPSEA Confidentiality Pledge Revision; (3) Type of Request: Three-year extension; (4) Purpose: Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(e), and 44 U.S.C. 3501 (note), EIA revised the confidentiality pledge(s) it provides to respondents for surveys that protect information under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 (note)) (CIPSEA). EIA's CIPSEA confidentiality pledge needed to be modified to be consistent with provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-11, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223), which permit and require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. In 2004, EIA's original CIPSEA confidentiality pledge stated that the information respondents provide will be seen only by EIA personnel or their sworn agents, and be used only for statistical purposes. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 signed on December 17, 2015, the Congress included the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-11, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223). This Act, among other provisions, permits and requires DHS to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. The technology currently used to provide this protection against cyber malware is known as Einstein 3A; it electronically searches Internet traffic in and out of Federal civilian agencies in real time for malware signatures. When such a signature is found, the Internet packets that contain the malware signature are moved to a secured area for further inspection by DHS personnel. Because it is possible that such packets entering or leaving a statistical agency's information technology system may contain a small portion of confidential statistical data, statistical agencies no longer promise their respondents that their responses will be seen only by statistical agency personnel or their sworn agents. However, EIA does promise, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, that such monitoring will be used only to protect information and information systems from cybersecurity risks, thereby, in effect, providing stronger protection to the integrity of the respondents' submissions. Since it is possible that DHS personnel may see some portion of those confidential data in the course of examining the suspicious Internet packets identified by Einstein 3A sensors, EIA revised its confidentiality pledge on January 12, 2017, under an emergency clearance, to reflect this process change. The submission of this request to OMB makes the change in EIA's CIPSEA confidentiality pledge permanent for all surveys that EIA protects under the CIPSEA statute. Therefore, EIA provides this notice to alert the public of this permanent change in its confidentiality pledge in an efficient and coordinated manner.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including manufacture as a byproduct chemical substance and including import) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this action may apply to them:

1. Chemical manufacturers and importers (NAICS codes 325 and 324110; e.g., chemical manufacturing and processing and petroleum refineries).

2. Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344; e.g., utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

As required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 (NRA), EPA is giving notice that the agency is establishing a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The objective of this Committee is to develop a proposed rule providing for limiting chemical data reporting requirements, under TSCA section 8(a), for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. This negotiation process, which includes the establishment of a federal advisory committee, is required by TSCA section 8(a)(6), as amended by the Frank. R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act).

This Committee will be a statutory advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9(a)(1). In accordance with Section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I § 9(c), EPA prepared a charter for the establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. Copies of the Committee's charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees, the Library of Congress, and available online at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/negotiated-rulemaking-committee-chemical-data-reporting-requirements. On December 15, 2016, EPA announced its intent to negotiate and establish this Committee (81 FR 90843). More information on this notice and comments received in response are in Unit VII.

This notice announces the stakeholder groups from which EPA intends to invite individuals as members of the Committee, all of whom will have been identified as having a definable stake in the outcome of the proposed requirements. EPA is also announcing the first two meetings of the Committee. These meetings have been scheduled for the dates indicated under DATES, and are open to the public. Under normal circumstances, a notice of the Committee meeting must be published no later than 15 days before the date of that meeting. Due to unavoidable administrative circumstances, we are publishing this notice with less than 15 days' advance notice for the first Committee meeting on June 8 and 9, 2017.

This notice announcing EPA's establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to negotiate a proposed regulation was developed under the authority of NRA sections 563 and 564 (5 U.S.C. 561, Pub. L. 104-320). Any proposed regulation resulting from the negotiation process would be developed under the authority of TSCA section 8 (15 U.S.C. 2607), as amended by the Lautenberg Act (Pub. L. 114-182).

Under TSCA, EPA regulates the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution, use, and disposal of chemical substances in the United States. Information submitted by manufacturers (including importers) as required by CDR provides exposure-related data for chemical substances in U.S. commerce that are subject to TSCA. This information supports agency risk evaluation, risk management, and other programs; it is made publicly available, to the extent possible, while protecting information claimed as confidential business information.

Prior to 2011, CDR was known as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) regulation. In 1986, EPA promulgated IUR regulations under the authority of TSCA section 8(a) to collect limited information on the manufacture (including import) of organic chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory, thereby providing more up-to-date production volume information on the chemical substances in U.S. commerce. In 2005, EPA amended IUR regulations to require the reporting of information on inorganic chemical substances and to collect additional manufacturing, processing, and use information. EPA has since made additional changes to the reporting requirements, and in 2011 changed the name of the reporting rule to Chemical Data Reporting. CDR regulations are currently codified at 40 CFR part 711. EPA believes CDR is the only current reporting obligation under TSCA section 8(a) that is likely to affect the manufacturers of inorganic byproduct chemical substances.

Manufacturers of inorganic chemical substances first reported this information in 2006, with subsequent reporting in 2012 and 2016. Specific reporting requirements for these manufacturers were phased in, to allow for the industry to better understand the reporting requirements and for EPA to gain a better understanding of the industry.

A byproduct chemical substance is a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture. 40 CFR 704.3, definition of byproduct. Such byproduct chemical substances may, or may not, in themselves have commercial value, but they are nonetheless produced for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage. 40 CFR 704.3, definition of manufacture for commercial purposes. Because byproduct chemical substances are manufactured for a commercial purpose, this manufacturing is reportable under CDR unless covered by a specific reporting exemption. CDR contains a specific reporting exemption for the manufacture of byproduct chemical substances limited to cases where those byproduct chemical substances are not used for any commercial purposes (or are only used for certain limited commercial purposes) after they are manufactured. 40 CFR 711.10(c). Inorganic byproduct chemical substances are often recycled. The recycling of a byproduct chemical substance may qualify as a commercial purpose beyond the limited commercial purposes encompassed by 40 CFR 711.10(c). If so, the exemption from a manufacturer of a byproduct chemical substance from reporting this to CDR is not applicable.

On June 22, 2016, TSCA was amended by the Lautenberg Act. TSCA now includes a requirement that EPA enter into a negotiated rulemaking, pursuant to the NRA, to develop and publish a proposed rule to limit the reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(a), for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances, whether by the byproduct chemical substance manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. The objective of the negotiated rulemaking process is to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 22, 2019. In the event the Committee reaches a consensus and a proposed rule is developed through the negotiated rulemaking process, a final rule “resulting from such negotiated rulemaking” must be issued by December 22, 2019. 15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(6).

In its Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and Negotiate a Proposed Rule (81 FR 90843, December 15, 2016), EPA stated that it was seeking a facilitator to conduct the negotiations. Christopher Moore, Ph.D., of Collaborative Decision Resources Associates, and Laura Sneeringer, of the Consensus Building Institute, have been retained for this purpose.

The facilitators conducted extensive interviews with interested stakeholders, asking for recommendations for potential Committee members. To facilitate representative selection, the facilitators suggested qualifications, knowledge, and skills that should be possessed by representatives, which would help promote productive deliberations. These included:

• Knowledge of technical issues related to inorganic byproducts;

• Experience with CDR and inorganic byproduct reporting;

• Direct representation of a constituency or a stakeholder group as a whole, such as an industry, or as component parts, such as large or small companies;

• Not serving as external technical consultants or legal counsel without constituents;

• Authority to reach agreements and make commitments for their stakeholder group;

• Willingness and flexibility to discuss issues that will be the focus of the dialogue with parties that may have different views or interests;

• Willingness to engage in productive interest-based negotiations and avoid adversarial or legal argumentation; and

• A commitment to negotiate in good faith and strive to find solutions that will meet all parties' interests to the greatest extent possible.

EPA is planning to invite representatives from the following stakeholder groups to serve on the Committee:

• Inorganic chemical manufacturers and processors, including metal mining and related activities;

• Recyclers, including scrap recyclers;

• Industry advocacy groups;

• Environmental advocacy groups; and

• Federal, State, and Tribal governments.

EPA values public input during this process. The meetings announced in this notice will be open to the public, so interested parties may observe the meetings and communicate their views in the appropriate time and manner, as defined in each meeting's agenda. Consistent with the requirements of FACA, formal meeting materials and summaries will be available online.

In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should submit requests by email to [email protected] one week prior to the meeting dates, in order to be placed on the list of public speakers.

Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration, statements should be supplied by email to [email protected] one week prior to the meeting dates. Members of the public should be aware that written comments, including personal contact information, if included, may be posted to the Committee Web site as well as placed in the EPA docket supporting this activity. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Additionally, EPA will invite public comment on any proposed rule resulting from the Committee's deliberations.

EPA anticipates up to five Committee meetings will be held between June and October 2017, including the Committee meetings that EPA is announcing in this Notice. Committee meetings will be one and a half days each, and held in Washington, DC, unless the Committee decides otherwise. The Committee will separately announce those meetings subsequent to the meetings being announced in this notice.

The first Committee meeting will be held on June 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on June 9, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The second Committee meeting will be held on August 16, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on August 17, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Both meetings will be open to the public. Meeting details and agenda information will be available online at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/negotiated-rulemaking-committee-chemical-data-reporting-requirements, as well as in the EPA docket supporting this activity.

On December 15, 2016, EPA published a notice of intent to establish a Committee to negotiate a proposed rule that would limit chemical data reporting requirements under section 8(a) of TSCA, for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances, when such byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed (81 FR 90843). The notice requested comment on membership, the interests affected by the rulemaking, the issues the Committee should address, and the procedures it should follow.

EPA received 18 comments on the notice of intent, which can all be found in the docket for this Notice. None of the comments opposed using regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; most endorsed the process and included requests to serve on the Committee. However, one commenter raised four substantive issues, which EPA is responding to here.

The commenter encouraged EPA to select representatives that are knowledgeable about the issue and have the authority to make commitments for the agency. EPA agrees. EPA will have two representatives at the table—one technical expert on CDR, and the other an EPA manager with the authority to, in consultation with other EPA officials as needed, make commitments for the agency. EPA will also have other technical experts available to answer questions about other EPA programs, as recommended by the commenter.

The commenter recommended that the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy be represented on the Committee. Because SBA's Office of Advocacy already has multiple established processes for providing input during rulemaking, such as serving on Small Business Advocacy Review Panels that are convened under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 609(b)(3) (1980), and participating in interagency review conducted under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), and because EPA believes it is important for the federal government to be represented as a singular entity at the table, SBA will not serve on the Committee. EPA will coordinate with SBA through the standard processes that apply to EPA rulemaking. In addition, SBA, as well as other federal agencies, will be invited to attend all Committee meetings as an observer.

The commenter believes that the Lautenberg Act requires EPA to propose and finalize a rule lessening the reporting burdens for inorganic byproducts sent for recycling, regardless of whether consensus is reached by the Committee. As EPA explained in its December 15, 2016, Notice, the agency construes its obligation to propose and finalize a rule under TSCA section 8(a)(6) as being contingent on the Committee reaching a consensus.

EPA's obligation under TSCA section 8(a)(6)(B) is to finalize a rule “resulting from such negotiated rulemaking.” While EPA would have authority to issue an amendment to the CDR for inorganic byproducts even if negotiation failed to achieve any consensus, such a rule would not be a rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking. Accordingly, TSCA section 8(a)(6)(B) presupposes that the negotiated rulemaking process reached consensus in directing EPA to issue a final rule.

This reading is consistent with the structure of TSCA section 8(a)(6) as a whole, requiring a proposed rule within three years of the Lautenberg Act's enactment and a final rule six months later. Under the commenter's reading, if the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee could not reach any consensus to limit the reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts, EPA would still be required to come up with its own approach by June 2019 without the benefit of agreement from the interested parties. EPA can reasonably assume that such an approach would draw adverse comment from the party or parties that blocked consensus in the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, and thus the agency would only have six months to solicit, consider, and respond to those comments before the statutorily required deadline. EPA does not believe that Congress intended for this to occur because it did not direct the agency to limit reporting requirements in any specific way that would require a rulemaking regardless of the outcome of the negotiated rulemaking. On the contrary, Congress specifically directed that the final rule must result from the negotiated rulemaking, which will likely simplify the comment process enough to enable the agency to meet these relatively short deadlines.

By establishing the Committee in today's Notice, EPA is fulfilling the Lautenberg Act's requirement to “enter into a negotiated rulemaking pursuant to” the NRA to develop and publish a proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(6)(A). When viewed under the lens of the statutory structure, any requirement for EPA to actually “develop and publish” a proposed rule must necessarily also result from consensus being reached by the Committee.

For these reasons, EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenter. If consensus cannot be reached, and there is no agreement upon which to base a proposal, then there is no further statutory obligation to issue a proposal or a final rule. However, as noted in the December 15, 2016, Notice, EPA commits to working in good faith to seek consensus on a proposal that is consistent with the legal mandate of TSCA.

The commenter recommended that the Committee use a definition of consensus that does not require unanimous concurrence among the Committee, citing the potential for one Committee member's veto to result in no agreement. The NRA defines consensus as unanimous concurrence, unless the Committee agrees otherwise. 5 U.S.C. 562. A unanimous concurrence definition is important in ensuring no one interest or group of interests is able to control the process. While EPA believes that unanimous concurrence is not an unreasonably high bar, particularly with the assistance of a highly skilled neutral facilitator with expertise in building consensus, the Committee has the power under the NRA to agree to another definition of consensus.

On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

On March 28, 2017, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UT DEQ) submitted an application titled “NPDES e-Reporting Tool” for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed UT DEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Utah's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 125, 403-471, 501, and 503, is being published in the Federal Register:

Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System;

Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution; and

Part 501—State Sludge Management Program Regulations.

UT DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.

Title: First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and State, local, or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 71 respondents; 765 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 301, 303, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 301, 303, 309, 332, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 306108.

Total Annual Burden: 2,869 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $82,285.

Privacy Impact Assessment: There are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No known confidentiality between third parties.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection for approval after the comment period to obtain the full three year clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission is requesting OMB approval for new disclosure requirements pertaining to the First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (First Amendment) to address the review of deployments of small wireless antennas and associated equipment under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108 (formerly codified at 16 U.S.C. 470f). The FCC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) agreed to amend the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (Collocation Agreement) to account for the limited potential of small wireless antennas and associated equipment, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cell facilities, to affect historic properties. The Collocation Agreement addresses historic preservation review for collocations on existing towers, buildings, and other non-tower structures. Under the Collocation Agreement, most antenna collocations on existing structures are excluded from Section 106 historic preservation review, with a few exceptions defined to address potentially problematic situations. On August 3, 2016, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, ACHP, and NCSHPO finalized and executed the First Amendment to the Collocation Agreement, to tailor the Section 106 process for small wireless deployments by excluding deployments that have minimal potential for adverse effects on historic properties.

The following are the information collection requirements in connection with the amended provisions of Appendix B of Part 1 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR part 1, App. B):

• Stipulation VII.C of the amended Collocation Agreement provides that proposals to mount a small antenna on a traffic control structure (i.e., traffic light) or on a light pole, lamp post or other structure whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting, where the structure is located inside or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district, are generally subject to review through the Section 106 process. These proposed collocations will be excluded from such review on a case-by-case basis, if (1) the collocation licensee or the owner of the structure has not received written or electronic notification that the FCC is in receipt of a complaint from a member of the public, an Indian Tribe, a SHPO or the Council, that the collocation has an adverse effect on one or more historic properties; and (2) the structure is not historic (not a designated National Historic Landmark or a property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) or considered a contributing or compatible element within the historic district, under certain procedures. These procedures require that applicant must request in writing that the SHPO concur with the applicant's determination that the structure is not a contributing or compatible element within the historic district, and the applicant's written request must specify the traffic control structure, light pole, or lamp post on which the applicant proposes to collocate and explain why the structure is not a contributing element based on the age and type of structure, as well as other relevant factors. The SHPO has thirty days from its receipt of such written notice to inform the applicant whether it disagrees with the applicant's determination that the structure is not a contributing or compatible element within the historic district. If within the thirty-day period, the SHPO informs the applicant that the structure is a contributing element or compatible element within the historic district or that the applicant has not provided sufficient information for a determination, the applicant may not deploy its facilities on that structure without completing the Section 106 review process. If, within the thirty day period, the SHPO either informs the applicant that the structure is not a contributing or compatible element within the historic district, or the SHPO fails to respond to the applicant within the thirty-day period, the applicant has no further Section 106 review obligations, provided that the collocation meets the certain volumetric and ground disturbance provisions.

The First Amendment to the Collocation Agreement establishes new exclusions from the Section 106 review process for physically small deployments like DAS and small cells, fulfilling a directive in the Commission's Infrastructure Report and Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015, to further streamline review of these installations. These new exclusions will reduce the cost, time, and burden associated with deploying small facilities in many settings, and provide opportunities to increase densification at low cost and with very little impact on historic properties. Facilitating these deployments thus directly advances efforts to roll out 5G service in communities across the country.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0029.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station, FCC Form 340.

Form Number: FCC Form 340.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions and State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,765 respondents; 2,765 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-6 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 7,150 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $29,079,700.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 340 is used by licensees and permittees to apply for authority to construct a new noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM and DTV broadcast station (including a DTS facility), or to make changes in the existing facilities of such a station. FCC Form 340 is only used if the station will operate on a channel that is reserved exclusively for NCE use, or in the situation where applications for NCE stations on non-reserved channels are mutually exclusive only with one another. Also, FCC Form 340 is used by Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (“Tribes”), tribal consortia, or entities owned or controlled by Tribes when qualifying for the “Tribal Priority” under 47 CFR 73.7000, 73.7002.

FCC Form 340 also contains a third party disclosure requirement, pursuant to Section 73.3580. This rule requires a party applying for a new broadcast station, or making a major change to an existing station, to give local public notice of this filing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the station is located. This local public notice must be completed within 30 days of tendering the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. In addition, a copy of this notice must be placed in the station's public inspection file along with the application, pursuant to Section 73.3527. This recordkeeping information collection requirement is contained in OMB Control No. 3060-0214, which covers Section 73.3527.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0773.

Title: Sections 2.803 and 2.803(c)(2), Marketing of RF Devices Prior to Equipment Authorization.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 10,000 respondents and 10,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 302, 303, 303(r), and 307.

Total Annual Burden: 5,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60 day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

The Commission has established rules for the marketing of radio frequency (RF) devices prior to equipment authorization under guidelines in 47 CFR Section 2.803. The general guidelines in Section 2.803 prohibit the marketing or sale of such equipment prior to a demonstration of compliance with the applicable equipment authorization and technical requirements in the case of a device subject to verification or Declaration of Conformity without special notification. Section 2.803(c)(2) permits limited marketing activities prior to equipment authorization, for devices that could be authorized under the current rules; could be authorized under waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of marketing; or could be authorized under rules that have been adopted by the Commission but that have not yet become effective. These devices may be not operated unless permitted by section 2.805.

The following general guidelines apply for third party notifications:

(a) A RF device may be advertised and displayed at a trade show or exhibition prior to a demonstration of compliance with the applicable technical standards and compliance with the applicable equipment authorization procedure provided the advertising and display is accompanied by a conspicuous notice specified in Section 2.803(c)(2)(iii)(A) or Section 2.803(c)(2)(iii)(B).

(b) An offer for sale solely to business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical users of an RF device in the conceptual, developmental, design or pre-production stage prior to demonstration of compliance with the equipment authorization regulations may be permitted provided that the prospective buyer is advised in writing at the time of the offer for sale that the equipment is subject to FCC rules and that the equipment will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer or centers of distribution.

(c) Equipment sold as evaluation kit may be sold to specific users with notice specified in Section 2.803(c)(2)(iv)(B).

The information to be disclosed about marketing of the RF device is intended:

(1) To ensure the compliance of the proposed equipment with Commission rules; and

(2) To assist industry efforts to introduce new products to the marketplace more promptly.

The information disclosure applies to a variety of RF devices that:

(1) Is pending equipment authorization or verification of compliance;

(2) May be manufactured in the future;

(3) May be sold as kits; and

(4) Operates under varying technical standards.

The information disclosed is essential to ensuring that interference to radio communications is controlled.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0805.

Title: 700 MHz Eligibility; Regional Planning Requirements; and 4.9 GHz Guidelines (47 CFR 90.523, 90.527, and 90.1211).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,172 respondents; 1,172 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-628 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting and one-time reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits (47 CFR 90.523) and voluntary (47 CFR 90.527 and 90.1211). Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 337.

Total Annual Burden: 35,756 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: Section 90.523 requires that nongovernmental organizations that provide services which protect the safety of life or property obtain a written statement from an authorizing state or local government entity to support the nongovernmental organization's application for assignment of 700 MHz frequencies. Section 90.527 requires 700 MHz regional planning regions to submit an initial plan for use of the 700 MHz general use spectrum in the consolidated narrowband segment 769-775 MHz and 799-805 MHz. Regional planning committees may modify plans by written request, which must contain the full text of the modification and certification that the modification was successfully coordinated with adjacent regions. Regional planning promotes a fair and open process in developing allocation assignments by requiring input from eligible entities in the allocation decisions and the application technical review/approval process. Entities that seek inclusion in the plan to obtain future licenses are considered third party respondents. Section 90.1211 authorizes the fifty-five 700 MHz regional planning committees to develop and submit on a voluntary basis a plan on guidelines for coordination procedures to facilitate the shared use of the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band. The Commission has stayed this requirement indefinitely. Applicants are granted a geographic area license for the entire fifty MHz of 4.9 GHz spectrum over a geographical area defined by the boundaries of their jurisdiction—city, county or state. Accordingly, licensees are required to coordinate their operations in the shared band to avoid interference, a common practice when joint operations are conducted.

Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses, determine regional spectrum requirements and to develop technical standards. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate regional requirements or provide for the efficient use of the available frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of the 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz bands rules and regulation to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1149.

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 259,600 respondents and 259,600 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .166 hours (10 minutes).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.

Total Annual Burden: 43,267 hours.

Total Annual Costs: No Cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Responses to feedback instruments will be confidential.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: There is no Privacy Act impact as personally identifiable information (PII) will not be collected.

Needs and Uses: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or change in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods of assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization; Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form Number: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals and households; Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 253,320 respondents and 253,320 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement and periodic reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534, 535 and 554.

Total Annual Burden: 222,055 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $71,306,250.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form that is used for market-based and site-based licensing for wireless telecommunications services, including public safety licenses, which are filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. This form is used to apply for a new license, to amend or withdraw a pending application, to modify or renew an existing license, cancel a license, request a duplicate license, submit required notifications, request an extension of time to satisfy construction requirements, or request an administrative update to an existing license (such as mailing address change), request a Special Temporary Authority or Developmental License. Respondents are encouraged to submit FCC Form 601 electronically and are required to do so when submitting FCC Form 601 to apply for an authorization for which the applicant was the winning bidder in a spectrum auction.

The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission use an FRN.

On November 7, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 14-181) in WT Docket No. 12-40 to reform its rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service. Subsequently, on March 24, 2017, the Commission released a Second Report and Order (FCC 17-27) in that same proceeding, revising certain technical and licensing rules applicable to the Cellular Service (Cellular Second R&O). In addition to rule revisions that do not affect this information collection, in the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission adopted revised radiated power rules, giving Cellular licensees the option to comply with effective radiated power limits based on power spectral density (PSD), and it made conforming changes to related technical provisions to accommodate PSD. The Commission retained, as an option, the existing radiated power limits (non-PSD) and related technical requirements for Cellular licensees that either cannot or choose not to use a PSD model. The Commission also revised the definition and filing requirements for permanent discontinuance of operations, consistent with transitioning the Cellular Service from a site-based regime to one that is geographic-based.

The Commission now seeks approval for revisions to its currently approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-0798 to permit the collection of PSD-related technical information (in lieu of certain non-PSD technical information) for Cellular Service licensees that opt to use a PSD model for their systems, pursuant to the Cellular Second R&O. We are revising Schedule F of Form 601 accordingly to allow licensees to request modifications to their licenses based on PSD operations. We do not anticipate that this revision will have any impact on the burden to complete the form/Schedule F.

The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 601 to revise FCC Form 601 accordingly.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0508.

Title: Parts 1 and 22 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,465 respondents; 16,183 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017 hours-10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion, quarterly, and semi-annual reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 4,406 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $19,138,350.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection. Applicants may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: Part 22 contains the technical and legal requirements for radio stations operating in the Public Mobile Services. The information collected is used to determine on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to grant licenses authorizing construction and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities to common carriers. Further, this information is used to develop statistics about the demand for various wireless licenses and/or the licensing process itself, and occasionally for rule enforcement purposes.

This revised information collection reflects changes in rules applicable to Part 22 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone (“Cellular”) Service licensees and applicants, as adopted by the Commission in a Second Report and Order in WT Docket No. 12-40 and a companion Report and Order in WT Docket No. 10-112 concerning the Wireless Radio Services (WRS), which include the Cellular Service among others (WRS R&O) (FCC 17-27). The Cellular Second R&O and WRS R&O revised or eliminated certain licensing rules and modernized outdated technical rules applicable to the Cellular Service. Specifically, in addition to rule revisions that do not affect this information collection, in the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission revised the Cellular radiated power rules, giving licensees the option to comply with effective radiated power limits based on power spectral density (PSD), and giving licensees the additional option to operate at PSD limits above a specified threshold (Higher PSD Limits) so long as certain conditions are met. One of these conditions, set forth in a new provision of the Cellular rules, is a requirement for written advance notification to public safety entities within a specified radius of the cell sites to be deployed at the Higher PSD Limits. This third-party disclosure requirement is an important component of the Commission's approach to protecting public safety entities from increased potential for unacceptable interference to their communications. Also in the Cellular Second R&O and of relevance to this information collection, the Commission eliminated the requirement for filings for certain changes to cell sites in a Cellular system. In the WRS R&O, the Commission deleted the Part 22 Cellular comparative hearing/license renewal rules, resulting in discontinued information collections for the following rule sections: 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, and 22.940.

The Commission is now seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for a revision of this information collection.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.

Report Title: Government-Administered, General-Use Prepaid Card Surveys.

Agency Form Number: FR 3063a and FR 3063b.

OMB Control Number: 7100-0343.

Frequency: Annual.

Respondents: Issuers of government-administered, general-use prepaid cards (FR 3063a) and governments that administer general-use prepaid card programs (FR 3063b).

Estimated Number of Respondents: FR 3063a: 25; FR 3063b: 75.

Estimated Average Hours per Response: FR 3063a: 25 hours; FR 3063b: 15 hours.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: FR 3063a: 625 hours; FR 3063b: 1,125 hours.

General Description of Report: The issuer survey (FR 3063a) collects data from issuers of government-administered, general-use prepaid cards including card program information, cards outstanding, card funding, ATM transactions, purchase transactions, fees paid by issuers to third parties, interchange fees, and cardholder fees. The issuer survey (FR 3063a) is mandatory.

The government survey (FR 3063b) collects data from state governments, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories (collectively “state governments”), and municipal government offices located within the United States (local government offices) that administer general-use prepaid card payment programs.1 Data collected from government offices include program information, the number of cards outstanding, and funding information. The government survey (FR 3063b) is voluntary.

The Board uses data from these surveys to support an annual report to the Congress on the prevalence of use of general-use prepaid cards in federal, state, and local government-administered payment programs and on the interchange and cardholder fees charged with respect to such use of such cards.

Legal Authorization and Confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that both the issuer survey and the government survey are authorized by subsection 920(a) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which was amended by section 1075(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (15 U.S.C. 1693o-2). This subsection requires the Board to submit an annual report to Congress on the prevalence of the use of general-use prepaid cards in Federal, State or local government-administered payment programs and the interchange transaction fees and card-holder fees charged with respect to the use of such general-use prepaid cards (15 U.S.C. 1693o-2(a)(7)(D)). It also provides the Board with authority to require issuers to provide information to enable the Board to carry out the provisions of the subsection (15 U.S.C. 1693o-2(a)(3)(B)). The obligation of issuers to respond to the issuer survey (FR 3063a) is mandatory. However, the obligation of state governments and local government offices to respond to the government survey (FR 3063b) is voluntary.

All of the information collected on the government survey and a limited amount of information collected on the issuer survey is publicly available, and thus, is not accorded confidential treatment. However, most of the information collected on the issuer survey is not publicly available and may be kept confidential as explained herein. Data collected by the issuer survey may be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Such data may be kept confidential under exemption 4 if the release of data would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the issuer. For example, certain issuer survey responses would likely contain information related to an organization's revenue structure and other proprietary and commercial information and the release of such information would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the issuer and could therefore be kept confidential under exemption 4.

The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The June 23, 2017 DMICC meeting will focus on Measurement Science and Glycemic Control.

Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov.

E-357-2001/0,1, Pletnev et al., “Construction of West Nile Virus and Dengue Virus Chimeras for use in a Live Virus Vaccine to Prevent Disease Cause by West Nile Virus,” U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 60/347,281, filed January 10, 2002, PCT Patent Application Number PCT/US2003/00594, filed January 9, 2003, U.S. Patent Application Number 10/871,775 filed June 18, 2004 (now U.S. Patent Number 8,778,671), U.S. Patent Application Number 14/305,572, filed June 16, 2014, European Patent Application Number 03729602.7, filed January 9, 2003, Israeli Patent Application Number 162949, filed January 9, 2003 (now Israeli Patent Number 162949), Canadian Patent Application Number 2472468, filed January 9, 2003 (now Canadian Patent Number 2472468), Australian Patent Application Number 2003216046, filed January 9, 2003 (now Australian Patent Number 2003216046), Japanese Patent Application Number 2003-559545, filed January 9, 2003 (now Japanese Patent Number 4580650), Australian Patent Application Number 2008203442 filed July 31, 2008 (now Australian Patent Number 2008203442), Israeli Patent Application Number 209342, filed January 9, 2003 (now Israeli Patent Number 209342), European Patent Application Number 11000126.0, filed January 9, 2003 (now European Patent Number 2339011, validated in Belgium, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Denmark and France), Australian Patent Application Number 2011250694, filed November 10, 2011 (now Australian Patent Number 2011250694), Australian Patent Application Number 2013213749, filed August 9, 2013, European Patent Application Number 15163537.2, filed April 14, 2015, and Canadian Patent Application Number 2903126, filed August 27, 2015, and U.S. and foreign patent applications claiming priority to the aforementioned applications.

E-006-2007/0, Pletnev et al., “Synergistic Internal Ribosome Entry Site/MicroRNA Based Approach for Attenuation of Flaviviruses and Live Vaccine Development,” U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 62/443,214, filed January 6, 2017, and U.S. and foreign patent applications claiming priority to the aforementioned applications.

The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America.

The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to live attenuated West Nile Virus vaccines for use in humans or animals.

West Nile virus (WNV) is a positive-strand RNA virus of the family Flaviviridae, part of the Japanese encephalitis virus serocomplex that includes important human pathogens such as Murray Valley encephalitis, Japanese encephalitis, and St. Louis encephalitis viruses. WNV has been present in Africa and Asia for decades and has usually been associated with mild illness that includes symptoms of low-grade fever, headache, rash, myalgia, and arthralgia. Recently, WNV has spread rapidly across the Western hemisphere and is now the major vector-borne cause of viral encephalitis in the United States. By 2010, 3 million adults were estimated to have been infected with WNV in the United States, with nearly 13,000 cases of neuroinvasive disease, almost half of which occurred in adults greater than 60 years of age. In this age group, WNV infection can cause hepatitis, meningitis, and encephalitis, leading to paralysis, coma, and death. WNV is considered an emerging infection in the United States and presents a significant public health threat. This epidemiological trend of WNV suggests that the United States can expect periodic WNV outbreaks, underscoring the need for a safe and effective vaccine to protect at-risk populations, especially older adults.

WNV is also a significant worldwide public health threat. Starting in the mid-1990s, the frequency, severity, and geographic range of WNV outbreaks increased, and outbreaks of WNV meningitis and encephalitis affecting primarily adults struck Bucharest, Romania, in 1996, Volgograd, Russia, in 1999, and Israel, in 2000. WNV crossed the Atlantic and reached the Western hemisphere in the summer of 1999 when a cluster of patients with encephalitis was reported in the metropolitan area of New York City, New York, in the United States, and within 3 years the virus had spread to most of the contiguous U.S. and the neighboring countries of Canada and Mexico. In addition, although few human cases have been reported, WNV has also been found in Central and South America through surveillance studies in field specimens, suggesting a potential risk for an outbreak in humans. In the approximately eighty (80) years since its discovery, the virus has propagated to a vast region of the globe and is now considered the most important causative agent of viral encephalitis worldwide.

No vaccine exists today to prevent WNV. The methods and compositions of this invention provide a means for prevention of WNV infection by immunization with live attenuated, immunogenic viral vaccines against WNV.

This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Commercialization Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

Technology description follows.

Description of Technology: There are nearly 600 million clinical cases of Plasmodium falciparum malaria annually. For most individuals living in endemic areas, malaria is uncomplicated and resolves with time. However, malaria can become severe and life threatening in young children, which resulted in 429,000 deaths in 2015. One of the most deadly complications of P. falciparum infection is cerebral malaria (HCM) characterized by the onset of severe neurological signs such as altered consciousness, seizures, and coma. Thus, there is an urgent need for the development of effective adjunctive therapies that can be used in conjunction with anti-malarials to treat children with HCM.

The inventors, listed below, have discovered that glutamine antagonists can be used to treat mice with experimental cerebral malaria (ECM) in conjunction with anti-malarials. It was found that glutamine antagonist, 6-diazo-5-L-norleucine (DON) successfully restored blood-brain barrier integrity and decreased brain swelling in ECM mice. This finding suggests that glutamine antagonists may be effective in treating neurological damage in HCM patients.

This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Therapeutic for cerebral malaria

Competitive Advantages:

• Effective adjunctive therapeutics for cerebral malaria are not available.

Development Stage: Pre-Clinical.

Inventors: Susan K. Pierce, NIAID, NIH, Johnathan Powell, Johns Hopkins University.

Publications: Gordon, Emile B., et al. (2015) Targeting glutamine metabolism rescues mice from late-stage cerebral malaria. PNAS 112(42): 13075-13080.

Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-202-2015/0—US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/175,000 filed June 12, 2015; PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2016/036996 filed June 10, 2016.

Licensing Contact: Chris Kornak, J.D., 240-627-3705, [email protected].

Collaborative Research Opportunity: For collaboration opportunities, please contact Chris Kornak, J.D. 240-627-3705, [email protected].

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809).

The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

On March 10, 2006, as modified on September 16, 2015, the State of Alaska filed an application (AA-86373) for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the regulations contained in 43 CFR subpart 1864 for the lands underlying the George River. The State asserts that this river was navigable at the time of Alaska Statehood. As such, the State contends that ownership of the lands underlying this river automatically passed from the United States to the State of Alaska in 1959 at the time of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine; the Submerged Lands Act of 1953; the Alaska Statehood Act; and other title navigability law.

The State's application is for all submerged lands underlying the portion of the George River from its mouth to Julian Creek. Specifically, these are the submerged lands within the bed of the George River between the ordinary high water mark of the left and right banks, beginning at the confluence of Julian Creek in Township 24 North, Range 44 West, Section 4, Seward Meridian, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:63,360 series topographic map Iditarod A-3 (1954). Thence southerly to its confluence with the Kuskokwim River in Township 21 North, Range 46 West, Section 21, Seward Meridian, Alaska, USGS 1:63,360 series topographic map Sleetmute D-5 (1954, minor revisions 1975). The applied section of the George River flows through the following Townships and Ranges:

Seward Meridian:

Township 24 North, Ranges 44-45 West;

Township 23 North, Ranges 45-46 West;

Township 22 North, Ranges 45-46 West;

Township 21 North, Range 46 West.

The precise location may be within other townships due to the ambulatory nature of these water bodies.

An RDI is a legal document through which the United States disavows ownership of specified land, but it does not grant, convey, transfer, or renounce any title or interest in the lands, nor does it release any tax, judgment, or lien. This Notice of Application is intended to inform the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence.

A final decision on the merits of the State's application will not be made before September 5, 2017. During the 90-day period, interested parties may comment on the State's application, AA-086373, and supporting evidence. This supporting evidence from the State includes three navigability reports prepared by the BLM on May 6, 1980; November 8, 1984; and July 8, 1985. The State's application also included an extract of the “Regional Report” for the Kuskokwim River Region prepared by the BLM in 1985. In addition, the application contained three maps based upon the USGS 1:63,360 topographic maps with water body data extracted from the USGS National Hydrography Dataset—2004, detailing the river from its mouth to its source.

On August 25, 1982, the BLM determined the George River is navigable through Georgetown Native Corporation's selected lands, situated along the lower 22 miles of the river. BLM extended its navigability determination an additional 19 miles upriver to Julian Creek on November 8, 1984. Subsequent navigability opinions in 1985, 1988, and 2004 affirmed that the lower 41 miles of the river are navigable up to Julian Creek.

Interested parties may also comment during this time on the BLM's Draft Summary Report for the State's Application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest, which is available on the RDI Web site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Copies of the State application, supporting evidence, the BLM Draft Summary Report, and comments, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available in the case file for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office, Public Room, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, during regular business hours from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. 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 the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. If the BLM determines the State's evidence is sufficient to find a favorable determination and neither the records nor a valid objection disclose a reason not to disclaim, then the BLM may decide to approve the application.

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 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from lands managed by Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, in Modoc 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 and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Klamath Tribes. The Klamath Tribes represent Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Band of Snake Peoples.

In 1945, human remains representing, at minimum two individuals were removed from the Tule Lake Internment Camp site (CA-MOD-NL4) in Modoc County, CA, by Marvin Kaufmann Opler and donated to the University of California, Berkeley. Opler was an anthropologist, social psychologist, and community analyst who arrived at Tule Lake Internment Camp in May 1943. The human remains were found during the excavation of an irrigation ditch at the camp. No further details about the excavation or the archeological context of the human remains was recorded. The human remains were curated at the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, became aware of these human remains on August 27, 2015, when an inquiry was made by the Klamath Tribes to Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, regarding human remains and one funerary object from site CA-MOD-NL4. The human remains were confirmed to be under Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, control on November 30, 2015, and the Phoebe Hearst Museum transferred the human remains and funerary objects to Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, on December 22, 2015.

The human remains consist of one nearly complete adult female, approximately 30-40 years old and a few ribs and thoracic vertebra of one adult, age and sex indeterminate. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one bone tube and one bag of associated soil.

In consultation with the Klamath Tribes, Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, determined a close affiliation with the Modoc, a Native American tribe who resided in northeast California and southeast Oregon during, and prior to, Euro-American contact. There is nothing temporally diagnostic available to directly indicate the antiquity of this collection. The Tule Lake Internment Center is located in the ancestral homelands of the Modoc Indians. Modoc territory extended across both sides of what is now the California-Oregon border immediately east of the Cascades. North and west of Modoc territory was the territory of the Klamath, who spoke a dialect of the same language. The western shore of Goose Lake was shared by the Modoc and the Yahooskin Paiute whose territory was to the east. The Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin band of Snake (Northern Paiute) Indians ceded lands in south-central Oregon to the United States under terms of the Klamath Treaty of 1864. By the terms of the treaty, all three Indian groups, who are now collectively known as the Klamath Tribes, retained a considerable portion of the Klamath homeland as a reservation.

The amount of wear on the dentition and the association of a bone tube indicates that the human remains are Native American. The associated bone tube was identified through consultation as part of a Modoc bone whistle. The Klamath Tribes presented an ancient Modoc bone whistle of the same form and construction as CA-MOD-NL4 bone tube.

On June 30, 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Snake Island, Tule Lake site (CA-MOD-NL2) in Modoc County, CA, by Mr. Paul Fair of the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Fair donated the items to the University of California, Berkeley, where they were curated by the Phoebe Hearst Museum. The one associated funerary object is “some bits of cordage.”

On December 8, 2015, the Klamath Tribes inquired about the human remains and associated funerary object from site CA-MOD-NL2. At that time, the human remains, consisting of a skull, had been misplaced by the museum and had not appeared on their annual inventory since the 1980s. The absence of the human remains prevented the identification of the human remains as Native American. On December 11, 2015, the associated funerary object was confirmed to be under the control of the Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office. The Phoebe Hearst Museum transferred it to Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, on March 28, 2016.

Snake Island is located on the Bureau of Reclamation-withdrawn lands that were under control of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, in 1924. During consultation with the Klamath Tribes, Snake Island was identified to be the center of the Modoc world in a place referred to in their creation narrative. The Klamath Tribes provided examples of creation stories that identify Snake Island as an extraordinarily sacred location for Klamath and Modoc peoples. The first stitch of the matting/cordage was recognized by the Klamath Tribes as unique to the Modoc. During consultation, the Klamath Tribes provided several examples of Modoc woven items that were made using the same technique. This weaving technique is described in numerous ethnographies.

Officials of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the three 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 remains and associated funerary objects and the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of 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 and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Melanie Ryan, NAGPRA Specialist/Physical Anthropologist, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, MP-153, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone (916) 978-5526, email [email protected], by July 5, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma may proceed.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, is responsible for notifying the Klamath Tribes and The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.