Federal Register Vol. 82, No.65,

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a forest plan. On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule (2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR part 219), which describes requirements for the planning process and the content of the forest plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the assessment of ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions and trends is the first stage of the planning process (36 CFR 219.6). The second stage, formal plan revision, involves the development of our forest plan in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised forest plans.

The Tonto National Forest has completed its assessment pursuant to 2012 Forest Planning Rule. The assessment was developed with public participation and includes an evaluation of existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends, and sustainability and their relationship to forest plans within the context of the broader landscape. The intent of the Tonto National Forest is that this information builds a common understanding prior to entering formal plan revision. With this notice, the Tonto National Forest is initiating formal plan revision and invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute. The intent of public engagement is to inform development of the plan revision. We encourage contributors to share material that may be relevant to the planning process, including desired conditions for the Tonto National Forest. As we develop public engagement opportunities to assist with the plan revision phase, public announcements will be made and information will be posted on the Forest's Web site: www.tontoplan.org. If you would like to contribute to the process or for more information email [email protected], or contact Kenna Belsky, Forest Planner, Tonto National Forest, 602-225-5378.

Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest, 2324 E McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85006.

The Tonto National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise the existing forest plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the Forest Supervisor so he can decide which alternative best maintains and restores National Forest System terrestrial and aquatic resources while providing ecosystem services and multiple uses, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.

The revised forest plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years and will address the identified needs for change to the existing land management plans. The revised forest plan will provide management direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. It will identify delineation of new management areas and possibly geographic areas across the Forest; identify the timber sale program quantity; make recommendations to Congress for Wilderness designation; and list rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The revised forest plan will also provide a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, identify watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, include a monitoring program, and contain information reflecting expected possible actions over the life of the plan.

It is also important to identify the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest plan. The revised forest plan will represent decisions that are strategic in nature, but will not make site-specific project decisions and will not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service's internal operations. The authorization of project level activities will be based on the guidance/direction contained in the revised plan, but will occur through subsequent project specific NEPA analysis and decision-making.

The revised forest plan will provide broad, strategic guidance that is consistent with other laws and regulations. Though strategic guidance will be provided, no decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails, such as those might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. Some issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the National Forest System and will not be considered.

According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are to be revised at least every 15 years. The purpose and need for revising the current forest plan are to: (1) Update the Forest Plan which was approved in 1985 and is over 30 years old, (2) reflect changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research, and (3) address the preliminary identified needs for change to the existing plan, which are summarized below. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to identify theses preliminary needs for change to the existing forest plan.

The proposed action is to revise the Forest Plan to address the identified needs for change to the existing Forest Plan. Alternatives to the Proposed Action will be developed to address significant issues that will be identified through scoping.

What follows is a summary of the preliminary identified needs for change. A more fully developed description of the preliminary needs for change, which has been organized into several resource and management topic sections, is available for review on the plan revision Web site at: www.tontoplan.org/public-involvement/needs-to-change.

1. There is a need for plan components that incorporate best available scientific information (BASI).

2. There is a need to reduce the complexity of plan components related to management areas that fragment the landscape by their arrangement, boundaries, and differing management direction.

3. There is a need to remove plan components that require developing additional planning documents, many of which require updates on a regular cycle.

4. There is a need for plan components that are adaptable to changes in technology, tools, and communication style demands.

5. There is a need for management approaches that emphasize public education about the Tonto National Forest's diverse ecological, social, and economic resources, the multiple-use philosophy, public laws and regulations, and management strategies.

6. There is a need for a monitoring program that tracks progress toward desired conditions and allows for a responsive adaptive management program with available resources.

7. There is a need to include management approaches that strengthen existing relationships, promote new relationships, and incorporate strategies that prioritize partnerships (e.g. local, state, and federal agencies, tribal governments, law enforcement, permitees, recreation and forest user groups, environmental groups, users with historic ties to the forest, and youth groups).

8. There is a need for management approaches that promote seeking outside assistance in addition to working with partners and volunteers to manage resources and monitor activities.

9. There is a need for management approaches that emphasize better coordination and collaboration with other forests, local governments, and tribes to minimize conflict between local planning and zoning direction as a result of our decisions, while at the same time becoming more aware of how local regulation might enhance our own management goals, or alternatively, interfere with our own desired outcomes.

10. There is a need for management approaches that integrate forest restoration and tribal needs, for working across boundaries in partnership with tribes to manage landscapes, and to address threats to tribal resources to meet common objectives.

11. There is a need to develop desired conditions and other plan components that support heterogeneity and habitat diversity at multiple spatial scales.

12. There is a need to include plan components that focus on addressing the impacts of exotic and invasive species on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

13. There is a need to develop desired conditions, standards, and guidelines that address terrestrial and aquatic habitat linkages and connectivity for species migration and movement across the landscape.

14. There is a need for plan components that incorporate adaptive management strategies that increase ecosystem resiliency to changing environmental conditions and stressors.

15. There is a need for standards or guidelines that prioritize use of native plant materials (the use of local and genetically appropriate seed sources) for revegetation, restoration and rehabilitation of native plant communities to provide for the conservation of ecosystem diversity and maintain healthy ecosystem function.

16. There is a need to add plan components that emphasize landscape scale restoration.

17. There is a need to develop desired conditions (at multiple scales) for vegetation structure by promoting a diversity of seral states, vegetation function, and species composition.

18. There is a need for plan components, including desired conditions and objectives that recognize fire-adapted ecosystems, the role of fire on the landscape (including wilderness), and its use as a management tool, including planned and unplanned ignitions.

19. There is a need for plan components, including desired conditions and standards and guidelines, to address current and foreseeable stressors in desert ecosystems (e.g., fire, exotic species, and other disturbances) and to better understand post-disturbance recovery of desert species.

20. There is a need to develop standards and guidelines that promote the maintenance, restoration and monitoring of soil condition and function (e.g., hydrology, stability, and nutrient cycling) by improving and maintaining sufficient ground cover (biotic and abiotic components).

21. There is a need for desired conditions that identify appropriate riparian characteristics (e.g., biodiversity, connectivity, water availability) that promote functionality and resiliency while taking into account multiple stressors.

22. There is a need for standards and guidelines that minimize ecological impacts of multiple uses in riparian areas.

23. There is a need for standards and guidelines that reduce pollutant runoff into streams.

24. There is a need for providing plan components on the sustainable management of groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems (springs, wetlands, riparian areas, perennial waters) and their interconnections.

25. There is a need to develop plan components for the long term health and sustainability of watersheds utilizing best available scientific information.

26. There is a need to develop plan components to ensure stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to disturbances.

27. There is a need to develop standards or guidelines to provide for the conservation and recovery of federally listed species, as well as maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern.

28. There is a need to include plan components that consider potential climate change impacts (e.g., increases in storm events, uncharacteristic wildfire, drought, flooding, and other extreme weather) to ecosystems and natural resources.

29. There is a need to add plan components that recognize the Tonto National Forest's role in contributing to local economies, including service-based sectors such as recreation and tourism, timber, grazing, and other multiple-use related activities and products.

30. There is a need to include plan components for key ecosystem services identified in the Assessment including: Water for consumption; water for recreation; habitat for hunting, fishing, and watchable wildlife; sustainable and productive rangelands; and cultural heritage.

31. There is a need for updating plan components that provide for the management of sustainable water supply for multiple uses (e.g. wildlife, grazing, and recreation) including public water supplies.

32. There is a need for plan components to ensure the sustainability and availability of forest products such as firewood, medicinal and ceremonial plants, and edible plants.

33. There is a need for desired conditions that incorporate a wide range of silvicultural practices to promote forest health, resiliency, and sustainability.

34. There is a need to add plan components for rangeland management that maintain or restore ecological integrity of rangelands.

35. There is a need for plan components to allow flexibility in rangeland management to prepare for changing conditions such as drought, fire, social and economic needs.

36. There is a need to include plan components for sustainable recreation management to ensure that recreation resources are integrated into all resource management decisions.

37. There is a need for desired conditions to address the long-term sustainability of recreation infrastructure (e.g., trails, facilities, roads), maintenance, design, and improvement.

38. There is a need for management approaches to address changing trends in services, activities, and types of facilities desired by the public, while balancing those trends with other resources.

39. There is a need for plan components to address user conflicts (e.g., recreational shooting and hikers, equestrians and bicyclists, and motorized and non-motorized users).

40. There is a need for plan components to incorporate scenery management with all forest management (e.g., restoration, habitat diversity, timber management) to further positive outcomes for all resources.

41. There is a need for desired conditions that address transmission corridors and renewable energy generation, including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, while protecting natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, traditional tribal activities, and scenery.

42. There is a need for plan components regarding the use of common variety mineral materials, such as commercial contracts, personal use, and free use permits.

43. There is a need for standards and guidelines for meteorite collection, rock hounding and mineral collection.

44. There is a need for plan components that ensure sustainable infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, recreation and administrative facilities, range improvements, maintenance backlog, etc.).

45. There is a need for plan components aimed at managing for Native American traditional cultural properties and sacred sites, and non-Native American traditional cultural properties, while conserving anonymity of such sites where appropriate.

46. There is a need for plan components that protect historic properties and tribal use areas at risk of damage or destruction during non-prescribed/unplanned fire.

47. There is a need to update plan components to protect areas that may be identified as a sacred site or part of an important cultural landscape by tribe.

48. There is a need for desired conditions in the plan that address the alignment of heritage resources management objectives (the management of historic properties and landscapes, sacred sites, contemporary uses) with other resource management objectives (ecosystem restoration, rangeland management, recreation).

49. There is a need to develop, modify, or remove plan components to allow flexible and efficient management of special uses while balancing resource protection with public needs.

50. There is a need to develop plan components related to Forest Service lands acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges.

51. There is a need for plan components that encourage the protection of existing public access and address the acquisition of new public access opportunities.

52. There is a need to include management approaches to develop a strategy to address issues related to known and suspected trespass and encroachment issues present on the forest.

53. There is a need for the revised plan to identify and evaluate potential additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System and eligibility of rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and potentially other types of designated areas.

54. There is a need to reevaluate designated and proposed special areas that no longer suite the original purpose for designation (i.e., research natural areas, botanical areas, burro territories, etc.), excluding congressionaly designated areas.

A Notice of Initiation of the assessment phase of forest plan revision for the Tonto National Forest was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10763). Prior to the formal initiation of the assessment, the Tonto National Forest held four listening sessions in Scottsdale, Globe, Payson, and Mesa, Arizona. These listening sessions provided existing collaborative porential and limitations and helped the plan revision team organize the public participation efforts for forest plan revision. In March of 2014 the Tonto National Forest hosted two all-day workshops to solicit comments, input, and desires from the public, governmental entities, tribes, land grants, and nongovernmental organization for public participation through the forest plan revision process. Between May-July 2014, eight community forums provided an introduction to forest plan revision and an opportunity for the public to provide input for the assessment by expressing how they use and value the forest, and what trends or changes they have observed. In September and October 2016 the Tonto National Forest hosted seven Needs to Change Public Meetings to discuss key findings from the draft assessment and collabotate on needs to change. The discussion focused on eleven key themes that ranged from ecological sustainability; social, cultural, and economic sustainability; and forest-wide management. Discussions from these meetings helped to shape the Draft Needs to Change document which was available for public reivew between December 15, 2016-January 11, 2017. Comments received from the public along with responses are posted to the Web site: www.tontoplan.org. The final needs to change statements are based on results from the assessment, input from a round of seven public meetings, and two rounds of public comment.

Additionally, the Tonto National Forest is utilizing internet based collabotation techniquies to gather public input and engaging communities at a local level through presentations at meetings hosted by organizations, government groups and Tribes; informational booths at fairs and local community events; and presentations and field trips for local schools. Public Informaiton to the public was provided by a dedicated Forest Plan revision Web page and through mailings, flyers, news releases, Twitter, and radio interview. Detailed information, including dates and notes of specific events, can be found on the Tonto National Forest Plan Revision Web site: www.tontoplan.org. Any comments related to the Tonto National Forest's assessment report that are received following the publication of this Notice will be considered in the draft and final environmental impact statements.

Written comments received in response to this notice will be analyzed to complete the identification of the needs for change to the existing plan, further develop the proposed action, and identify potential significant issues. Significant issues will, in turn, form the basis for developing alternatives to the proposed action. Comments on the preliminary needs for change and proposed action will be most valuable if received by May 23, 2017, and should clearly articulate the reviewer's opinions and concerns. Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered in the NEPA process; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents, nor will anonymous comments provide standing to the commenter for the eventual Objection process. See the below Objection process material, particularly the requirements for filing an objection, for how anonymous comments are handled during the objection process. Refer to the Forest's plan revision Web site (www.tontoplan.org) for information on when public meetings will be scheduled for refining the proposed action and identifying possible alternatives to the proposed action.

Preparation of the revised forest plan for the Tonto National Forest began with the publication of a Notice of Assessment Initiation in the Federal Register on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10763) and was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2012 Forest Service planning rule (36 CFR part 219 (2012)).

No permits or licenses are needed for the development or revision of a forest plan.

The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Tonto National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.

The Needs for Change documentation, Assessment Report including specialist reports, summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials, and public comments are posted on the Forest's Web site at: www.tontoplan.org. As necessary or appropriate, the material available on this site will be further adjusted as part of the planning process using the provisions of the 2012 planning rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, to request approval for an extension of an existing collection.

Title: Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products for Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program.

OMB Control Number: 0503-0020.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2017.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Section 9002(h) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a voluntary labeling program that would enable qualifying biobased products to be labeled with a “USDA Certified Biobased Product” label. USDA subsequently published the terms and conditions for voluntary use of the label. These terms and conditions can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 7 CFR part 3202. To implement the statutory requirements of FSRIA, USDA will gather relevant product information on biobased products for which manufacturers and vendors seek certification to use the label. Participation in the voluntary labeling program is entirely voluntary. The information collected will enable USDA to evaluate the qualifications of biobased products to carry the USDA Certified Biobased Product label and to ensure that the label is used properly and in accordance with the requirements specified in 7 CFR part 3202. To the extent feasible, the information sought by USDA can be transmitted electronically using the Web site http://www.biopreferred.gov. If electronic transmission of information is not practical for some applicants, USDA will provide technical assistance to support the transmission of information to USDA.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response.

Respondents: Manufacturers and vendors who wish to apply the “USDA Certified Biobased Product” label to their biobased products. Participation is entirely voluntary.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3. One response is required for each stand-alone product or product family for which certification is sought. The average number of stand-alone products or product families that each respondent is expected to apply for certification is three. A stand-alone product is one that is marketed or sold under a single product name, while a product family is a group of products that share the same formulation and biobased content (within 3%) yet are marketed differently depending on factors such as brand names or uses.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,350 hours, one time only. Manufacturers and vendors are only required to respond once for each stand-alone product or product family for which they wish to receive certification. Therefore, there is no ongoing annual paperwork burden on respondents unless they wish to apply to label additional stand-alone products or product families. Furthermore, their participation in the voluntary labeling program is entirely voluntary.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Karen Zhang, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-359-3627 and conference call ID: 5355775. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-684-1264 and conference call ID: 9702460.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=252; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-967-7188; Conference ID: 2292231. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-967-7188, Conference ID: 2292231. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 22, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=274 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

On December 1, 2016, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the CVD orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India, Indonesia and Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 The Department received a notice of intent to participate in each of these reviews from the following domestic interested parties: Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, and SSAB Enterprises LLC (collectively, domestic interested parties) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited reviews of these CVD orders.

The products covered by the countervailing duty orders are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils).

Steel products to be included in the scope are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope. Also, specifically included in the scope are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

Steel products to be included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the orders: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.

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

All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 2 and are listed in Appendix I attached to this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these expedited sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet 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.

The Department determines that revocation of the CVD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

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

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

On August 5, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia for the POR.1 On August 31, 2016, in response to a timely request from Petitioners,2 and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia with respect to Euro SME.3

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs), which also may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of this antidumping duty order excludes (1) PRCBs that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) PRCBs that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of this antidumping duty order. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this antidumping duty order is dispositive.

Subsequent to the initiation of this administrative review, the Department received a timely submission from Euro SME certifying that it did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.4 On October 16, 2016, the Department requested entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) for subject merchandise exported by Euro SME and imported into the United States during the POR.5 This query returned no entries during the POR.6 Further, the Department transmitted a “no-shipments” inquiry to CBP requesting that it provide any information to the contrary, should such information exist.7 On November 7, 2016, the Department was notified by CBP that there were no shipments of PRCBs from Malaysia during the POR.8 Consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine that Euro SME had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, we find it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Euro SME but, rather, to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review, consistent with our practice.9

Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.10 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.11 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.13 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.14

The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.15 In accordance with the Department's practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which Euro SME did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.16 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Euro SME, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to Euro SME in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters is 2.40 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

On December 1, 1993, the Department published the AD order on wire rods from India.1 On December 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD order on wire rods,2 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

On December 13, 2016, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Carpenter Technology Corporation, North American Stainless, and Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (collectively, the domestic interested parties) within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers in the United States of a domestic like product for the proceeding.

On January 3, 2017, the Department received a complete substantive response to the Notice of Initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day period, specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We received no substantive responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the AD order on wire rods from India.

The merchandise covered by the AD order is certain stainless steel wire rods from India, which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.4

All issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order is revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.5 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, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD order on wire rods from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 48.80 percent.

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

We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. By statute, the MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.

Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Sunday, April 30, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. This meeting will focus on several topics and is being held in conjunction with a workshop for MEP Center Board members. The MEP Advisory Board agenda will include an information exchange between the two groups. The MEP Advisory Board will receive an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice to Hollings MEP senior management on the development of the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will also provide input to Hollings MEP on developing protocols that will connect user facilities, research, and technologies at NIST and other federal laboratories with the help of the Hollings MEP national network to support small and mid-size manufacturers, and make recommendations on the establishment of a Hollings MEP Learning Organization. This encompasses an effort to strengthen connections by sharing best practices and building Working Groups and Communities of Practice for furtherance of the Hollings MEP Program's mission. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend the MEP Advisory Board meeting must submit their name, email address and phone number to Cheryl Gendron ([email protected] or 301-975-2785) no later than Monday, April 24, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, or those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to [email protected].

The items of discussion are as follows:

1. Review and consideration of ongoing SEDAR projects.

2. Review and consideration of the proposed research track process, including guidance on applying the process to 2018 assessments.

3. Review and consideration of the SEDAR assessment schedule including future priority assessment projects.

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

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

The Council will hold nine public hearings:

1. April 24, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: The Greater Ocean City Chamber of Commerce, 12320 Ocean Gateway, Ocean City, MD 21842, phone: (410) 213-0144.

2. April 25, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring St., Portland, ME 04101, phone: (207) 775-2311.

3. April 26, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station, 30 Emerson Ave., Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: (978) 282-0308.

4. May 2, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: Congress Hall, 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08204, phone: (609) 884-8421.

5. May 3, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: DoubleTree by Hilton Tinton Falls, 700 Hope Road, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724, phone: (732) 544-9300.

6. May 4, 2017, 6-8 p.m.: Webinar, http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/squid2017/ phone: (800) 832-0736, Rm: *7833942#. A listening station will be available at Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News, VA 23607, phone: (757) 247- 2200.

7. May 8, 2017, 5-8 p.m.: University of Rhode Island, Corless Auditorium, Watkins Building, 218 Ferry Rd., Narragansett, RI 401-874-6222.

8. May 9, 2017, 4:30-7 p.m.: Doubletree by Hilton Cape Cod—Hyannis, 287 Iyannough Rd., Hyannis, MA 02601, 508-771-1700.

9. May 11, 2017, 5-7 p.m.: Hyatt Place Long Island/East End, 431 East Main St., Riverhead, NY 11901, 631-208-0002.

Addresses for written comments: Written comments may be sent through mail, email, fax, or online through 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, May 18, 2017.

The purpose of the meetings and comment period is gather input from the public on the alternatives in the amendment. The objectives of this action are to:

A. Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed longfin squid and Illex squid fisheries and design appropriate management measures for permitted vessels. The Council is considering this action because there is considerable latent effort in both fisheries—a relatively small portion of vessels with limited access (“moratorium”) squid permits account for the majority of landings in most years. The Council is concerned that activation of latent permits in the squid fisheries could lead to excessive fishing effort (shortening seasons) on these semeparous, sub-annual species, and increased catch of non-target species.

B. Re-evaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2. The Council is considering this action because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing effort in T2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg mops. Additional information and relevant background documents are available on the Council's Web site at http://www.mafmc.org/actions/squid-capacity-amendment. The public hearing document, which describes and analyzes the alternatives, will be posted there by April 18, 2017.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to any meeting date.

Availability

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

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) titled “Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Minhoto-Hester Marsh Restoration Project, Elkhorn Slough, Monterey County, California.” A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on November 15, 2016. NMFS considered comments submitted in response to our Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 67297; September 30, 2016) and CADFW's application as part of the process. All documents are available at the aforementioned Web site.

Sections 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization was provided to the public for review.

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

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

On June 2, 2016, we received an application from the CADFW for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with a 47-acre tidal marsh restoration project within the Minhoto-Hester Marsh in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey, CA) (Phase 1). The overall Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project will restore a total of 147 acres, however, future phases are not part of this application as they are currently unfunded and present some additional technical challenges. Another IHA request will be made prior to implementation of any proposed future phases. The CADFW submitted revised versions of the application on July 13, 2016, August 2, 2016, August 29, 2016, and a final application on September 6, 2016 which we deemed adequate and complete.

The activity will begin August 1, 2017 and last approximately 11 months with built in buffers for adverse weather and other conditions when work is not possible. Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) and southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) are expected to be present during the work. Southern sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and will not be considered further in this IHA. Construction activities are expected to produce noise and visual disturbance that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of harbor seals.

A detailed description of the project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 67297; September 30, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

The CADFW proposes to restore approximately 47 acres of tidal marsh within the Minhoto-Hester Marsh in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey, CA) and additional tidal marsh, upland ecotone, native grasslands restoration within a buffer area (Phase 1). The CADFW intends to restore tidal marsh to reduce tidal erosion, improve water quality, provide sea-level rise resilience, increase carbon sequestration, and improve ecosystem function that have been altered by past land use practices. Under the planned action, 132 days of construction activities and four days of vibratory pile driving (total 136 days of project activities) related to the tidal marsh restoration will occur over an 11-month period.

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to CADFW was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67297). That notice described, in detail, CADFW's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, and concurred with the planned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction occurring in the project area is the Pacific harbor seal (see Table 1).

A detailed description of the harbor seal likely to be affected by the restoration project, including a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 67297; September 30, 2016); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of this species and stock; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/seals/harbor-seal.html) for the generalized harbor seal account and see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of the harbor seal stocks' status and abundance. The harbor seal is assessed in the Pacific SAR (Carretta et al., 2016).

The effects of noise and visual disturbance from construction activities for the project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 67297; September 30, 2016) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals; therefore, that information is not repeated here.

In summary, harbor seals that use the four haul out sites, just beyond the footprint of the construction, area and in other nearby areas may potentially experience behavioral disruption rising to the level of harassment (Level B) from construction activities, which may include visual disturbance due to the presence and activity of heavy equipment and construction workers, airborne noise from the equipment, and from underwater noise during the brief period of sheet pile installation. Disturbed seals are likely to experience any or all of these stimuli, and take may occur due to any of these in isolation or in combination with the others.

The main impact to marine mammal habitat associated with the CADFW's restoration project is the temporary exclusion from the accustomed haul out areas. During the restoration, the inability of seals to use suitable habitat within the footprint of the construction area will temporarily remove less than two percent of the potential haul out areas in the Slough (see Figure 4-4 of the application). Although the action will permanently alter habitat within the footprint of the construction area, harbor seals haul out in many locations throughout the estuary, and the activities are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual harbor seals or their population. Potential effects to marine mammal habitat are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 67297; September 30, 2016), therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register notice for that information.

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

Construction work shall occur only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be implemented. No in-water work will be conducted at night.

After sheet piles are installed, it will be unlikely that harbor seals will be able to access the construction area and will temporarily be displaced from using the four haul outs within the footprint of the construction area. Should seals attempt to enter the construction area, they will need to traverse a minimum 7ft high berm into an area without water. If a seal enters the construction area after installation of barriers, CADFW shall use a government official to flush any such seals from the area for purposes of protection/welfare of the animals (as allowed through section 109(h) of the MMPA). The NMFS' West Coast Regional Office and The Marine Mammal Center (Rescue and Response) will be available should this occur. In addition, to reduce the risk of potentially startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, the contractor shall begin construction activities gradually each day by moving around the project area and starting heavy equipment one at a time.

While CADFW does not anticipate any pupping within the project area, should a pup less than one week old (neonate) come within 20 m of where heavy machinery is working, construction activities in that area will be delayed until the pup has left the area. In the event that a pup less than one week old remains within those 20 m, NMFS will be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action.

An exclusion zone of 15 m shall be established during the 4 days of pile driving to prevent the unlikely potential for physical injury of harbor seals due to close approach to construction equipment. Pile extraction or driving shall not commence (or re-commence following a shutdown) until marine mammals are not sighted within the exclusion zone for a 15-minute period. If a marine mammal enters the exclusion zone during sheet pile work, work shall stop until the animal leaves the exclusion zone or is not observed for a minimum of 15 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Qualified Protected Species Observers (PSO) (a NMFS approved biologist) shall be used to detect, document, and minimize impacts to marine mammals. Monitoring shall be conducted before, during, and after construction activities. In addition, PSOs shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from construction activities.

Important qualifications for PSOs for visual monitoring include:

• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of harbor seals on land or in the water with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

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

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

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

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

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when construction activities were conducted; dates and times when construction activities were suspended, if necessary; and marine mammal behavior; and

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

PSOs shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) (e.g., Yampah Island, see Figure 2 of the monitoring plan in the application) practicable to monitor for marine mammals. PSOs shall also conduct mandatory biological resources awareness training for construction personnel. The awareness training shall be provided to brief construction personnel on marine mammals (inclusive of identification as needed, e.g., neonates) and the need to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor shall ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. The PSO shall have the authority to stop construction if marine mammals appear distressed (evasive maneuvers, rapid breathing, inability to flush) or in danger of injury.

CADFW developed a monitoring plan based on discussions between the CADFW and NMFS. CADFW shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All PSOs shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.

The monitoring plan involves PSOs surveying and conducting visual counts beginning prior to construction activities (beginning at least 30 minutes prior to construction activities), hourly monitoring during construction activities, and post-activity monitoring (continuing for at least 30 minutes after construction activities have ended). PSOs shall conduct monitoring from a vantage point in the marsh (e.g., Yampah Island) such that all seal haul outs (see Figure 2 of the monitoring plan in the application) are in full view. During construction activities, monitoring shall assess behavior and potential behavioral responses to noise and visual disturbance due to the activities. To document disturbance and possible incidental take during construction activities, the monitoring protocols shall be implemented at all times when work is occurring either (1) in-water, (2) north of a line starting at 36°48′38.91 N. 121°45′08.03 W. and ending 36°48′38.91 N. 121 °45′27.11 W. (see Figure 1 of the monitoring plan in the application), or (3) within 30.5 m (100 ft) of tidal waters. When work is occurring in other areas, monitoring shall occur for the first three days of construction and anytime there is a significant change in activities or location of construction activities within the project area. If disturbance is noted at any time, then monitoring shall continue until there are three successive days of no disturbance. If there is a gap in construction activities of more than one week, the monitoring protocols shall again be implemented for the first three days that construction resumes.

Counts shall be performed for harbor seals hauled out and observed in the water. Total counts, sex, and age (adult, juvenile, pup) shall be recorded. Behavioral monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of the construction activities to document any behavioral responses to visual (or other) disturbance, according to the disturbance scale shown in Table 2 below. When responses are observed, the degree of response (i.e., alert and flush, movement of more than one m, or change in direction of movement) and the assumed cause (whether related to construction activities or not) will be noted. Only responses at Level 2 and 3 are considered to be take under the MMPA.

Additional parameters shall be recorded including: Atmospheric conditions, cloud cover, visibility conditions, air and water temperature, tide height, and any other disturbance (visual or noise) that may be noted. We require that PSOs use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, CADFW shall record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to construction activities and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, CADFW shall attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. Additional requirements of PSOs include:

(1) The PSO shall be selected prior to construction activities;

(2) The PSO shall attend the project site prior to, during, and after construction activities cease each day that the construction activities occur (as outlined in the monitoring plan);

(3) The PSO shall search for marine mammals on the seal haul outs, other suitable haul out habitat, and within the waters of this area from the observation site. PSOs shall use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;

(4) The PSO shall be present during construction activities to observe for the presence of marine mammals in the vicinity of the specified activity (as outlined in the monitoring plan). All such activity will occur during daylight hours. If inclement weather limits visibility within the area of effect, the PSO will perform visual scans to the extent conditions allow. For pile driving activities, if the 15 m area around the pile driving is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until that area is visible;

(5) If marine mammals are sighted by the PSO, the PSO shall record the number of marine mammals and the duration of their presence while the construction activity is occurring. The PSO shall also note whether the marine mammals appeared to respond to the noise/visual disturbance and, if so, the nature of that response. The PSO shall record the following information; date and time of initial sighting, tidal stage, weather conditions, species, behavior (e.g., foraging, mating, etc.), group cohesiveness, direction and speed of travel, etc., number, tagged animals, whether the animal(s) are in the water or hauled out, group composition, distance between construction activities and marine mammal(s), number of animals impacted, location, construction activities occurring at time of sighting (earth moving equipment, construction personnel walking/talking, pile driving etc.), and monitoring and mitigation measures implemented or not implemented). The observations shall be reported to NMFS; and

(6) A final report shall be submitted summarizing all effects from construction activities and marine mammal monitoring during the time of the authorization.

A written log of dates and times of monitoring activity shall be kept. The log shall report the following information:

• Time of PSO arrival on site;

• Time of the commencement of construction activities;

• Distances to all marine mammals relative to the disturbance;

• Observations, notes on marine mammal behavior during construction activities, as described above, and on the number and distribution observed in the project vicinity;

• For observations of all other marine mammals (if observed) the time and duration of each animal's presence in the project vicinity; the number of animals observed; the behavior of each animal, including any response to construction activities;

• Time of the cessation of construction activities; and

• Time of PSO departure from site.

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

A draft report shall be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project (if required), whichever comes first. The report shall include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity of construction, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses by marine mammals due to disturbance from construction activities and a complete description of total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report shall be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report.

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

All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment resulting from construction activities involving temporary changes in behavior. It is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes will occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures. Further, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of take by Level A harassment, such that it is considered discountable.

Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound or visual disturbance on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound or visual disturbance. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the area subject to the disturbance that may be produced by the construction activities and then consider in combination information about harbor seals present and the number of days animals will be disturbed during the project. We then provide information to estimate potential incidents of take from disturbance as related to construction activities.

We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. The generic thresholds described below (Table 3) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels equal to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts. However, useful contextual information that may inform our assessment of effects is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as step functions.

1. Introduction

Credit reporting plays a critical role in consumers' financial lives, a role that most consumers do not recognize because it is usually not very visible to them. Credit reports on a consumer's financial behavior can determine a consumer's eligibility for credit cards, car loans, and home mortgage loans—and they often affect how much a consumer is going to pay for that loan. Federal law provides an important framework to ensure the players in the consumer reporting system receive the benefits of our risk-based credit economy.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the first Federal agency to have supervisory authority over many of the key institutions in the consumer reporting system. First are the creditors and others that supply the information about consumers' financial behavior, referred to as furnishers, including banks, mortgage servicers, student loan servicers, and debt collectors. Second are the consumer reporting companies (CRCs), including the largest consumer reporting companies, consumer report resellers, and specialty consumer reporting companies. CRCs sell the information in the form of consumer reports to creditors and other users and provide them to consumers. Third are those that use the information for credit decisions as well as employment, insurance, and other decisions. The CFPB's jurisdiction over the major players in each of these categories is unique and has allowed the Bureau to take an integrated approach to improving the accuracy of information across the system.

We prioritized this market for oversight to promote our vision of a consumer reporting system: A system where furnishers provide and CRCs maintain and distribute data that are accurate, supplemented by an effective and efficient dispute management and resolution process for consumers.

The CFPB's vision is rooted in the obligations and rights set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V.1 In the last two years, we identified failings in compliance management systems and violations of law both at CRCs and at furnishers. As a result, we have directed specific improvements in data accuracy and dispute resolution at one or more CRCs, including:

• Stepped-up oversight of incoming data from furnishers;

• institution of quality control programs of compiled consumer reports;

• monitoring of furnisher dispute metrics to identify and correct root causes;

• enhanced oversight of third-party public records service providers;

• enforced independent obligation to reinvestigate consumer disputes, including review of relevant information provided by consumers; and

• improved communication to consumers of dispute results.

We directed both bank and nonbank furnishers to develop reasonable written policies and procedures regarding accuracy of the information they furnish and to take corrective action when they furnished inaccurate information. In addition, we took significant steps to ensure furnishers' dispute handling processes comply with the law in response to failures either to conduct investigations or to send results of dispute investigations to consumers.

This Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights details these most recent supervisory observations in the consumer reporting market. In sum, our work is producing an entirely different approach to ensuring compliance at the major consumer reporting companies: One of proactive attention to compliance, as opposed to a defensive, reactive approach in response to consumer disputes and lawsuits. This proactive approach to compliance management will reap benefits for consumers—and the lenders that use consumer reports—for many years to come.

The CFPB's supervisory authority over CRCs extends to those that are larger participants in the consumer reporting market.2 Participants in this market include nationwide consumer reporting companies, consumer report resellers, and specialty consumer reporting companies.3 Recent supervisory reviews of CRCs have evaluated the compliance management system (CMS) for assuring the accuracy throughout the lifecycle of the data the CRC collects, maintains, and uses to prepare consumer reports.4 Recent reviews also evaluated whether the CRCs comply with the FCRA's requirements regarding consumer dispute processes.5

Overall, and as a result of these reviews, CRCs have made significant advances to promote greater accuracy, the oversight of furnishers, and enhancements to the dispute resolution function. Continued improvements are necessary in these and other areas. Supervision has directed many CRCs to take actions in these areas and will monitor closely the progress by these CRCs.

The accuracy of the data maintained by the CRCs is the backbone on which our credit-based economy relies. Consumers depend on the accuracy of the credit reporting data to obtain credit and to realize their financial goals. Similarly, financial institutions and other industries (for example, mortgage and auto lending) that are heavily dependent on credit markets also rely on the accuracy of data in these reports to calibrate the appropriate risk-based credit to offer consumers.

Initial accuracy reviews indicated that CRC(s)' data governance functions were decentralized and had undefined responsibilities. They lacked quality control policies and procedures to test compiled consumer reports for accuracy, had inconsistent practices for vetting furnishers and providing data quality feedback to them, and had insufficient monitoring and oversight of furnishers once approved to provide data. The following sections detail improvements CRC(s) are implementing to remedy these deficiencies.

To demonstrate some of the data accuracy enhancements that Supervision has directed many CRCs to undertake, Supervision created this diagram:

Data governance systems are crucial to accuracy and data integrity obligations of the CRCs. Effective data governance policies establish and clearly document the company's system of decision rights and accountabilities for handling consumer information and managing any changes that may affect such information.

One or more CRCs have improved their data governance policies and procedures and formalized a data governance program. As an example, one or more CRCs established data governance structures with personnel authorized and directed to:

• Oversee policies, procedures, data quality metrics, and trends;

• approve policies and procedures, as well as escalate decisions to higher authorities within the CRC(s);

• oversee furnisher monitoring, law and policy, and procedures;

• take actions against furnishers that fail to comply with the established requirements, including ceasing to accept data furnished from noncompliant furnishers;

• review and track metrics relating to data governance on a regular basis; and

• oversee a centralized repository of data definitions, business rules, and data quality rules.

In a prior issue of Supervisory Highlights, we explained that, following the initial reviews of accuracy programs, examiners found that one or more CRCs lacked quality control policies and procedures to test compiled consumer reports for accuracy.6

In follow-up reviews at one or more CRCs, examiners found the following improvements:

• Establishment of robust quality control programs that regularly assess the accuracy of information included in consumer reports;

• as part of the quality control program, development of tests to identify whether consumer reports are produced regarding the wrong consumer and whether consumer reports contain mixed file data, and development of systems designed to measure the accuracy of consumer reports and identify patterns and trends in errors; and

• utilization of the results of the quality control program to take corrective action by identifying the source of identified inaccuracies and making necessary system improvements to prevent the recurrence of such errors.

Examiners have also noted improvements in the oversight of public records providers at one or more CRCs. In the initial accuracy reviews, examiners noted that one or more CRCs did not adequately oversee the accuracy or integrity procedures at third-party providers of public records data.7 In follow-up reviews, examiners concluded that one or more CRCs improved oversight in this area by:

• Enhancing the CRC(s)' standards for the public records data that will be accepted, including greater frequency of updates and stricter identity-matching criteria; and

• increasing the frequency and scope of audits of its third-party public records provider, thereby strengthening the CRC(s)' ability to identify potential sources of inaccuracy and identity-matching errors.

We will continue to monitor the status of these system improvements.

In a previous issue of Supervisory Highlights, we noted that one or more CRCs initially vetted new furnishers to ensure reliability of and adherence to furnisher membership requirements.8 However, the reviews also noted that there was insufficient ongoing monitoring, or re-vetting, of furnishers once a furnisher passed the initial vetting.9 In recent follow-up reviews, we determined that these policies and procedures have improved. One or more CRCs established and implemented enhanced controls to re-vet furnishers on a risk basis to ensure furnishers continue to meet initial and ongoing requirements. Such controls include:

• The review of an existing furnisher's ability to maintain minimum data security standards;

• the re-vetting of furnishers where the furnisher's management changes could impact its capacity to meet membership requirements; and

• a process to temporarily cease accepting data from identified furnishers that fail re-vetting until required improvements are made by the furnisher, during which time trade line information reported by the furnisher is suppressed, and the furnisher must then demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements before its furnished data will again be included in consumer reports.

One or more CRCs established policies and procedures to monitor and identify furnishers who do not meet data submission and quality requirements and to take corrective action where appropriate. Examiners found that the improved monitoring program(s) include:

• Actively monitoring for inactive data furnishers, notifying furnishers when monthly data submissions are missed, and ceasing to accept data from furnishers who fail to furnish updated data for a number of consecutive months;

• monitoring for furnishers that do not comply with the CRC(s)' data submission thresholds establishing the maximum number of times a furnisher's data can be rejected by the CRC(s); and

• alerting furnishers when anomalies are detected in furnished data to identify and correct potential sources of inaccuracy.

We also reviewed one or more CRCs' policies and procedures to monitor furnisher dispute data as a component of their data accuracy programs. For example, data indicating that particular furnishers receive a higher rate of disputes from consumers under the FCRA, or respond to disputes in ways that indicate the furnisher is not investigating disputes, can be useful to CRCs in identifying sources of data inaccuracy. Examiners found that one or more CRCs:

• Monitored furnisher responses to consumer disputes to identify furnishers with response rates and other patterns potentially indicating that they are not meeting their reinvestigation requirements, for example because the furnisher does not respond to consumer disputes;

• identified furnishers with particular response rates that are higher in one area than expected and notified the identified furnishers of the CRC(s)' concerns;

• requested the furnisher to investigate the cause of the anomaly and correct its practices where needed; and

• for any furnisher that does not respond and correct its practices, the CRC(s) took further action, including ceasing to accept data from the furnisher.

At one or more CRCs, examiners observed that these new procedures improved furnishers' dispute response levels, for example by eliminating data provided by furnishers that refuse to reasonably investigate disputes and, for those furnishers that wish to continue furnishing, increasing the rate at which the furnishers investigate and respond to disputes within the time periods required under the FCRA.

However, examiners also noted that one or more CRCs had not yet implemented policies or procedures to monitor furnisher dispute data. Based on these findings, Supervision directed the CRC(s) to develop and implement internal processes to monitor furnisher dispute responses and to detect furnishers with dispute rates or dispute responses that may indicate risk of inaccurate consumer data or other consumer harm. Directives included:

• Establishing the necessary employee training and escalation guidelines for reporting furnisher monitoring issues to senior management;

• instituting procedures for monitoring furnisher dispute data; and

• establishing adequate corrective action measures designed to minimize the risk of reporting inaccurate data.

In a prior issue of Supervisory Highlights, we noted one or more CRCs lacked systematic or consistent policies and procedures for providing feedback to furnishers regarding the quality of data furnished.10 For example, these reviews identified that the CRC(s) designed reports that would identify for each furnisher whether its data had been rejected and what kind of formatting errors were identified. This information could be helpful to the furnisher to improve its data quality, but the examiners found that one or more CRCs relied on furnishers to request the reports or, in some cases, imposed a fee before the reports were provided to furnishers.11

In follow-up reviews, examiners found that one or more CRCs improved furnisher access to data quality reports. The CRC(s) made receipt of certain data-quality reports mandatory for all data furnishers at no cost, thereby resulting in increased visibility and availability of such reports to furnishers on a regular basis.

Examiners also evaluated the accuracy and dispute handling procedures at one or more reseller CRCs.12 In these reviews, we found that the reseller(s) lacked reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy because the reseller(s) used systems with known programming errors that introduced inaccuracies in consumer report data when the reseller(s) merged consumer report data they had purchased from multiple CRCs. In light of these findings, the reseller(s) conducted a comprehensive review to determine the full impact on consumers. Additionally, examiners directed the reseller(s) to enhance accuracy procedures to prevent similar data-merge errors.

Supervision also continued its focus on CRCs' compliance with the FCRA's requirements to process and investigate consumer disputes. When a consumer believes there is inaccurate information in his or her consumer report, the FCRA enables consumers to dispute the information. The consumer may provide relevant supporting information with the dispute, such as a cancelled check to demonstrate payment or a document to demonstrate that the consumer is not liable for the credit account or debt.

Once a determination regarding the dispute is made, timely and clear notification to the consumer of the results of the dispute helps ensure the consumer understands whether a change was made and the reason for the decision. A well-functioning dispute resolution process is critical to promoting confidence in the consumer reporting system and in empowering consumers to take charge of their financial lives. A strong system that efficiently and clearly resolves consumer disputes so that consumers do not needlessly re-dispute information benefits CRCs and furnishers as well.

In previous issues of Supervisory Highlights, we discussed earlier CFPB reviews of the dispute handling procedures in place at one or more CRCs and the subsequent improvements in those processes: 13

• Consumers now are able to use online portals to submit disputes and upload attachments of supporting documentation;

• CRC(s) have implemented systems to forward to furnishers relevant dispute documents submitted by consumers;

• CRC(s) have made improvements to call center scripts and training regarding solicitation of relevant information from consumers with disputes; and

• CRC(s) no longer require that consumers obtain or purchase a recent consumer report before the CRC(s) accept disputes filed online or by telephone.

Building on these improvements, subsequent reviews at one or more CRCs have focused on the dispute resolution procedures in place to conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes and communicate the results of the investigation adequately to the consumer.

To aid in our description of the dispute process, Supervision created the following simplified diagram depicting a number of key steps taken by CRC(s) when processing, investigating, and responding to consumer disputes:

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to receive information related to community collaboratives that connect servicemembers and their families to the information, resources and support services they need throughout their mobile military lifecycle.

Welcome & Administrative Remarks.

Making Military Family Connections through High Tech-High Touch Community Collaboratives.

Minnesota's Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program: Support for the National Guard and Reserve.

Military OneSource: Creating an Integrated I&R-Counseling System to Build Community Capacity to Serve.

Best Practice Collaboratives with Military Support Organizations.

Military Service Best Practice Spotlights: Demonstrating the Positive Impacts of Sharing Information and Connecting Military Families to Needed Resources.

Closing Remarks.

Note: Exact order may vary.

Background

The Executive Summit provides a premier opportunity to learn how DOE-funded research at the national laboratories and beyond is addressing the hydropower industry's R&D needs—and how companies can directly partner with the labs to accelerate innovation and achieve bottom-line results. The Summit will bring together hydropower industry executives, government leaders, and technology researchers to showcase how private-sector and national lab partnerships are successfully addressing critical technology challenges to improve the competitiveness of American hydropower businesses across the country. Invited participants from industry will include design, consulting, assessment, and operations professionals with experience in addressing the short- and long-term challenges of hydropower development and operations.

The information provided and discussed throughout this summit will be compiled in a summary report, which will provide clarity on how the capabilities of DOE's National Laboratories and other DOE Hydropower Program resources align with the perceived and prioritized R&D needs of the industry as outlined in the recently-published DOE Hydropower Vision. The Vision includes a roadmap outlining potential actions, in a non-prescriptive manner, for consideration by all hydropower stakeholder sectors. The workshop sessions will address four primary categories of R&D activities included in the roadmap: (1) Enhanced Revenue and Market Structures, (2) Optimization of Hydropower Security, Reliability, and Value Sustainable Development and Operation, (3) Addressing Hydropower Sustainability Optimization of Hydropower, and (4) Technology Advancement for Hydropower. The remaining categories of the Roadmap, Regulatory Process Optimization and Enhanced Collaboration, Education, and Outreach, will be addressed in the workshop as cross-cut issues to connect activities in the first three categories.

The event is open to the public based upon space availability. DOE will also accept public comments as described above for purposes of better understanding the hydropower industry and challenges associated with increased deployment. These comments may be submitted at [email protected].

Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants.

Following the meeting, a summary will be compiled by DOE and posted for public comment. For those interested in providing additional public comment, the summary will be posted at water.energy.gov.

Title: FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0246.

Type of Request: Revision to the FERC-725E information collection requirements, as discussed in Docket No. RD16-10.

Abstract: On March 23, 2016 (and supplemented on November 16, 2016), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) filed a joint petition to retire regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a—System Operating Limits (“SOL”). The purpose of the proposed retirement is to shift away from the path-centric model and allow entities in the Western Interconnection to align their operating practices with the framework established in the continent-wide TOP/IRO Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 817,1 which, according to NERC and WECC, achieve the objective of operating within acceptable pre- and post-contingency reliability criteria (i.e., within SOLs and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (“IROL”). On March 10, 2017, the Commission approved the retirement of regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a.2

The remaining reporting requirements included in FERC-725E are not being revised.3

Type of Respondents: Public utilities.

Estimate of Annual Burden  4 : The Commission estimates the reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-725E (due to the retirement of regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a) as follows: 5

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.