Background

Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct reviews to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in December 2019 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews (Sunset Review).

No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in February 2020.

Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Review are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year ( Sunset) Review provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Please note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.

Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

Background

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

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

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 1 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial Section D responses.

Opportunity To Request a Review: Not later than the last day of January 2020, 2 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in January for the following periods:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), Commerce clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. 3

Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews. 4 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless Commerce specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity. 5 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, Commerce will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at http://access.trade.gov . 6 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

Commerce will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of January 2020. If Commerce does not receive, by the last day of January 2020, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

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

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

On June 12, 2017, Commerce published the Final Results, in which we accepted an alternative sales identification methodology for Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. (Bosun), calculated a margin for Bosun, and assigned the margin for Bosun to the non-selected separate rate respondents. 1 On October 23, 2018, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to: (1) Further clarify or reconsider Commerce's conclusion that Bosun acted to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's requests for information; and (2) further explain Commerce's selection of surrogate values for copper powder and copper iron clab. 2

In the final remand redetermination, we found that Bosun had not acted to the best of its ability in responding to our request for information and determined Bosun's margin entirely on the basis of the facts available with an adverse inference (AFA). Because we applied AFA to Bosun, the issue concerning the surrogate value for copper power and copper iron clab was moot. 3 On December 16, 2019, the CIT sustained our final remand redetermination in its entirety. 4

In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( Timken ), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's December 16, 2019, final judgment sustaining the final remand redetermination constitutes the CIT's final decision which is not “in harmony” with the Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to Bosun and the non-selected separate rate respondents as follows:

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rates listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).

As the cash deposit rate for Danyang Hantronic Import & Export Co., Ltd., has not been subject to subsequent administrative reviews, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP adjusting the rate from 6.19 percent to 82.05 percent, effective December 26, 2019. For all other respondents listed above, because the cash deposit rates have been updated in subsequent administrative reviews, 7 we will not update their cash deposit rates as a result of these amended final results.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerces's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with Commerce's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 1

Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 2 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 3 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

On April 10, 2013, Commerce modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). 4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. 5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. Commerce's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with Commerce's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, Commerce will automatically revoke the order without further review. 6

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that Commerce's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult Commerce's regulations for information regarding Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Background

This review covers 19 producers or exporters. Commerce selected two companies, China Steel Corporation (CSC) and Shang Chen Steel Co., Ltd. (SCS), for individual examination. The producers or exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

On July 17, 2019, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 On August 16, 2019, we received a case brief from ArcelorMittal USA LLC, the petitioner in this administrative review. 2 On April 12, 2019, we received a rebuttal brief from SCS. 3

The merchandise subject to the order is CTL plate. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Appendix I of this notice.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in Appendix II to this notice and addressed in the IDM. 4 Interested parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which 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 ACCESS is also available to all interested parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the electronic version of the IDM are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made no changes to the weighted-average dumping margin for SCS from that presented in the Preliminary Results; however, we did make certain changes to SCS's reported entered value. 5

As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims from Chun Chi Grating Co., Ltd. (Chun Chi), Product Depot International Corp. (Product Depot), and CSC, and we preliminarily determined that Chun Chi, Product Depot, and CSC had no shipments during the POR. 6 We received no comments from interested parties with respect to this claim. Therefore, because the record indicates that Chun Chi, Product Depot, and CSC had no entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we continue to find that Chun Chi, Product Depot, and CSC had no shipments during the POR.

We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period November 14, 2016 through April 30, 2018:

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:  7

We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. We further will instruct CBP to take into account the “provisional measures deposit cap,” in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(d).

For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate equal to SCS's dumping margin identified above. 8 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 9

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and therefore de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, including the company for Commerce has determined had no shipments in these final results, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 39.52 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of 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.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

The Final EA and FONSI have been prepared to consider the potential environmental consequences of extending the public lands withdrawal established in Title XXIX of Public Law 105-261 on October 17, 1998, the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act, at the Mountain Home Range Complex associated with Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Per section 2915(c) of the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act, the Draft EA and FONSI were made available for public review and comment for a 60-day period beginning on 10 April 2019, and a public meeting was held in Mountain Home, Idaho on April 25, 2019. No public comments were received. The agency comment letters received during the 60-day public review period are addressed in the Final EA. Under the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act, approximately 11,816 acres of public land located in Owyhee and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho, were withdrawn from the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management to the Air Force for military use. Under the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act, the withdrawal of these public lands will expire in 2023 unless the Air Force meets the requirements for extension in section 2915(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Air Force has analyzed the potential environmental impacts in the Final EA and signed a FONSI proposing to extend the withdrawal of this public land for continued military training for an additional 25 years. In addition, except as provided in section 2908(f) of the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act, withdrawn and acquired mineral resources within the boundaries of the Juniper Butte Range will continue as originally withdrawn from United States mining laws. The Final EA and signed FONSI are available on the internet at https://www.mountainhome.af.mil/Home/Environmental-News/. Printed copies of the Final EA and signed FONSI are also available for review at the following locations:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. Acronyms and abbreviations used in this document are set forth below for reference.

DOE is responsible for authorizing exports of domestically produced natural gas to foreign countries pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717b. 1 In relevant part, section 3(c) of the NGA applies to applications for exports of natural gas, including LNG, to countries with which the United States has entered into a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (FTA countries). 2 Section 3(c) was amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) to require that FTA applications “shall be deemed to be consistent with the public interest” and granted “without modification or delay.”  3 Therefore, DOE approves applications for FTA authorizations without modification or delay. 4 None of the comments or discussion herein apply to FTA authorizations issued under NGA section 3(c).

For applications to export natural gas to non-FTA countries, section 3(a) of the NGA sets forth the following standard of review:

DOE—as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit—has consistently interpreted NGA section 3(a) as creating a rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest. 7 Accordingly, DOE will conduct an informal adjudication and grant a non-FTA application unless DOE finds that the proposed exportation will not be consistent with the public interest. 8 Before reaching a final decision, DOE must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Although NGA section 3(a) establishes a broad public interest standard and a presumption favoring export authorizations, the statute does not define “public interest” or identify criteria that must be considered. In prior decisions, DOE has identified a range of factors that it evaluates when reviewing an application to export LNG to non-FTA countries. These factors include economic impacts, international impacts, security of natural gas supply, and environmental impacts, among others. To conduct this review, DOE looks to record evidence developed in the application proceeding.

DOE's prior decisions have also looked to certain principles established in its 1984 Policy Guidelines. 9 The goals of the 1984 Policy Guidelines are to minimize federal control and involvement in energy markets and to promote a balanced and mixed energy resource system. Specifically, the 1984 Policy Guidelines state that “[t]he market, not government, should determine the price and other contract terms of imported [or exported] gas,” and that DOE's “primary responsibility in authorizing imports [or exports] should be to evaluate the need for the [natural] gas and whether the import [or export] arrangement will provide the gas on a competitively priced basis for the duration of the contract while minimizing regulatory impediments to a freely operating market.”  10 Although the Policy Guidelines are nominally applicable to natural gas import cases, DOE held in DOE/FE Order No. 1473 that the 1984 Policy Guidelines should be applied to natural gas export applications. 11

In Order No. 1473, DOE stated that it was guided by DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111. That delegation order directed the regulation of exports of natural gas “based on a consideration of the domestic need for the gas to be exported and such other matters as the Administrator [of the Economic Regulatory Administration] finds in the circumstances of a particular case to be appropriate.”  12

Although DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111 is no longer in effect, DOE's review of export applications has continued to focus on: (i) The domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, (ii) whether the proposed exports pose a threat to the security of domestic natural gas supplies, (iii) whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting market competition, and (iv) any other factors bearing on the public interest described herein.

Under this public interest standard, DOE has issued 38 final long-term authorizations to export domestically produced (or U.S.) LNG or compressed natural gas to non-FTA countries. 13 The cumulative volume of approved non-FTA exports under these authorizations is 38.06 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, or 13.9 trillion cubic feet per year. 14 Each of these non-FTA orders authorize an export term of 20 years.

In 2014, DOE commissioned the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a DOE applied research laboratory, to conduct an analysis calculating the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for LNG exported from the United States. DOE commissioned this life cycle analysis (LCA) to inform its public interest review of non-FTA applications, as part of its broader effort to evaluate different environmental aspects of the LNG production and export chain.

DOE sought to determine: (i) How domestically-produced LNG exported from the United States compares with regional coal (or other LNG sources) for electric power generation in Europe and Asia from a life cycle GHG perspective, and (ii) how those results compare with natural gas sourced from Russia and delivered to the same markets via pipeline. In June 2014, DOE published NETL's report entitled, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States (2014 LCA GHG Report or 2014 Report). 15 Subsequently, DOE received public comments on the 2014 LCA GHG Report and responded to those comments in non-FTA orders. 16 DOE has relied on the 2014 Report in its review of all subsequent applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. 17

Beginning in 2015, Sierra Club petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or the Court) for review of five long-term LNG export authorizations issued by DOE under the standard of review described above. Sierra Club challenged DOE's approval of LNG exports to non-FTA countries from projects proposed or operated by the following authorization holders: Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P., et al.; Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP (formerly Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP); Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; and Cheniere Marketing, LLC, et al. The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied four of the five petitions for review: One in a published decision issued on August 15, 2017 ( Sierra Club I ), 18 and three in a consolidated, unpublished opinion issued on November 1, 2017 ( Sierra Club II ). 19 Sierra Club subsequently withdrew its fifth and remaining petition for review. 20

In Sierra Club I, the D.C. Circuit concluded that DOE had complied with both NGA section 3(a) and NEPA in issuing the challenged non-FTA authorization. Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and its related entities (collectively, Freeport) had applied to DOE for authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries from the Freeport Terminal located on Quintana Island, Texas. DOE granted the application in 2014 in a volume equivalent to 0.4 Bcf/d of natural gas, finding that Freeport's proposed exports were in the public interest under NGA section 3(a). DOE also considered and disclosed the potential environmental impacts of its decision under NEPA. Sierra Club petitioned for review of the Freeport authorization, arguing that DOE fell short of its obligations under both the NGA and NEPA. The D.C. Circuit rejected Sierra Club's arguments in a unanimous decision, holding that, “Sierra Club has given us no reason to question the Department's judgment that the [Freeport] application is not inconsistent with the public interest.”  21

As relevant here, the D.C. Circuit rejected Sierra Club's challenge to DOE's analysis of the potential “downstream” GHG emissions resulting from the transport and usage of U.S. LNG abroad, set forth in the 2014 LCA GHG Report. 22 The Court pointed out that Sierra Club did not challenge the method employed in the LCA GHG Report to evaluate such GHG emissions, but instead argued that DOE “should have evaluated additional variables” as part of the analysis. 23 Specifically, Sierra Club asserted that DOE should have considered the potential for LNG to compete with renewable sources of energy (or “renewables”), which Sierra Club argued are prevalent in certain import markets. The D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, finding that “Sierra Club's complaint `falls under the category of flyspecking.' ”  24 The Court further held there was “nothing arbitrary about [DOE's] decision” in the 2014 LCA GHG Report to compare emissions from exported U.S. LNG to emissions of coal or other sources of natural gas, rather than a variety of other possible fuel sources with which U.S. LNG might compete in importing nations. 25

In the consolidated opinion in Sierra Club II issued on November 1, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that “[t]he court's decision in [ Sierra Club I ] largely governs the resolution of the [three] instant cases.”  26 Upon its review of the remaining “narrow issues” in those cases, the Court again rejected Sierra Club's arguments under the NGA and NEPA, and upheld DOE's actions in issuing the non-FTA authorizations in those proceedings. 27

The D.C. Circuit's decisions in Sierra Club I and II —including the Court's holding on the 2014 LCA GHG Report—continue to guide DOE's review of applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries.

In 2018, DOE commissioned NETL to conduct an update to the 2014 LCA GHG Report, referred to as the LCA GHG Update. 28 As with the 2014 Report, the LCA GHG Update compares life cycle GHG emissions of exports of domestically produced LNG to Europe and Asia, compared with alternative fuel sources (such as regional coal and other imported natural gas) for electric power generation in the destination countries. Although core aspects of the analysis—such as the scenarios investigated—are the same as the 2014 Report, NETL included three principal updates in the LCA GHG Update. In this section, we summarize the scope of the LCA GHG Update, as well as its methods, limitations, and conclusions.

In commissioning the LCA GHG Update, DOE sought information on the same two questions presented in the 2014 LCA GHG Report:

• How does domestically produced LNG exported from the United States compare with regional coal (or other LNG sources) used for electric power generation in Europe and Asia, from a life cycle GHG perspective?

• How do those results compare with natural gas sourced from Russia and delivered via pipeline to the same European and Asian markets?  29

To evaluate these questions on the basis of more current information, NETL made the following three updates to the 2014 LCA GHG Report:

• Incorporated NETL's most recent characterization of upstream natural gas production, set forth in NETL's April 2019 report entitled, Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation (April 2019 LCA of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation);  30

• Updated the unit processes for liquefaction, ocean transport, and regasification characterization using engineering-based models and publicly-available data informed and reviewed by existing LNG export facilities, where possible; and

• Updated the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) for methane (CH 4 ) to reflect the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). 31

In all other respects, the 2019 LCA GHG Update is unchanged from the 2014 Report.

The primary component of natural gas is methane, a type of GHG. The methane emission rate—sometimes referred to as the methane leakage rate  32 —represents methane emissions released to the air through venting, fugitives, combustion, or other sources per unit of natural gas delivered to end users. For example, emissions of methane during the production, processing, transmission, and delivery of natural gas were 25% of total U.S. methane emissions in 2016 (the most recent year for which adequate data are available), and were 2.8% of all GHGs when comparing GHGs on a 100‐year time frame. 33 The methane emission rate varies with the source of natural gas, due to the variability among geographic locations of natural gas‐bearing formations and the different technologies used to extract natural gas. 34

To evaluate changes in the scientific knowledge of methane and other GHG emissions associated with natural gas systems, NETL updates its LCA of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation every two to three years. NETL published the most recent version of this LCA on April 19, 2019. 35 The April LCA informs the LCA GHG Update in this proceeding, which in turn was published on September 12, 2019. 36

Expanding upon NETL's previous LCAs of natural gas systems, the April 2019 LCA of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation provides a complete inventory of emissions to air and water, water consumption, and land use change. 37 It also evaluates the GHG emissions across the entire natural gas supply chain—including production, gathering and boosting, processing, transmission and storage, and distribution of natural gas to consumers.

For this LCA, NETL developed 30 scenarios as a way to better understand variability in natural gas systems. The results were generated using a model made up of 140 sources of emissions to account for different types of variability. Among other findings, NETL determined that the top contributors to carbon dioxide and methane emissions are combustion exhaust and other venting from compressor systems. 38 Additionally, NETL calculated a national average methane emission rate (or leakage rate) of 1.24%. 39 However, if the modeling boundaries end after pipeline transmission—which is the case for large-scale end users like power plants and liquefaction terminals—NETL calculated an average methane emission rate of 1.08%. 40

At the time of the 2014 LCA GHG Report, NETL considered one medium-distance destination (a location in Europe) and one long-distance destination (a location in Asia), since the exact destination countries for U.S. LNG exports could not be predicted at the time. 41 Specifically, NETL applied its LCA model to represent: (1) Unconventional natural gas production and transportation to a U.S. Gulf Coast liquefaction facility (Gulf Coast facility), (2) liquefaction of the natural gas at the Gulf Coast facility, (3) transportation of the LNG to an import terminal in Rotterdam, Netherlands, to represent a European market; and (4) transportation of the LNG to an import terminal in Shanghai, China, to represent Asian markets. 42 At the time of the LCA GHG Update, those choices were still valid based on U.S. LNG exports to date. 43

NETL determined that one of the most likely uses of U.S. LNG is to generate electric power in the destination countries. Accordingly, NETL used a parametric model for the scenarios to account for variability in supply chain characteristics and power plant efficiencies. In considering sources of fuel other than U.S. LNG, NETL assumed that producers in Europe and Asia could generate electricity in the following ways: (1) By obtaining natural gas from a local or regional pipeline, (2) by obtaining LNG from a LNG producer located closer geographically than the United States, or (3) by using regional coal supplies, foregoing natural gas altogether. 44

Using this framework, NETL developed four study scenarios, identified below. To compare scenarios, NETL used a common denominator as the end result for each scenario: One megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity delivered to the consumer, representing the final consumption of electricity. Additionally, NETL considered GHG emissions from all processes in the LNG supply chains—from the “cradle” when natural gas or coal is extracted from the ground, to the “grave” when electricity is used by the consumer. This method of accounting for cradle-to-grave emissions over a single common denominator is known as a life cycle analysis, or LCA. 45

Using this LCA approach, NETL's objective was to model realistic LNG export scenarios—encompassing locations at both a medium and long distance from the United States—while also considering local fuel alternatives. The purpose of the medium and long distance scenarios was to establish likely results for both extremes ( i.e., both low and high bounds). 46

NETL identified four modeling scenarios to capture the cradle-to-grave process for both the European and Asian cases. The scenarios vary based on where the fuel (natural gas or coal) comes from and how it is transported to the power plant. For this reason, the beginning “cradle” of each scenario varies, whereas the end, or “grave,” of each scenario is the same because the uniform goal is to produce 1 MWh of electricity. The first three scenarios explore different ways to transport natural gas; the fourth provides an example of how regional coal may be used to generate electricity, as summarized in Table 1:

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0129;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Electric Power & Renewable Electricity Surveys;

The surveys included in this information collection request are:

• Form EIA-63B Photovoltaic Module Shipments Report;

• Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report;

• Form EIA-860M Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report;

• Form EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry Report;

• Form EIA-861S Annual Electric Power Industry Report (Short Form;

• Form EIA-861M Monthly Electric Power Industry Report;

• Form EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report; and

• Form EIA-930 Balancing Authority Operations Report.

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with changes;

(4) Purpose: The EPRES survey program collects data from business entities involved in the production, transmission, delivery, and sale of electricity, and in maintaining the reliable operation of the power system. The data collected are the primary source of information on the nation's electric power industry.

The individual surveys and their uses are described below:

• Form EIA-63B Photovoltaic Module Shipments Report collects information on photovoltaic module manufacturing, shipments, technology types, revenue, and related information. The data collected on this form are used by DOE, Congress, other government and non-government entities, and the public to monitor the current status and trends of the photovoltaic industry.

• Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report collects data on existing and planned electric generation plants, and associated equipment including generators, boilers, cooling systems, and environmental control systems to provide information on the generating capacity of the U.S. electric grid.

• Form EIA-860M Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report collects data on the status of proposed new generators scheduled to begin commercial operation within the future 12-month period; and existing generators that have proposed modifications that are scheduled for completion within one month as well as existing generators scheduled to shut down within the subsequent 12 months.

• Form EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry Report collects annual information on the retail sale, distribution, transmission, and generation of electric energy in the United States and its territories. The data include related activities such as energy efficiency and demand response programs. In combination with Form EIA-861S short form and the monthly Form EIA-861M, this annual survey provides coverage of sales to ultimate customers of electric power and related activities. Form EIA-861S, Annual Electric Power Industry Report (Short Form) collects a limited set of information annually from small companies involved in the retail sale of electricity. A complete set of annual data are collected from large companies on Form EIA-861. The small utilities that currently report on Form EIA-861S are required to complete Form EIA-861 once every eight years to provide updated information for the statistical estimation of uncollected data. Form EIA-861M, Monthly Electric Power Industry Report collects monthly information from a sample of electric utilities, energy service providers and distribution companies that sell or deliver or deliver electric power to end users. Data included on this form includes sales and revenue for end-use sectors—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation. This survey is the monthly complement to the annual data collection from the universe of respondents that report on Form EIA-861 and Form EIA-861S.

• Form EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report collects information from electric power plants in the United States on electric power generation, energy source consumption, end of reporting period fossil fuel stocks, as well as the quality and cost of fossil fuel receipts.

• Form EIA-930 Balancing Authority Operations Report collects a comprehensive set of the current day's system demand data on an hourly basis and the prior day's basic hourly electric system operating data on a daily basis. The data provide a basic measure of the current status of electric systems in the United States and can be used to compare actual system demand with the day-ahead forecast, thereby providing a measure of the accuracy of the forecasting used to commit resources. In addition, the data can be used to address smart grid related issues such as integrating wind and solar generation, improving the coordination of natural gas and electric short-term operations and expanding the use of demand response, storage, and electric vehicles in electric systems operations.

(4a) Changes to Information Collection:

EIA is discontinuing Form EIA-411.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 19,789:

Form EIA-63B has 55 respondents;

Form EIA-860 has 4,757 respondents;

Form EIA-860M has 312 respondents;

Form EIA-861 has 1,675 respondents;

Form EIA-861S has 1,730 respondents;

Form EIA-861M has 620 respondents;

Form EIA-923 has 10,575 respondents;

Form EIA-930 has 65 respondents.

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 75,206.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 170,041 hours.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $13,351,619 (170,041 burden hours times $78.52 per hour). EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the surveys other than the costs associated with the burden hours.

Title: FERC-549, NGPA Title III Transactions and NGA Blanket Certificate Transactions.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0086.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Abstract: On October 23, 2019, the Commission published a Notice in the Federal Register (84 FR 56805) in Docket No. IC20-1-000 requesting public comments. The Commission received no public comments.

FERC-549 is required to implement the statutory provisions governed by Sections 311 and 312 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) (15 U.S.C. 3371-3372) and Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. 717f). The reporting requirements for implementing these provisions are contained in 18 CFR part 284.

In 18 CFR 284.102(e), the Commission requires interstate pipelines to obtain proper certification in order to ship natural gas on behalf of intrastate pipelines and local distribution companies (LDC). This certification consists of a letter from the intrastate pipeline or LDC authorizing the interstate pipeline to ship gas on its behalf. In addition, interstate pipelines must obtain from its shippers the certifications including sufficient information to verify that their services qualify under this section.

In 18 CFR 284.123(b), the Commission provides that intrastate gas pipeline companies file for Commission approval of rates for services performed in the interstate transportation of gas. An intrastate gas pipeline company may elect to use rates contained in one of its then effective transportation rate schedules on file with an appropriate state regulatory agency for intrastate service comparable to the interstate service or file proposed rates and supporting information showing the rates are cost based and are fair and equitable. It is the Commission policy that each pipeline must file at least every five years to ensure its rates are fair and equitable. Depending on the business process used, either 60 or 150 days after the application is filed, the rate is deemed to be fair and equitable unless the Commission either extends the time for action, institutes a proceeding or issues an order providing for rates it deems to be fair and equitable.

In 18 CFR 284.123(e), the Commission requires that within 30 days of commencement of new service any intrastate pipeline engaging in the transportation of gas in interstate commerce must file a statement that includes the interstate rates and a description of how the pipeline will engage in the transportation services, including operating conditions. If an intrastate gas pipeline company changes its operations or rates it must amend the statement on file with the Commission. Such amendment is to be filed not later than 30 days after commencement of the change in operations or change in rate election.

In 2006, the Commission amended its regulations to establish criteria for obtaining market-based rates for storage services offered under 18 CFR 284.501-505. First, the Commission modified its market-power analysis to better reflect the competitive alternatives to storage. Second, pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), the Commission promulgated rules to implement section 4(f) of the Natural Gas Act, to permit underground natural gas storage service providers that are unable to show that they lack market power to negotiate market-based rates in circumstances where market-based rates are in the public interest and necessary to encourage the construction of the storage capacity in the area needing storage services, and where customers are adequately protected. The revisions were intended to facilitate the development of new natural gas storage capacity while protecting customers.

The Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 284.288 and 284.403 provide that applicable sellers of natural gas adhere to a code of conduct when making gas sales in order to protect the integrity of the market. As part of this code, the Commission imposes a record retention requirement on applicable sellers to “retain, for a period of five years, all data and information upon which it billed the prices it charged for natural gas it sold pursuant to its market based sales certificate or the prices it reported for use in price indices.” FERC uses these records to monitor the jurisdictional transportation activities and unbundled sales activities of interstate natural gas pipelines and blanket marketing certificate holders.

The record retention period of five years is necessary due to the importance of records related to any investigation of possible wrongdoing and related to assuring compliance with the codes of conduct and the integrity of the market. The requirement is necessary to ensure consistency with the rule prohibiting market manipulation (regulations adopted in Order No. 670, implementing the EPAct 2005 anti-manipulation provisions) and the generally applicable five-year statute of limitations where the Commission seeks civil penalties for violations of the anti-manipulation rules or other rules, regulations, or orders to which the price data may be relevant.

Failure to have this information available would mean the Commission is unable to perform its regulatory functions and to monitor and evaluate transactions and operations of interstate pipelines and blanket marketing certificate holders.

Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   1 The Commission estimates the annual burden and cost for the information collection as follows.

Storage Cost:   7 In addition to the burden and cost for labor, the table above reflects an additional cost for record retention and storage:

• Paper storage costs (using an estimate of 12.5 cubic feet × $6.46 per cubic foot): $80.75 per respondent annually. Total annual paper storage cost to industry ($80.75 × 319 respondents): $25,759.25. This estimate assumes that a respondent stores 12.5 cubic feet of paper. We expect that this estimate should trend downward over time as more companies move away from paper storage and rely more heavily on electronic storage.

• Electronic storage costs: $3.18 per respondent annually. Total annual electronic storage cost to industry ($3.18 × 319 respondents): $1,014.42. This calculation estimates storage of approximately 200 MB per year with a cost of $3.18. We expect that this estimate should trend downward over time as the cost of electronic storage technology, including cloud storage, continues to decrease. For example, external hard drives of approximately 500GB are available for approximately $50. In addition, cloud storage plans from multiple providers for 1TB of storage (with a reasonable amount of requests and data transfers) are available for less than $35 per month.

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.

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

For general information on the registration review program, contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7106; email address: biscoe.melanie@epa.gov.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed a revised interim decision for sodium cyanide, listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of sodium cyanide, listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's revised interim registration review decisions for sodium cyanide, shown in the following table. The interim registration review decision is supported by a rationale included in the docket established for the chemical.

The proposed interim registration review decision for sodium cyanide was posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed the comments and/or information received during the 60-day comment period for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for sodium cyanide. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision. Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for the chemical listed in the Table will remain open until all actions required in the interim decision have been completed.

Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation .

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003- 004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Under EPA contract number EP-W-15-006, contractor and subcontractor ERG of 110 Hartwell Ave, Suite 1, Lexington, MA and PG Environmental of 1113 Washington Ave, Golden, CO will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in enforcement program implementation; enforcement case support; conducting inspections; provide laboratory support; and perform analysis.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number EP-W-15-006, ERG and PG Environmental will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ERG and PG Environmental personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ERG and PG Environmental access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and ERG's site located at 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA, in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until April 30, 2020. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

ERG and PG Environmental personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

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

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed proposed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in Table 1, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim registration review decisions.

The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review case. For example, the review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the Preliminary Work Plan.

The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of the pesticides included in the tables in Unit IV, as well as the Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents. Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV.

The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the Tables in Unit

The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and may provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments.

Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the risk assessments.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments.

Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0050, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.

Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:

1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.

2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.

3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.

EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.

If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 175 acres of fuzzy kiwifruit fields to control brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.603(b); Effective April 25, 2019 to October 31, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of fenpropathrin on a maximum of 175 acres of fuzzy kiwifruit fields to control brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.466(b); Effective May 24, 2019 to October 31, 2019.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 150,000 acres of cotton fields to control tarnished plant bug ( Lygus spp. ). Permanent tolerances in connection with a previous registration have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 26,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective June 6, 2019 to November 30, 2019.

Crisis exemption: EPA authorized the use of zeta-cypermethrin on a maximum of 47 acres of guayule for control of pale striped flea beetle. Effective April 26, 2019 to May 10, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 1, 2019 to November 15, 2019.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of the antibiotic streptomycin on a maximum of 23,000 acres of citrus to manage Huanglongbing (HLB), also called citrus greening disease, caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter Asiaticus. Time-limited tolerances in connection with this action have been established at 40 CFR 180.245(b). Effective April 3, 2019 to April 3, 2020.

EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 270,000 acres of cotton fields to control Western tarnished plant bug ( Lygus spp. ). Permanent tolerances in connection with a previous registration have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a). Effective May 15, 2019 to October 31, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of methoxyfenozide on a maximum of 100,000 acres of rice to control armyworm ( Mythimna unipuncta ) and Western Yellowstriped Armyworm ( Spodoptera praefica ). A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.544(b). Effective June 14, 2019 to October 4, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 18,000 acres of pomegranates to control leaffooted plant bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective July 23, 2019 to December 31, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 500,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective June 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective April 22, 2019 to November 15, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 1,300 acres of sweet sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective May 3, 2019 to November 30, 2019.

Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of fipronil as an expansion of the registered use, to control an invasive Caribbean crazy ant species (commonly referred to as the tawny crazy ant) around the outside of manmade structures in counties where the ant has been confirmed; Effective April 22, 2019 to April 22, 2022.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 3,570 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective May 6, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 3,730 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective June 15, 2019 to October 15, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more 5 or more previous years (and supported by the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20121) (FRL-9992-45) with the public comment period closing on May 23, 2019.

Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium chloride in a quarry in Carroll County to eradicate the invasive zebra mussel. Effective May 13, 2019 to May 13, 2022. Since this request proposed a use for a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA as a pesticide, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2019 (84 FR 11086) (FRL-9990-83) with the public comment period closing on April 9, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pronamide on a maximum of 5,000 acres of cranberries to control dodder. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.317(b). Effective May 2, 2019 to June 30, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of mefentrifluconazole on a maximum of 147,000 acres of sugarbeets to control cercospora leaf spot. A tolerance was established in connection with registration of this use at 40 CFR 180.705. Effective May 31, 2019 to September 25, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for a new chemical, which had not been registered by EPA as a pesticide at that time in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20353) (FRL-9992-75) with the public comment period closing on May 24, 2019.

Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide to Eradicate Red Swamp Crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, on a maximum of 1.88 acres across five ponds in southeast Michigan. Effective August 26, 2019 to August 26, 2022.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 1,000 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 1, 2019 to November 15, 2019.

Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of fipronil as an expansion of the registered use, to control an invasive Caribbean crazy ant species (commonly referred to as the tawny crazy ant) around the outside of manmade structures in counties where the ant has been confirmed; Effective April 22, 2019 to April 22, 2022.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of mefentrifluconazole on a maximum of 200,534 acres of sugarbeets to control cercospora leaf spot. A tolerance was established in connection with registration of this use at 40 CFR 180.705. Effective May 31, 2019 to September 25, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for a new chemical, which had not been registered by EPA as a pesticide at that time in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 24, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of indaziflam on a maximum of 55,000 acres of rangeland, pastures and areas subject to the conservation reserve program (CRP) to control medusahead and ventenata. Time-limited tolerances in connection with this action have been established in 40 CFR 180.653(b). Effective August 23, 2019 to August 1, 2020.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of indaziflam on a maximum of 100,000 acres of rangeland, pastures and CRP to control medusahead and ventenata. Time-limited tolerances in connection with this action have been established in 40 CFR 180.653(b). Effective July 23, 2019 to March 27, 2020.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 7,521 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective July 24, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the postharvest use of thiabendazole on a maximum of 95,000 acres of sweet potatoes to control black rot ( Ceratocystis fimbriata ). A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.242(b). Effective April 3, 2019 to April 3, 2020.

EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 750 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective April 3, 2019 to November 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 3, 2019 to November 30, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 425,000 acres of cotton fields to control tarnished plant bug ( Lygus lineolaris ). Permanent tolerances in connection with a previous registration action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective May 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 3,000 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective July 24, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 4,000 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective July 24, 2019 to October 15, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more 5 or more previous years (and supported by the IR-4 program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 23, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of mefentrifluconazole on a maximum of 28,502 acres of sugarbeets to control cercospora leaf spot. A tolerance was established in connection with registration of this use at 40 CFR 180.705. Effective May 31, 2019 to September 25, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for a new chemical, which had not been registered by EPA as a pesticide at that time in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 24, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 300,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 13, 2019 to November 30, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 700,000 acres of cotton fields to control tarnished plant bug ( Lygus lineolaris ). Permanent tolerances in connection with a previous registration action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective May 13, 2019 to October 30, 2019.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 24,974 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective May 24, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 24,974 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective June 15, 2019 to October 15, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more 5 or more previous years (and supported by the IR-4 program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 23, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 19,600 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 23, 2019 to November 30, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyridate on a maximum of 910 acres of double-cut mint for postemergence control of herbicide-resistant annual weeds such as Redroot pigweed, Armaranthus retroflexus, common lambquarters, kochia and Russian thistle. Tolerances in connection with an earlier registration action are established in 40 CFR 180.462(a); July 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of clothianidin on a maximum of 4,000 acres of immature citrus trees to manage the transmission of HLB disease vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action was established in 40 CFR 180.586(b); Effective May 7, 2019 to May 7, 2020.

Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of fipronil as an expansion of the registered use, to control an invasive Caribbean crazy ant species (commonly referred to as the tawny crazy ant) around the outside of manmade structures in counties where the ant has been confirmed; Effective May 6, 2019 to May 6, 2022.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 29,000 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective May 6, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 29,000 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective June 15, 2019 to October 15, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more 5 or more previous years (and supported by the IR-4 program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 23, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 22,500 acres of alfalfa grown for seed to control lygus bugs ( Lygus hesperus, Lygus elisus, and other Lygus spp. ). Alfalfa grown for seed in Washington is a non-food/non-feed use; Effective June 15, 2019 to August 31, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on a maximum of 7,000 acres of asparagus to control the European asparagus aphid. Effective June 15, 2019 to October 30, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more five or more previous years (and supported by the IR-4 program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2019 (84 FR 22840) (FRL-9992-90) with the public comment period closing on June 4, 2019.

Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 5,986 acres of apples, peaches, and nectarines to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective August 22, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 5,986 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug. Time-limited tolerances in connection with past actions were established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective July 24, 2019 to October 15, 2019. Since this request proposed a use for which an emergency exemption has been requested for more 5 or more previous years (and supported by the IR-4 program) and a registration application or tolerance petition has not been submitted to EPA, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 with the public comment period closing on May 23, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of indaziflam on a maximum of 300,000 acres of rangeland, pastures and CRP to control medusahead and ventenata. Time-limited tolerances in connection with this action have been established in 40 CFR 180.653(b). Effective September 14, 2019 to September 14, 2020.

Crisis exemption: EPA concurred upon a crisis exemption declared by the 23D Marine Regiment to treat field uniforms with etofenprox to repel ticks, during a field training exercise in an area known to harbor disease-carrying ticks. Effective August 1, 2019 to August 15, 2019.

Specific exemption: EPA authorized use of ortho-phthalaldehyde, immobilized to a porous resin, to treat the International Space Station (ISS) internal active thermal control system (IATCS) coolant for control of aerobic and microaerophilic water bacteria and unidentified gram-negative rods. Effective July 24, 2019 to July 24, 2020. This request was granted because without this use, the ISS would have no means of controlling microorganisms in the IATCS because there are no registered alternatives available which meet the required criteria. Since this request proposed a use of a new (unregistered) chemical, in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 166.24, a notice of receipt published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2019 (84 FR 27776) (FRL-9994-52) with the public comment period closing on July 1, 2019.

This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to entities that currently or may manufacture (including import) a chemical substance regulated under TSCA ( e.g., entities identified under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and 324110). The action may also be of interest to chemical processors, distributors in commerce, and users; non-governmental organizations in the environmental and public health sectors; state and local government agencies; and members of the public. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be interested in or affected by this action.

EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the revised document entitled “TSCA New Chemical Determinations: A Working Approach for Making Determinations under TSCA Section 5” (the “Working Approach”).

EPA expects the updated document will provide further clarity and detail on EPA's approaches and practices related to the review of new chemicals under TSCA, including: (1) EPA's general guiding principles and concepts for making determinations on new chemical notices submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5; (2) the decision-making logic and the key questions that EPA must address; and (3) a discussion of how EPA might apply the working approach to reach one of the five new chemical determinations in TSCA section 5(a)(3).

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

EPA released an initial version of the Working Approach document for public comment in November 2017, and subsequently held a public meeting on implementing the new chemicals program under amended TSCA on December 14, 2017 (82 FR 51415, November 6, 2017) (FRL-9970-34). After consideration of comments received on the 2017 version and based on additional implementation experience, EPA updated the Working Approach. On December 10, 2019 (84 FR 64063, November 20, 2019) (FRL-10002-09), EPA held a public meeting to preview the document and to provide an update on other aspects of EPA's implementation of the new chemicals program under TSCA. EPA is now announcing the availability of the updated Working Approach for public review and comment.

Additional information on the TSCA amendments can be found at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.