Federal Register Vol. 80, No.103,

Title: Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP).

OMB Number: 0584-0336.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2015.

Type of Request: Revision previously approved collection.

Abstract: Pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-707, and Section 5(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. 2014(h), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to develop a Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) to address the temporary food needs of people following a disaster. The information collected under this notice is required from State agencies in order to receive approval from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to operate a D-SNAP.

D-SNAP is a program that is separate from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is conducted for a specific period of time. In order for a State to request to operate a D-SNAP, an affected area in the State must have received a Presidential declaration of “Major Disaster” with Individual Assistance. Once the declaration is in place, the State submits a request to operate a D-SNAP to FNS. FNS reviews the request to ensure that all the necessary requirements to conduct D-SNAP are met. Upon approval of a D-SNAP, FNS provides the State support in their D-SNAP efforts through policy guidance, training and technical assistance. Since each disaster demands a separate D-SNAP program, a State can submit multiple requests to FNS to operate multiple D-SNAPs.

The number of disasters that occur annually and the average number of households affected by the disasters cannot be predicted. During the period from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014, the number of State requests for disaster programs ranged from 3 to 23 requests per year. The information collection under this reporting burden is limited to the burden experienced by State agencies in preparing and submitting their requests to operate D-SNAPs to FNS. FNS does not have a standardized form for D-SNAP requests at this time, due to the dynamic nature of emergency situations and the need to quickly respond to the requesting State agency; therefore, State agencies are required to submit their request to operate D-SNAPs to FNS via email or fax. The burden associated with the actual operation of D-SNAPs, including the processing of applications from households affected by disasters, is included under OMB information collection 0584-0064, titled `SNAP Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices' (expiration date 04/30/2016), which includes all information collection activities associated with the certification of participating and applicant households. The D-SNAP participation and issuance form FNS-292-B, Report of Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Benefit Issuance, is covered under the OMB information collection 0584-0037 (expiration date: 08/31/2017) and will not be reflected in this submission.

FNS estimates that approximately 10 hours of State personnel time are required to prepare D-SNAP application requests. The burden associated with preparing requests to operate a D-SNAP does not vary significantly from disaster to disaster and is relatively independent of the scope of the disaster. Major disasters require little additional document preparation time than relatively minor disasters. FNS estimates an average of 9 State agencies will submit 1 D-SNAP application per year to operate D-SNAPs for a total annual request of 9 applications per year (this is a decrease from an average of 14 applications per year). We further estimate it will take approximately 10 hours of State agency personnel time to prepare each application, for a total annual burden estimate average of 90 burden hours per year. These revised estimates reflect a slight decrease since the last OMB approval.

Affected Public: State agencies and local governments.

Estimated Total Annual Number of Respondents: 9.

Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondents: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 9.

Estimated Total Hours per Response: 10.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 90.

The infromation presented in this notice is included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The infromation presented in the notice is summarized. Those who wish to provide comments or are otherwise interested in or affected by the projects are encouraged to obtain additional infromation from the contact listed above.

The current conditions of many stands in the project area varies from desired conditions in the forest plan. Our information shows some of the more notable gaps between the existing and desired conditions by management area. Of primary importance is the need for change in: wildlife habitat, stream improvement, species age structure, species composition, and stocking densities.

Projected project implementation would be fall 2016. The Townsend Project is located on National Forest System lands, administered by the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, west of Townsend. The legal description of the project is Townships 32-34 North and Ranges 14 and 15 East. The Forest Service proposes to improve wildlife habitat, remove short-lived species along streams, and use timber harvest (selection, thin, clearcut, and shelterwood) to move the area toward the desired conditions.

The responsible official for this project is Lakewood-Laona Distict Ranger, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Decision making will be limited to specific activities relating to the proposed actions. The primary decision to be made will be whether or not to implement the proposed action, no action, another alternative, or parts of alternatives that respond to the projects purpose and need. This decision would be documented in a record of decision.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The 45 day comment period will start after the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Availabilty for the Townsend Project Draft EIS.

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

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. However, comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

Title: Floriculture Survey.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0093.

Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2016.

Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection for 3 years.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Floriculture Survey is currently conducted in 15 States (California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington) and obtains basic agricultural statistics on production and value of floriculture products. The target population for this survey is all operations with production and sales of at least $10,000 of floriculture products. New floriculture operations that are discovered during the 2015 Census of Horticulture or the 2017 Census of Agriculture will be added to the list of potential respondents. The retail and wholesale quantity and value of sales are collected for fresh cut flowers, potted flowering plants, foliage plants, annual bedding/garden plants, herbaceous perennials, cut cultivated florist greens, propagative floriculture material, and unfinished plants. Additional detail on area in production, operation value of sales, and agricultural workers is included. Content changes are minimal year to year, with the goal of avoiding significant changes to the length and burden associated with each questionnaire. The only program change anticipated will be the discontinuation of the Poinsettia and Export Sales Surveys in Hawaii that are approved in the current PRA, expiring on January 31, 2016. These statistics are used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help administer programs and by growers and marketers in making production and marketing decisions.

Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average between 10 and 60 minutes per respondent. In all states except Hawaii, operations with less than $100,000 in sales of floriculture products respond to a reduced number of questions related to operation characteristics while operations with sales greater than $100,000 complete the entire questionnaire. In Hawaii, all operations with sales of at least $10,000 will complete the full questionnaire.

Respondents: Farms and businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,900.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,900 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological, or other forms of information technology collection techniques.

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

Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process.

OMB Number: 0524-0041.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: 05/31/2015

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection for three years.

Abstract: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to NIFA competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by NIFA are of high quality, and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program.

Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA has rendered a decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director.

Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. The information collected from reviewers has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.

The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit.

Estimate of Burden: NIFA estimates that anywhere from one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of four reviews, accounting for an annual burden of 20 hours. NIFA estimates it receives 4,600 competitive applications each year. The total annual burden on reviewers is 92,000 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The database consists of approximately 50,000 reviewers. The total annual burden of questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The agency has approximately 1,000 panelists each year. The total annual burden of the certification form is 167 hours. The total annual burden of the component of the entire review process is 100,497 hours.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Review and Approval of the Agenda

3. Issues to be discussed at 163rd Council Meeting

A. Upcoming Council Action Items

i. Cooperative Research Priorities

ii. Five-year Research Priorities

iii. Specification of Annual Catch Limits for Main Hawaiian Islands Deep-seven Bottomfish

B. Hawaii Archipelago FEP Community Activities

4. Hawaii Archipelago FEP Issues

5. Public Comment

6. Discussion and Recommendations

7. Other Business

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the In-person Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

The Final EIS examined the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from implementing the proposed establishment and use of brigade-level training intensity measures, as well as the proposed readiness training using new tactics, equipment, and infrastructure improvements at PCMS. The selected action best meets the Army's need to conduct realistic and coordinated large-scale training that integrates the ground and air resources of assigned and visiting units including mechanized, infantry, support, and combat aviation assets.

The selected action establishes new brigade-level training intensity measures and limits such training to 4.7 months per year to allow for sufficient time for training land to sustainably recover from training events. The action updates brigade training period equipment compositions and training methods, and enables the Stryker family of vehicles to train at PCMS. The action also introduces new training activities and training infrastructure changes at PCMS. Training activities include electronic jamming systems, laser target sighting, tactical demolition, unmanned and unarmed aerial reconnaissance systems, and light unmanned ground vehicle training. In terms of training infrastructure, PCMS will establish two new drop-zones, and restricted airspace directly over PCMS for use during periods when training activity poses a hazard to non-participating aircraft. Soldier training will be entirely within the existing boundaries of PCMS, except for limited air and convoy operations. The decision does not include, nor would it require, any land expansion of PCMS. No additional land will be sought or acquired as a result of this action.

The ROD incorporates analysis contained in the Final EIS for PCMS training and operations, including comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The ROD also considered all comments and new reference citations provided during the waiting period, a period that was initiated when the Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13352). The Army took this material into account in making its decision, but determined that it did not constitute significant new information relevant to environmental concerns that would require supplementation of the FEIS. Comments received and the Army responses are summarized in the ROD.

Implementation of this decision is expected to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, to include potentially significant impacts to soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water resources. To minimize the potential adverse impacts from implementation of the preferred alternative, the Army will mitigate these effects through a variety of strategies, as described in the ROD.

Title, Associated Forms, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) part 245, Government Property, and the following related clauses and forms: DFARS 252.245-7003, Contractor Property Management System Administration; 252.245-7004, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal; DD Form 1348-1A, DoD Single Line item Release/Receipt Document; DD Form 1639, Disposal Determination/Approval; OMB Control Number 0704-0246.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 1,840.

Responses per Respondent: 14.9, approximately.

Annual Responses: 27,404.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour, approximately.

Annual Burden Hours: 28,283.

Needs and Uses: This requirement provides for the collection of information related to providing Government property to contractors; contractor use and management of Government property; and reporting, redistribution, and disposal of property.

a. DFARS 245.302(1)(i): DFARS 245.302 concerns contracts with foreign governments or international organizations. Paragraph (1)(i) requires contractors to request and obtain contracting officer approval before using Government property on work for foreign governments and international organizations.

b. DFARS 245.604-3(b) and (d): DFARS 245.604-3 concerns the sale of surplus Government property. Under paragraph (b), a contractor may be directed by the plant clearance officer to issue informal invitations for bids. Under paragraph (d), a contractor may be authorized by the plant clearance officer to purchase or retain Government property at less than cost if the plant clearance officer determines this method is essential for expeditious plant clearance.

c. DFARS 252.245-7003: This clause entitled, Contractor Property Management System Administration, and DFARS 245.105, Contractor's Property Management System Compliance, address the requirement for contractors to respond in writing to initial and final determinations from the administrative contracting officer that identifies deficiencies in the contractor's property management system. The burden for this reporting requirement was previously approved under OMB 0704-0480 and is being incorporated into 0704-0246 in order to consolidate all DFARS part 245 requirements under one OMB clearance.

d. DD Form 1348-1A, DoD Single Line Item Release/Receipt Document, is prescribed at DFARS 245.7001-3 and the form is used when authorized by the plant clearance officer.

e. DD Form 1639, Scrap Warranty, is prescribed in the clause at DFARS 252.245-7004, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal. When scrap is sold by the contractor, after Government approval, the purchaser of the scrap material(s) may be required to certify, by signature on the DD Form 1639, that (i) the purchased material will be used only as scrap and (ii), if sold by the purchaser, the purchaser will obtain an identical warranty from the individual buying the scrap from the initial purchaser. The warranty contained in the DD Form 1639 expires by its terms five years from the date of the sale.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

DoD Public Collections Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

In June 2014, the Department published the ACD Notice in the Federal Register (FR) (79 FR 34291-34296, June 16, 2014) upon Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval and in compliance with 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 199.1(o) and Department of Defense (DoD) Administrative Instruction -102 that govern TRICARE demonstrations. The ACD incorporates the previous temporary ABA policies into a single program based on limited demonstration authority to ensure continued ABA coverage for all TRICARE beneficiaries—including Active Duty Family Members (ADFMs) and non-Active Duty Family Members (non-ADFMs)—diagnosed with ASD.

The Department conducted two ACD round table events for parents, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders on October 15, 2014 and December 3, 2014. The round tables were well attended and senior Department officials listened to concerns, answered questions, and took matters for further analysis and action. The Department received constructive feedback from these round tables and directly from interested stakeholders. The Department greatly appreciates the participation of all interested parties, and through this process has gained additional insights about how to design and implement an optimum care delivery and reimbursement system for beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD. Among a number of issues raised by stakeholders, two fundamental concerns emerged from the round table meetings that require immediate adjustments under the ACD. The first was that the beneficiary cost-sharing provisions under the ACD may have an adverse financial impact on beneficiaries as the one-on-one ABA therapy does not accrue to the catastrophic cap and thus may put ABA “out of reach” for some families. The second concern was that TRICARE reduced the reimbursement rate of $125/hour for ABA one-on-one therapy for Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA) to $68/hour and this reportedly would cause providers to disengage TRICARE beneficiaries leading to decreased access. The Department will amend the ACD as outlined below in order to address these critical concerns.

Under the TRICARE program, cost-sharing by beneficiaries is required by law. It serves a number of purposes, including the means for obtaining a beneficiary's individual investment and commitment to the care sought, discouraging unnecessary use and overutilization of limited health care resources, and controlling overall TRICARE program costs to ensure sustainability of the benefits.

TRICARE has kept the various cost-shares related to ABA under the ACD the same as cost-shares and co-payments previously established under the Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) Autism Demonstration for ADFMs, the ABA Pilot for non-ADFMs, and ABA under the Basic Program. Under the ACD, all ABA services provided by a master's level or above Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA/BCBA-doctoral) (initial ABA assessment and treatment plan, ABA reassessments and treatment plan updates, direct one-on-one ABA, and parent/caregiver guidance in ABA) count toward the medical benefit catastrophic cap under the TRICARE Basic benefit. TRICARE covers 100% of charges for BCBA/BCBA-D services after a family's out-of-pocket costs reach an annual cap of $1,000.00 for Active Duty and TRICARE Reserve Select families, and $3,000.00 for retirees and their families.

However, tiered model ABA services provided by supervised Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts (BCaBAs) and Behavior Technicians (BTs) were based on tiered model ABA services previously provided under ECHO and the ABA Pilot. Many families receive a bulk of their care under the tiered service delivery model. These ABA services include supervision and intensive one-on-one ABA which may take place for many hours over an extended period of time, and do not currently apply towards the benefit catastrophic cap. For ABA provided by supervised BCaBAs and BTs, ADFMs pay the same monthly fee amount based on the sponsor's pay grade. Non-ADFMs pay the same out of pocket costs under the ACD (as they did under the ABA Pilot)—10% of the allowed charge for these services. Because these tiered model ABA services do not accrue to the annual catastrophic cap and out of pocket costs are not limited, there have been concerns expressed by beneficiaries and advocates that this policy may have an adverse financial impact on some families and put tiered model ABA services “out of reach” for those families.

To address this concern, the Department will apply all beneficiary cost-shares for ABA services under the ACD, including tiered model services (ABA provided by supervised BCaBAs and BTs), toward the catastrophic cap in the same manner as TRICARE Basic program benefits generally. The Department will implement this amendment to the beneficiary cost-share requirements by aligning cost-shares for all ABA services under the ACD with existing TRICARE program cost-sharing requirements. TRICARE Standard program deductible and cost share amounts are defined in 32 CFR 199.4. TRICARE Extra program deductible and cost-share amounts are defined in 32 CFR 199.17. TRICARE Prime program enrollment fees and copayments are defined under the Uniform Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Benefit Schedule of Charges in 32 CFR 199.18. For information on fees for Prime enrollees choosing to receive care under the Point of Service (POS) option, refer to 32 CFR 199.17.

The ACD, as a demonstration, has flexibility in creating reimbursement methodologies, rather than being constrained by otherwise existing TRICARE program provider reimbursement requirements. The Defense Health Agency has broad discretion to evaluate alternative methods of payment and the appropriate reimbursement rates for ABA under the TRICARE demonstration authority. Although care available under the TRICARE program must generally be reimbursed using the reimbursement requirements of 10 U.S.C. 1079(h) and 32 CFR 199.14(j) to “to the extent practicable”, or (in the absence of a practicable Medicare rate) to use the prevailing rate, the ACD has no obligation to comply with this provision. As a result, the ABA reimbursement rates under the ACD may be established through different mechanisms.

When TRICARE reimburses individual professional providers, they are reimbursed at the rate known as the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC). In general, the CMAC rates mirror the Medicare rates. The CMAC rates are adjusted by geographic locality by using the Medicare Geographic Price Cost Index (GPCI). The geographic locality adjustments are in place for approximately 70 areas in the United States.

With the publication of the ACD policy in September, 2014, the Department came under intense criticism from providers that the rate reduction for one-on-one ABA by BCBAs from $125 to $68 was too drastic and out of line with existing market rates. Some providers indicated that they would disengage TRICARE beneficiaries as a result of the proposed rate reduction. The Department responded by placing the rate reduction in abeyance pending a complete analysis of the ACD reimbursement rates by the RAND Corporation and further evaluation and a determination of appropriate rates by the Department.

Extensive analysis of ABA reimbursement rates in effect for both commercial insurers and Medicaid, including data collected by RAND, indicate that the reimbursement rate of $125/hour for one-on-one ABA for BCBAs that TRICARE is currently paying is above the prevailing rate in most locations. In many instances, TRICARE is either the highest or one of the highest payers. As a result of this extensive analysis, the Department will adjust ABA reimbursement rates under the ACD to be more consistent with other payers and implement geographic adjustments based on GPCI. Once national rates for all of the ABA CPT codes are determined, then adjustments for local wage indices or geographic localities will be applied on an annual basis. In addition to alignment with geographic rates, adjustments will be made for provider type (Ph.D. level, master's level, bachelor's level, and technician). National rates will be established via an independent Government analysis using all available data, including but not limited to the results of the independent RAND ABA study. Although the general 15% limitation on reduction of TRICARE reimbursement rates set forth in 10 U.S.C. 1079(h)(2) does not apply to rate determinations for demonstrations established under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1092, the Department will nonetheless gradually reduce rates (if needed based on the results of the independent analysis) by no more than 15% per year until alignment with the prevailing geographic rate based on provider type is reached.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS).

The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. The Designated Federal Officer will give a status update on the Committee's requests for information. The Committee will receive briefings on increasing female accessions, USSOCOM studies, and the USMC will give an update on the Infantry Officer Course and presentation on their Personal Protective Gear. Additionally, the Committee will receive a briefing from OSD Health Affairs and a briefing from DoD SAPRO and ODMEO on gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. Insight Policy Research will provide a briefing on the Committee's installation visits and focus group findings. The Services will provide briefings on their pregnancy and postpartum policies. There will also be a public comment period.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the point of contact listed at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 5 p.m., Monday, June 15, 2015. If a written statement is not received by Monday, June 15, 2015, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted. After reviewing the written comments, the Chair and the Designated Federal Officer will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Two minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Thursday, June 18, 2015 from 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. in front of the full Committee. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.

Background: The Denali Commission (Commission) is an independent federal agency based on an innovative federal-state partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure and support for economic development and training in Alaska by delivering federal services in the most cost-effective manner possible. The Commission was created in 1998 with passage of the October 21, 1998, Denali Commission Act (Act) (Title III of Pub. L. 105-277, 42 U.S.C. 3121).

The Commission's mission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local governments and collaborate with all Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to develop a well-trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy, and to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure.

By creating the Commission, Congress mandated that all parties involved partner together to find new and innovative solutions to the unique infrastructure and economic development challenges in America's most remote communities.

Pursuant to the Act, the Commission determines its own basic operating principles and funding criteria on an annual federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) basis. The Commission outlines these priorities and funding recommendations in an annual Work Plan. The Work Plan is adopted on an annual basis in the following manner, which occurs sequentially as listed:

• Project proposals are solicited from local government and other entities.

• Commissioners forward a draft version of the Work Plan to the Federal Co-Chair.

• The Federal Co-Chair approves the draft Work Plan for publication in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for a 30-day period of public review and written comment. During this time, the draft Work Plan is also disseminated widely to Commission program partners including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), and the United States Department of Agriculture—Rural Development (USDA-RD).

• Public comment concludes and Commission staff provides the Federal Co-Chair with a summary of public comment and recommendations, if any, associated with the draft Work Plan.

• If no revisions are made to the draft, the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of approval of the Work Plan to the Commissioners, and forwards the Work Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; or, if there are revisions the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of modifications to the Commissioners for their consideration and approval, and upon receipt of approval from Commissioners, forwards the Work Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval.

• The Secretary of Commerce approves the Work Plan.

• The Federal Co-Chair then approves grants and contracts based upon the approved Work Plan.

The Commission has historically received federal funding from several sources. These fund sources are governed by the following general principles:

• In FY 2015 no project specific direction was provided by Congress.

• The Energy and Water Appropriation (i.e. discretionary funding) is eligible for use in all programs.

• Certain appropriations are restricted in their usage. Where restrictions apply, the funds may be used only for specific program purposes.

• Final appropriation funds received may be reduced due to Congressional action, rescissions by the Office of Management and Budget, and other federal agency action.

• All Energy and Water Appropriation funds, including operating funds, designated as “up to” may be reassigned to other programs, if they are not fully expended in a program component area or a specific project.

• Total FY 2015 Budgetary Resources provided:

These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled “FY 2015 Appropriation” and are the original appropriations amounts which do not include Commission operating funds. These funds are identified by their source name (i.e., Energy and Water Appropriation, TAPL, etc.). The grand total for all appropriations appears at the end of the FY 2015 Funding Table.

• Total FY 2015 Program Available Funding:

These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled “FY 2015 Appropriations—Program Available” and are the amounts of funding available for program(s) activities after Commission operating funds have been deducted. The FY 2015 appropriations bill contains language that the Commission may utilize more than five percent for operating costs, Notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali Commission Act of 1998.

However only, five percent of Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) Trust Funds are used for agency operating purposes. The grand total for all program available funds appears at the end of the FY 2015 Funding Table.

• Program Funding:

These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled with the specific Program and Sub-Program area, and are the amounts of funding the Draft FY 2015 Work Plan recommends, within each program fund source for program components.

• Subtotal of Program Funding:

These are the figures that appear in rows entitled “subtotal” and are the subtotals of all program funding within a given fund source. The subtotal must always equal the Total FY 2015 Program Available Funding.

The following section provides narrative discussion for each of the Commission Programs identified for funding in the FY 2015 funding table above.

The Energy Program is the Commission's original program and focuses on bulk fuel facilities and rural power system upgrades/power generation (RPSU) across rural Alaska. About 94% of electricity in rural communities is produced by diesel generators and about half of the fuel storage in most villages is used for these power plants. The majority of the Commission's work in the energy program is carried out by two of our long-standing partners: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), an agency of the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), a non-profit member Organization serving 56 communities.

Since inception of the agency, the Commission has partnered with AEA on rural energy investments, and shortly thereafter, AVEC also became a program partner to address deficiencies in fuel storage and generation in the cooperative's communities. In recent years, a single combined list of energy projects has been compiled for both bulk fuel and RPSU programs. AEA maintains documents on their Web site that identify the universe of need for each of the programs and provides project status updates (see following links): http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/RPSU/Documents/RPSUStatusDec2014.pdf, http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/RPSU/Documents/RPSUStatusDec2014.pdf.

The legacy projects prioritized for FY 2015 funding are listed below within the two energy program themes: Bulk fuel and RPSU. The selected projects in the table below exceed FY 2015 funding levels (both TAPL and Energy and Water Appropriation), with the understanding that projects may proceed out of order due to factors such as the extended period of time between project selections, draft Work Plan development, and grant execution; match funding availability; and due diligence requirements.

Beginning in FY 2012, Energy and Water Appropriations were subject to a statutory cost share requirement for construction activities of 20% for distressed communities and 50% for non-distressed communities. That cost share match requirement has since been applied to all energy program funding sources. All projects prioritized for FY 2015 funding, with the exception of Shungnak bulk fuel upgrade, are in distressed communities and will include at least a 20% project cost share match.

In FY 2015, the Commission, AEA, and AVEC will investigate opportunities with existing bulk fuel storage facilities to refurbish the infrastructure resulting in code compliance and significant extension of the life of the facilities at a reduced cost versus complete replacement. The Commission provided funding to AEA to update the statewide bulk fuel inventory assessment, which will help inform all parties of the potential for refurbishment of facilities. The updated assessment is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2015 and therefore applied to FY 2016 investments if applicable. The refurbishment approach was considered for the AVEC projects listed in the bulk fuel project table.

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

Title of Collection: Application for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program.

OMB Control Number: 1860-0504.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,900.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 46,400.

Abstract: The United States Presidential Scholars Program is a national recognition program to honor outstanding graduating high school seniors. Candidates are invited to apply based on academic achievements on the SAT or ACT assessments, or on artistic merits based on participation in a national talent program. This program was established by Presidential Executive Orders 11155 and 12158.

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

Title of Collection: Pell Grant Reporting under the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0039.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,488,843.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 594,219.

Abstract: The Federal Pell Grant program is a student financial assistance program authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The program provides grant assistance to an eligible student attending an institution of higher education. The institution determines the student's award and disburses program funds on behalf of the Department of Education (ED).

Institutions are still required to report student Pell Grant payment information to ED electronically. Electronic reporting is conducted through the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. The COD system is used by institutions to request, report, and reconcile grant funds received from the Pell Grant program.

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

Title of Collection: Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico.

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,591.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 773.

Abstract: The study will examine relationships between non-cognitive factors (e.g., growth mindset, learning strategies, and self-efficacy) and school environment and contextual factors (e.g., perceptions of school safety, supportive teachers and counselors, usefulness of academic work) and three measures of successful 9th grade transitions—overall freshman GPA, number of 9th grade course failures, and freshman year attendance for three districts in New Mexico. It will also examine whether non-cognitive and school environment factors contribute to the prediction of successful 9th grade transitions after academic factors have been taken into account. The study will use data that will be collected via a survey that was created with assistance from members of the New Mexico Achievement Gap Alliance. The survey data will be used in combination with extant student-level academic and demographic data that will be obtained from the New Mexico Public Education Department. This study will also include comparisons between Hispanic, Native American and white students.

Introduction

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11)) requires the Department to publish in the Federal Register this notice of an altered system of records. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 34 CFR part 5b.

The Privacy Act applies to any record about an individual that is maintained in a system of records from which individually identifying information is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”

The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish notices of systems of records in the Federal Register and to prepare and send reports to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB whenever the agency publishes a new or altered system of records. Each agency is also required to send copies of the report to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These reports are included to permit an evaluation of the probable effect of the proposal on the privacy rights of individuals.

Since the last publication of the FOIA and PA Tracking System of records in the Federal Register on June 4, 1999 (64 FR 30106, 30119-22), a number of changes have been identified that are needed to update and accurately depict the current state of the system of records.

The changes in the attached notice for the FOIA and PA Tracking System are numerous.

First, the system location has been updated to reflect the relocation of the Department's data center; to change its numbering from 18-04-02 to 18-05-20, and change the system location from the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to the Office of Management (OM).

Second, the paragraph in the notice describing the categories of individuals covered by the system is being updated to include individuals who have submitted requests for FOIA administrative appeals; individuals whose requests for records have been referred to the Department by other agencies; individuals who are the subject of such requests, appeals; and/or personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals.

Third, the paragraph in the notice describing the categories of records contained in the system originally stated that copies of requested records were not maintained in the system. This notice is updating the categories of records in the system to state that copies of requested records are maintained in the system. In addition, the categories of records in the system have been updated to include the following records and related correspondence on individuals: requester's name, address, telephone number, email address, amount of fees paid and payment delinquencies, if any; the original requests and administrative appeals, responses to such requests and appeals, all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation, summary of log, and in some instances, copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal.

Fourth, the routine uses of records maintained in the system have been updated and two new routine uses will be added.

The Department proposes to revise routine use (3)(a)(iii) “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosures” to permit the Department to disclose certain records from this system to the parties described in routine use paragraphs (3)(b) “Disclosure to the Department of Justice (DOJ),” (3)(c) “Administrative Disclosures,” and (3)(d) “Parties, Counsel, Representatives, and Witnesses” for any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the DOJ has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee. This proposed routine use is compatible with this system of records because it will allow the Department to disclose records from this system of records as needed to obtain legal representation for Department employees.

The Department proposes to revise routine use (6) “Labor Organization Disclosure” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to an arbitrator to resolve disputes under a negotiated grievance procedure or to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation. This proposed routine use is compatible with this system of records because it will permit the Department to fulfill its statutory obligation to allow a labor organization to perform its duties of exclusive representation and it will permit the disclosure of records to arbitrators as needed to resolve disputes pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.

The Department also proposes to revise routine use (7) “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Advice Disclosure” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to the Department of Justice and OMB if the Department concludes that disclosure is desirable or necessary in determining whether particular records are required to be disclosed under the FOIA or the Privacy Act. This proposed routine use is compatible with the purposes of this system because it will permit the Department to obtain counsel necessary to ensure that individual privacy rights are protected and FOIA requirements are met and followed.

The Department proposes to add a new, routine use (13) “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the Department has determined that as a result for the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This proposed routine use is compatible with the purposes of the system because it will permit the Department to take appropriate steps in response to a breach of personally identifiable information that is maintained in this system and to abide by the requirements relating to a breach of personally identifiable information that are set forth in OMB Memorandum 07-16 “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information.”

The Department proposes to add a new, routine use (14) “Disclosure to National Archives Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS),” to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.

Fifth, the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system have been updated to include storage of data in a computer database, because the original FOIA and PA Tracking System notice omitted this. Further, the retention and disposal policy has been updated to comply with the General Records Schedule (GRS) approved by NARA.

Sixth, the description of safeguards has been updated to include additional security measures that have been put in place.

Finally, the Department updated the description of the system managers and their addresses to reflect minor changes in addresses.

The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: This ICR renewal is related to EPA's diesel fuel regulations under 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, applicable to highway (“motor vehicle” or “MV”) diesel fuel and non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel (NRLM) and heating oil (HO). Most of the information collected under this ICR is used to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the regulations. Since virtually all MV diesel fuel was required to meet a 15 part per million (ppm) standard as of June 1, 2010, very little reporting related to MV diesel fuel remains. However, reporting related to NRLM and HO will continue throughout the course of this proposed ICR renewal. The activities associated with this ICR include: Registration (all parties have registered; updates to existing registrations are still possible); compliance reports (mostly covering NRLM and HO; updates to prior compliance reports for MV diesel are still possible); research and development (R&D) exemptions; generation and retention of quality assurance (QA) records and foreign refiner recordkeeping and reporting. This ICR renewal contains provisions related to qualification of laboratories on performance-based test methods.

Form Numbers: 12.

Respondents/affected entities: Private businesses selling diesel fuel.

Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 6,806 (total).

Frequency of response: quarterly, annually, on occasion.

Total estimated burden: 11,078 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $1,122,716 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: For this renewal, we estimated a total annual respondent burden of 25,553 reports, a decrease of 239,853 reports from the last ICR approved by OMB. The number of hours decreased from 18,950 hours to 11,078 hours, a difference of 7,902 hours per year. The annual reporting and hourly burden decreased due to an expiring yellow 124 provision no longer required for diesel fuel. In this renewal, the Agency is also adding the electronic ECA Marine Fuel Precision Demonstration form. A contributing factor to the lowering of the industry cost was the salaries quoted in the “Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, mean wages.” The salaries that assisted in calculating the labor mix had slightly declined. This change has caused a decrease in the cost per report in this collection from $110 per report to $101 per report. The total estimated cost to industry is $1,122,716 a year, a difference of $ 961,784 calculated from the prior collection approved by OMB. For future approvals, we project that the cost to report will decrease significantly. The burden related to MV diesel reporting will phase out and virtually all laboratory qualification applications for test methods will be completed, decreasing total industry burden.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Clean Air Act section 231 (42 U.S.C. 7571) authorizes EPA to adopt emission standards for aircraft engines. The Clean Air Act additionally provides broad authority for EPA to collect information related to the regulations we adopt for aircraft and other emission sources (42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(1)). EPA is accordingly adopting a new set of emission standards for aircraft gas turbine engines and adding a requirement for manufacturers to submit information related to compliance with the emission standards.

Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 10 (total).

Frequency of response: Annual.

Currently approved estimated burden: 60 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Currently approved estimated cost: No annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: The final ICR submitted to OMB will contain revised burden estimates that reflect any changes to the collection over the past three years and any public comments received.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA responsibility for regulating air pollution from outer continental shelf (OCS) sources located offshore of the states along the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Coasts, and along the eastern Gulf of Mexico coast (off the coast of Florida). In general, these OCS sources must obtain preconstruction permits (usually Prevention of Significant Deterioration or “PSD” permits) and title V operating permits, and then maintain ongoing compliance with their permit conditions. Industry respondents include owners or operators of existing and new or modified OCS sources. These respondents must prepare permit applications and, after receiving their permits, conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as required by their permits. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are necessary so that EPA can determine whether these sources are meeting all the requirements that apply to them. EPA has delegated the authority to implement and enforce the OCS regulations for sources located off the coast of California to four local air pollution control agencies. These agency respondents must review sources' permit applications and reports, issue permits, observe performance tests and conduct inspections to ensure that the sources are meeting all the requirements that apply to them. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) requires that all federal actions conform with the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Depending on the type of action, the federal entities must collect information themselves, hire consultants to collect the information or require applicants/sponsors of the federal action to provide the information.

The type and quantity of information required will depend on the circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an applicability determination. If the source is located within 25 miles of the state's seaward boundaries as established in the regulations, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area. State and local air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide information concerning regulation of offshore sources and are provided opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations.

Respondents/affected entities: State governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 42 (total).

Frequency of response: Annual.

Currently approved estimated burden: 28,174 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Currently approved estimated cost: $2,532,887, which includes no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: The final ICR submitted to OMB will contain revised burden estimates that reflect any changes to the collection over the past three years and any public comments received.

Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report(s):

1. Report title: Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks.

Agency form number: FR 2502q.

OMB control number: 7100-0079.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Reporters: Major foreign branches and banking subsidiaries of U.S. depository institutions that are located in the Caribbean or the United Kingdom.

Estimated annual reporting hours: 124 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: 1 hour.

Number of respondents: 31.

General description of report: This information collection is required (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2), 461, 602, and 625).

Abstract: U.S. commercial banks, bank holding companies, including financial holding companies, and banking Edge and agreement corporations (U.S. banks) are required to file this reporting form for their large branches and banking subsidiaries that are located in the United Kingdom or the Caribbean. The FR 2502q collects, for each reporting office, claims on and liabilities to residents of individual countries as of each quarter-end. The data are used to construct a piece of the flow of funds data that are compiled by the Federal Reserve.

Current Actions: On March 12, 2015 the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 13001) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks. The comment period for this notice expired on May 11, 2015. The Federal Reserve received one comment supporting the revisions. The revisions will be implemented as proposed, effective with the September 30, 2015 report date.

2. Report title: Quarterly Report of Interest Rates on Selected Direct Consumer Installment Loans and Quarterly Report of Credit Card Plans.1

Agency form number: FR 2835; FR 2835a.

OMB control number: 7100-0085.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Reporters: Commercial banks.

Estimated annual reporting hours: FR 2835: 176 hours; FR 2835a: 100 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: FR 2835: 0.29 hours; FR 2835a: 0.50 hours.

Number of respondents: FR 2835: 150; FR 2835a: 50.

General description of report: These information collections are authorized by Sections 2A, 11, and 12A of the Federal Reserve Act and are voluntary (12 U.S.C. 225a, 248(a)(2), 263, 348a and 353-359). Information requested on the FR 2835 is not confidential and respondents are made aware that information reported is made available to the public. Aggregate information collected on the FR 2835a is not considered confidential; however, individual respondent data is considered confidential under section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Abstract: The FR 2835 collects information from a sample of commercial banks on interest rates charged on loans for new vehicles and loans for other consumer goods and personal expenses. The data are used for the analysis of household financial conditions.

The FR 2835a collects information on two measures of credit card interest rates from a sample of commercial banks with $1 billion or more in credit card receivables and a representative group of smaller issuers. The data are used to analyze the credit card market and draw implications for the household sector.

Current Actions: On March 12, 2015 the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 13001) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the Quarterly Report of Interest Rates on Selected Direct Consumer Installment Loans and Quarterly Report of Credit Card Plans. The comment period for this notice expired on May 11, 2015. The Federal Reserve received one comment supporting the revisions. The revisions will be implemented as proposed.

3. Report title: Census of Finance Companies.

Agency form number: FR 3033p.

OMB control number: 7100-0277.

Frequency: Every five years.

Reporters: Domestic finance companies.

Estimated annual reporting hours: 8,000 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: 0.5 hours.

Number of respondents: 16,000.

General description of report: This information collection is authorized by law (12 U.S.C. 225a, 263, 348a, and 353-359) and is voluntary. Individual responses are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Abstract: The Census of Finance Companies is a simple screening survey, which would be sent in June 2015 to all companies that meet criteria developed to identify the potential universe of domestic finance companies. An accurate census is required to form a representative sample of finance companies, to which the more detailed Survey of Finance Companies would be sent. The census would gather limited information including total assets, areas of specialization, and information on the corporate structure of the companies. The Federal Reserve has identified approximately 40,000 firms to which the census would be sent.

Current Actions: On March 12, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 13001) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR 3033p. The comment period for this notice expired on May 11, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. The revisions will be implemented as proposed.

Federal Agencies continue to express concerns about potential risks in the products, services, and solutions they purchase. These concerns extend to all purchased items that connect in any way to a government information system and/or which contain, transmit, or process information provided by or generated for the government to support the operations and assets of a Federal agency.

Federal Agencies need better visibility into, and understanding of, how the products, services, and solutions they buy are developed, integrated, and deployed. Agencies are also interested in strengthening confidence in the processes, procedures, and practices used to improve the integrity, security, resilience, and quality of those products and services.

GSA is collaborating with its customer agencies and other stakeholders to establish a common set of risk indicators that can be used as the baseline for business due diligence research. This common core of risk indicators and risk research methodologies will be complementary to, and not a replacement for, existing government supply chain risk management activities.

Following a period of research and development to analyze and validate risk assessment processes, GSA intends to use a consensus set of common risk indicators from government and industry to enhance its current risk assessment processes. It is anticipated that the business due diligence information obtained will be used by the Federal acquisition, grant, and oversight communities to support government risk assessments. Selection of contractors about which information may be collected during the assessment process will be a risk-based decision made at the discretion of a participating agency.

Definition: Information system in this notice means a discrete set of information resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. Information systems also include specialized systems such as industrial or process controls systems, telephone switching or private branch exchange (PBX) systems, and environmental control systems (see, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53 Rev. 4). Links to relevant documents can be found at: Business Due Diligence RFI: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230732591f542b7da9b9fc3e6c167eec&tab=core&_cview=0; Executive Order 13636, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/176547.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: National Implementation of the Hospital CAHPS Survey; Use: The HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey, also known as the CAHPS® Hospital Survey or Hospital CAHPS®, is a standardized survey instrument and data collection methodology that has been in use since 2006 to measure patients' perspectives of hospital care. While many hospitals collect information on patient satisfaction, HCAHPS created a national standard for collecting and public reporting information that enables valid comparisons to be made across all hospitals to support consumer choice. Form Number: CMS-10102 (OMB control number 0938-0981); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 4,200; Total Annual Responses: 3,100,000; Total Annual Hours: 413,230. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact William Lehrman at 410-786-1037.)

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through competitive marketplace, called Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance Marketplace, and “Marketplace”). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the Marketplace. The APOE (the Panel) allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2015, and will terminate on January 21, 2017 unless renewed by appropriate action.

Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel are: Samantha Artiga, Principal Policy Analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation; Joseph Baker, President, Medicare Rights Center; Kellan Baker, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Philip Bergquist, Manager, Health Center Operations, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Outreach & Enrollment Project and Director, Michigan Primary Care Association; Marjorie Cadogan, Executive Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services; Barbara Ferrer, Chief Strategy Officer, W. K. Kellogg Foundation; Shelby Gonzales, Senior Health Outreach Associate, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities; Jan Henning, Benefits Counseling & Special Projects Coordinator, North Central Texas Council of Governments' Area Agency on Aging; Louise Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Miriam Mobley-Smith, Dean, Chicago State University, College of Pharmacy; Ana Natale-Pereira, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Associate Medical Director, Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island; Megan Padden, Vice President, Sentara Health Plans; Jeanne Ryer, Director, New Hampshire Citizens Health Initiative, University of New Hampshire; Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Winston Wong, Medical Director, Community Benefit Director, Kaiser Permanente and Darlene Yee-Melichar, Professor & Coordinator, San Francisco State University.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the June 25, 2015 meeting will include the following:

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

Agenda: The committees will discuss the results of post-marketing studies evaluating the misuse and/or abuse of reformulated OXYCONTIN (oxycodone hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 022272, manufactured by Purdue Pharma L.P. The committees will discuss whether these studies have demonstrated that the reformulated OXYCONTIN product has had a meaningful impact on abuse of OXYCONTIN.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June 22, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on July 8, 2015. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 12, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 15, 2015.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

FDA's regulations governing the format and content of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products were revised in the Federal Register of January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3922), to require that the labeling of new and recently approved products contain highlights of prescribing information, a table of contents for prescribing information, reordering of certain sections, minor content changes, and minimum graphical requirements. These revisions were intended to make it easier for health care practitioners to access, read, and use information in prescription drug labeling; to enhance the safe and effective use of prescription drug products; and to reduce the number of adverse reactions resulting from medication errors due to misunderstood or incorrectly applied drug information.

Currently, § 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56) requires that prescription drug labeling contain certain information in the format specified in either § 201.57 (21 CFR 201.57) or § 201.80 (21 CFR 201.80), depending on when the drug was approved for marketing. Section 201.56(a) sets forth general labeling requirements applicable to all prescription drugs. Section 201.56(b) specifies the categories of new and more recently approved prescription drugs subject to the revised content and format requirements in §§ 201.56(d) and 201.57. Section 201.56(c) sets forth the schedule for implementing these revised content and format requirements. Section 201.56(e) specifies the sections and subsections, required and optional, for the labeling of older prescription drugs not subject to the revised format and content requirements.

Section 201.57(a) requires that prescription drug labeling for new and more recently approved prescription drug products include “Highlights of Prescribing Information.” “Highlights” provides a concise extract of the most important information required under § 201.57(c) (the Full Prescribing Information (FPI)), as well as certain additional information important to prescribers. Section 201.57(b) requires a table of contents to prescribing information, entitled “Full Prescribing Information: Contents,” consisting of a list of each heading and subheading along with its identifying number to facilitate health care practitioners' use of labeling information. Section 201.57(c) specifies the contents of the FPI. Section 201.57(d) mandates the minimum specifications for the format of prescription drug labeling and establishes minimum requirements for key graphic elements such as bold type, bullet points, type size, and spacing.

Older drugs not subject to the revised labeling content and format requirements in § 201.57 are subject to labeling requirements at § 201.80. Section 201.80(f)(2) requires that within 1 year, any FDA-approved patient labeling be referenced in the “Precautions” section of the labeling of older products and either accompany or be reprinted immediately following the labeling.

In the Federal Register of January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2943), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received two comments, however, these comments did not address the information collection.

Annual Burden for Prescription Drug Labeling Design, Testing, and Submitting to FDA for New Drug Applications (NDAs) and Biologics License Applications (BLAs) (§§ 201.56 and 201.57).

New drug product applicants must: (1) Design and create prescription drug labeling containing “Highlights”, “Contents”, and FPI; (2) test the designed labeling (e.g., to ensure that the designed labeling fits into carton-enclosed products); and (3) submit it to FDA for approval. Based on the projected data used in the January 24, 2006, final rule, FDA estimates that it takes applicants approximately 3,349 hours to design, test, and submit prescription drug labeling to FDA as part of an NDA or a BLA under the revised regulations. Currently, approximately 131 applicants submit approximately 196 new applications (NDAs and BLAs) to FDA annually, totaling 656,404 hours.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collections of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

FDA regulations require the distribution of patient labeling, called Medication Guides, for certain prescription human drug and biological products used primarily on an outpatient basis that pose a serious and significant public health concern requiring distribution of FDA-approved patient medication information. These Medication Guides inform patients about the most important information they should know about these products in order to use them safely and effectively. Included is information such as the drug's approved uses, contraindications, adverse drug reactions, and cautions for specific populations, with a focus on why the particular product requires a Medication Guide. These regulations are intended to improve the public health by providing information necessary for patients to use certain medication safely and effectively.

The regulations contain the following reporting requirements that are subject to the PRA:

• 21 CFR 208.20—Applicants must submit draft Medication Guides for FDA approval according to the prescribed content and format.

• 21 CFR 314.70(b)(3)(ii) and 21 CFR 601.12(f)—Application holders must submit changes to Medication Guides to FDA for prior approval as supplements to their applications.

• 21 CFR 208.24(c)—Each distributor or packer that receives Medication Guides, or the means to produce Medication Guides, from a manufacturer under paragraph (b) of this section shall provide those Medication Guides to each authorized dispenser to whom it ships a container of drug product.

• 21 CFR 208.24(e)—Each authorized dispenser of a prescription drug product for which a Medication Guide is required, when dispensing the product to a patient or to a patient's agent, must provide a Medication Guide directly to each patient unless an exemption applies under 21 CFR 208.26.

• 21 CFR 208.26(a)—Requests may be submitted for exemption or deferral from particular Medication Guide content or format requirements.

On January 8, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0701. The approval expires on April 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments. Comments received by the deadline will also be available for public inspection at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Division of Workplace Programs, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone (240) 276-2716.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establishes the standards for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs under the authority of Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. 7301, and Executive Order No. 12564. As required, HHS published the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Guidelines) in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 [53 FR 11979]. SAMHSA subsequently revised the Guidelines on June 9, 1994 [59 FR 29908], September 30, 1997 [62 FR 51118], November 13, 1998 [63 FR 63483], April 13, 2004 [69 FR 19644], and on November 25, 2008 [73 FR 71858]. On May 15, 2015, HHS published a notice of proposed revisions to the mandatory guidelines which would provide federal executive branch agencies with the option of collecting and testing an oral fluid specimen in addition to urine specimen. The comment period concludes on July 14, 2015.

Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. 7301 note, required the Department to establish scientific and technical guidelines and amendments in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and to publish Mandatory Guidelines which establish comprehensive standards for all aspects of laboratory drug testing and procedures, including standards that require the use of the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests and strict procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for drug testing. These revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines promote and establish standards that use the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests, while reflecting the ongoing process of review and evaluation of legal, scientific, and societal concerns.

SAMHSA's chartered CSAP Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) is the vehicle to provide recommendations to the SAMHSA Administrator for proposed changes to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The DTAB process involves evaluating the scientific supportability of any considered change. To assist the DTAB, we are soliciting written comments and statements from the general public and industry stakeholders regarding a variety of issues related to hair specimen drug testing, including the hair specimen, its collection, specimen preparation, analytes/cutoffs, specimen validity, and initial and confirmatory testing.

We are seeking additional information to inform potential use of hair specimens for drug testing, specifically on the following questions:

Hair Specimen:

• What are the acceptable body locations from which to collect hair for workplace drug testing? What should be done if head hair is not available for collection?

• What hair treatments (i.e., shampoo, conditioning, perm, relaxers, coloring, bleaching, straightening, hair transplant) influence drug concentration in hair and to what degree?

• What are the acceptable reasons for hair testing (i.e., pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, other (fitness for duty, return to duty, etc.))?

Collection:

• What training should a collector receive prior to collecting the hair specimen?

• What is the best protocol to collect the hair specimen?

• Should the hair collection protocol be standardized, including specific instructions on how close to cut the hair specimen to the skin, how to determine the authenticity of the hair specimen, what cutting instruments to use, how to ensure the cutting instruments are decontaminated, and whether the use of collection kits should be required?

• What is the minimum amount of hair that should be collected?

Specimen Preparation:

• What are acceptable protocols for hair specimen preparation, such as cutting/powdering, initial washing, decontamination, and pre-extraction (i.e., digestion, micro pulverization, etc.)?

• Should the washing and decontamination procedures be analyte specific?

• What criteria should be used to determine the acceptability of a specific wash and decontamination procedure? Are there published research studies, with experimental data included, that demonstrate that a particular wash procedure is effective at removing external contaminants while not significantly affecting the amount of incorporated drug related to drug use?

• If washing steps are used for decontamination, should adjustments be made for drug concentrations detected in the wash fluids? What calculations are recommended for these adjustments?

Analytes/Cutoffs:

• What analytes should be measured in hair by the initial and confirmatory tests?

• What initial and confirmation cutoffs should be used for the various hair drug testing analytes?

• For each analyte/drug, what criteria (cutoff) should be used to distinguish external contamination from drug use?

• What unique metabolites or other biomarkers exist to confirm use and to distinguish drug use from external contamination for which the drugs are currently tested?

Specimen Validity:

• Are biomarkers or tests needed to verify that the specimen is authentic human hair?

• Are there appropriate biomarkers or tests for the hair specimen that would reveal adulteration and/or substitution? What are the acceptability criteria for these biomarkers or tests?

• Is the “invalid” result category reasonable for hair testing? If so, what criteria are acceptable to classify a specimen result as invalid?

Testing:

• What technologies are available to perform initial and confirmatory testing on hair specimens?

• What is the best sample for valid quality control/proficiency testing material? How should this quality control/proficiency testing material be prepared? What is the best method to prepare a contaminated hair sample versus a sample that represents drug use?

Discussion

The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS and/or Inland Navigation Rules. Under 72 COLREGS, statutory law and Coast Guard regulations, a vessel may instead meet alternative requirements and the vessel's owner, builder, operator, or agent may apply for a certificate of alternative compliance (COAC). The Chief of the Inspections and Investigations Branch in each Coast Guard District office determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with the 72 COLREGS and/or Inland Navigation Rules, and decides whether to issue the COAC. Once issued, a COAC remains valid until information supplied in the application for the COAC, or the terms of the COAC becomes inapplicable to the vessel. Under the governing statute 1 and regulation,2 the Coast Guard must publish notice of each COAC.

The Coast Guard issued COACs to the following vessels between 2010 and 2014:

This package is a revision to the collection originally approved as the State Preparedness Report, OMB Control Number: 1660-0131. FEMA is updating the name of this collection from “State Preparedness Report” to the “Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—State Preparedness Report (SPR) Unified Reporting Tool” to reflect more accurately the information and method of collection. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), as amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, established an annual requirement for the 56 States and territories to submit a State Preparedness Report (SPR).

PKEMRA requires a report on current capability levels and a description of targeted capability levels from all States and territories receiving non-disaster preparedness grant funds administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Each report must also include a discussion of the extent to which target capabilities identified in the applicable State homeland security plan and other applicable plans are unmet, and an assessment of resources needed to meet the preparedness priorities established under PKEMRA Section 646(e), including: (i) An estimate of the amount of expenditures required to attain the preparedness priorities; and (ii) the extent to which the use of Federal assistance during the preceding fiscal year achieved the preparedness priorities. To meet this requirement, States and territories first identify capability targets through the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and then assess against these targets in the SPR. It is also important to note that the only allowable expenses under the grant awards are for completing the THIRA/SPR and THIRA.

FEMA holds annual after-action calls every January. All state and local jurisdictions that complete the THIRA/SPR are invited to participate and provide feedback on the collection process. FEMA uses this after-action process to gather feedback on the utility of the information and on how the burden can be further reduced. Participation in these calls is voluntary. FEMA estimates that the time it takes to participate in and respond to the THIRA/SPR After Action Conference Calls is one hour per respondent for a total of 123 hours.

Title: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—State Preparedness Report (SPR) Unified Reporting Tool.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0131.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 008-0-19, THIRA-SPR Unified Reporting Tool; FEMA Form 008-0-20, THIRA-SPR Unified Reporting Tool; FEMA Form 008-0-23, THIRA/SPR After Action Conference Calls.

Abstract: This package is a revision to the collection originally approved as the State Preparedness Report. The revised name more accurately reflects exactly what information is collected and how. It serves as a report on the current capability levels and a description of targeted capability levels from all states and territories receiving Federal preparedness assistance administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 123.

Number of Responses: 123.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 71,363 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $3,234,884.79. The estimated annual cost to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services is $10,833,275. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $2,154,074.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy Notice” link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

You may submit your comments and material by methods specified in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions.

Docket: The draft guidance is available in Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

In November 1980, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1) jointly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a joint policy document. (45 FR 85862, December 30, 1980).

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 was issued as a joint FEMA/NRC policy document that provides guidance on the sixteen Planning Standards referenced in FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR 350.5 and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 50. Both agencies use these Planning Standards to evaluate the adequacy of the emergency plans of commercial nuclear power plant owners and operators, and the emergency plans and preparedness of State and local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones surrounding commercial nuclear power plants.

Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 in 1980, four supplementary documents and one addendum (66 FR 22270, May 3, 2001) have been issued that update and modify specific planning and procedural elements. These documents are available online at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026). FEMA and the NRC are considering revising NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 to address stakeholder interest and the various emergency planning and preparedness lessons learned since its initial publication.

Since the publication of these documents, there have been changes to FEMA and NRC regulations, guidance, policies and advances in technology. FEMA, working with the NRC, is soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the draft document “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2. The document is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026).

FEMA and the NRC held two public meetings on August 22, 2012 and September 13, 2012 as well as two public stakeholder engagement sessions held on October 29-31, 2013 and June 25, 2014. The purpose of these public meetings were to: (1) Solicit input from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1; (2) describe the proposed timeline for the revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1; (3) promote transparency, public participation, and collaboration during the NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 revision process; and (4) allow direct input to the writing teams during the writing process. All of the presentation material and meeting notes are available to review online at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026).

Through this Notice, FEMA and NRC are soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the draft document NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2.

FEMA seeks comment on the draft guidance, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026. Based on the comments received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the draft document. FEMA will consider any comments received in the drafting of the final policy. When FEMA issues a final policy, FEMA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the final policy available at http://www.regulations.gov. The final policy will not impose legally binding requirements.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-1615-0016 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Fee Waiver; Request for Fee Exemption.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS sponsoring the collection: I-912; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The collection of information on Form I-912 is necessary in order for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to make a determination that the applicant is unable to pay the application fee for certain immigration benefits.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for this information collection is 505,000 respondents at 1.17 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 590,849.92 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,893,750.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040 Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; (This is not a toll-free number).