Federal Register Vol. 80, No.155,

Title: Export Certificate Request Forms.

OMB Number: 0581-0283.

Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2016.

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

Abstract: The dairy grading program is a voluntary user fee program authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627). The regulations governing inspection and grading services of manufactured or processed dairy products are contained in 7 CFR part 58. International markets are increasing for United States dairy products. Importing countries are requiring certification as to production methods and sources of raw ingredients for dairy products. USDA, AMS, Dairy Grading Branch is the designated agency for issuing sanitary certificates for dairy products in the United States. Exporters must request export certificates from USDA, AMS, Dairy Grading Branch if the importing country requires them.

Need and Use of the Information: In order for AMS to provide the required information on the export sanitary certificates it must collect the information from the exporter. The information required on the sanitary certificates varies from country to country requiring specific forms for each country to collect the information. Such information includes: Identity of the importer and exporter, to describe consignment specifics, and identify border entry point at the country of destination. There are currently 16 different export certificate request forms with ongoing negotiations with at least 5 more countries on possible new sanitary certificates. The information gathered using these forms is only used to create the export sanitary certificate. There has been a change in the overall burden of this submission. The number of export certificate requests has increased significantly since 2012.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.20 hours per response.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 42,084.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 168.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,592 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Dana Coale, Office of the Deputy Administrator, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Room 2968-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20090-6465; Tel: 202-720-4392, Fax: 202-690-3410 or via email at: [email protected].

All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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

The NACMCF was established in 1988, in response to a recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for an interagency approach to microbiological criteria for foods, and in response to a recommendation of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, as expressed in the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the FSIS Internet Web page at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About/NACMCF_Charter/.

The NACMCF provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on public health issues relative to the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply, including development of microbiological criteria and review and evaluation of epidemiological and risk assessment data and methodologies for assessing microbiological hazards in foods. The Committee also provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Departments of Commerce and Defense.

Mr. Brian Ronholm, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, is the Committee Chair; Dr. Susan T. Mayne, Director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), is the Vice-Chair; and Dr. James Rogers, FSIS, is the Executive Secretary.

FSIS will make all materials reviewed and considered by NACMCF regarding its deliberations available to the public. Generally, these materials will be made available as soon as possible after the full Committee meeting. Further, FSIS intends to make these materials available in electronic format on the FSIS Web page (www.fsis.usda.gov), as well as in hard copy format in the FSIS Docket Room. FSIS will try to make the materials available at the start of the full Committee meeting when sufficient time is allowed in advance to do so.

Disclaimer: NACMCF documents and comments posted on the FSIS Web site are electronic conversions from a variety of source formats. In some cases, document conversion may result in character translation or formatting errors. The original document is the official, legal copy.

In order to meet the electronic and information technology accessibility standards in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, NACMCF may add alternate text descriptors for non-text elements (graphs, charts, tables, multimedia, etc.). These modifications only affect the Internet copies of the documents.

Copyrighted documents will not be posted on the FSIS Web site, but will be available for inspection in the FSIS Docket Room.

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/federal-register-notices.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update also is available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service, which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/programs-and-services/email-subscription-service. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, and audiotape) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

All SNAP State agencies and some WIC State agencies conduct EBT using magnetic stripe cards similar to debit or credit cards. Almost all EBT systems today are integrated such that all of the service requirements are provided within a single system to the relevant State agencies, often referred to as a turnkey system. Over the years, some States have obtained SNAP EBT services by contracting for individual EBT service components to one or more service providers (such as authorization platform, retailer management, transaction switching, client help desk services, and card production). A few State agencies have performed certain EBT services themselves, to control costs or meet the needs of State operations. These State-operated services may include such functions as transaction authorization, retailer training and management, EBT card distribution, and management and customer service.

In the WIC Program, several of the State agencies use smart card or chip card systems, sometimes referred to as off-line systems, while others have chosen an on-line system using a magnetic stripe reader. The trend in WIC, for State agencies choosing both mag-stripe and smart card solutions, is toward contracted EBT services via a turnkey processor.

Contractors compete for State EBT business in a comparatively small marketplace. FNS has long encouraged healthy competition in this marketplace because the Agency believes it helps to control costs, ensures a level playing field for businesses who are interested in supporting EBT delivery processes, and encourages innovation. Two of the biggest concerns for FNS and State agencies with the limited competition within the EBT market, are the increased risk for sustainability of the industry over time, and the impact limited competition could have on pricing.

Up until most recently, in the SNAP EBT environment, there have been three dominant primary EBT contractors with State agency EBT contracts. In the WIC EBT environment, these same three on-line EBT SNAP contractors have also provided EBT on-line services for WIC. There are also two other off-line EBT contractors for WIC.

In January 2014, one of the primary contractors announced that the firm would no longer solicit or accept any new prepaid card business, which includes their EBT services. The firm is in the process of fulfilling its existing contracts but is not pursuing any further business in this area. As a result, only two of those three active primary EBT contractors remain in the market. There has been a new entrant to the SNAP market, a company that has been active in the WIC market; however, at this time, it is unclear whether any other firms will choose to enter this market. State agencies have acquired EBT service through one of two major approaches: Procurements dedicated to a single State agency, and multi-state procurements. The latter approach leverages pricing through economies of scale and standardizes requirements and contract provisions in a way that can reduce the burden on contractors of responding to separate contract solicitations by many State agencies. Typical contracts have a base period such as 5 years with several optional extension years, but there are situations where State procurement rules dictate a shorter timeframe with limited renewals. Due to the burden to develop re-procurements and manage the potential transition to a new contractor when an incumbent does not win award, it is not unusual to see a State agency choose to exercise the optional years, resulting in contract lengths of 7-10 years. It is safe to say that FNS and State agencies are interested in the best value and service for EBT projects regardless of the size of a specific State agency.

The Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79 (the Act) has also brought important changes to the SNAP EBT landscape that impacts States and SNAP EBT contractors looking forward.

That legislation removed the requirement for States and their contractors to provide no cost point-of-sale (POS) devices to all authorized SNAP retailers who were not already using a commercial payment provider. The Act also changed manual voucher processing used when retailer sales do not warrant the cost to receive a POS device from the government and for back up during system outages and disasters.

On the WIC side, while there is no new legislation at play, most of the 90 WIC State agencies are beginning to convert to an EBT delivery model to meet the October 1, 2020, deadline mandated by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Public Law 111-296. These State agencies are acquiring services from the on-line and off-line contractors.

In sum, EBT services have developed a pricing model that has evolved since the early projects were initiated in the 1980s. Currently, contractors will bid to provide all the services, including cards, benefit account management, purchase authorization, customer service, retailer equipage and settlement to food retailers for a single cost for each household or case served in a month. Sometimes retailer equipage, pay-phone surcharges for toll-free calls and other fees have been separated from the case-month price. This pricing model allows for fluctuations in caseload related to economic changes or other growth factors. To the degree other pricing models exist, they have not taken root within either SNAP or WIC to date. Pricing can be, and often is, set up in tiers to reduce the case-month fee when certain caseload thresholds are reached either due to increases (or decreases) in household participation or if multiple State agencies have contracted together for economies of scale with the same requirements and contract standards. The major functional components of on-line EBT for SNAP and WIC are outlined in Appendix A, and off-line smart card WIC EBT is described in Appendix B.

This RFI seeks to obtain input from EBT stakeholders, other financial payments industry members and other interested parties regarding options and alternatives available to improve the procurement and operational aspects of EBT. FNS has posed various questions below to prompt stakeholder responses, and, before those, has also noted a few primary concerns and key objectives for this effort.

• Less available competition and potential that smaller State agencies may not receive affordable proposals, or even any proposals, in response to State agency solicitations.

• An increase in procurement activity and system conversions by SNAP State agencies as those using the services of the departing company migrate to the remaining processors.

• Significant increase in procurement activity and system implementation by WIC State agencies leading up to the October 1, 2020, deadline for WIC State agencies to convert to an EBT delivery system.

• Management of risks associated with greater activity in a shorter period of time.

FNS is inviting stakeholder input on how the opportunities and risks associated with these changes can best be recognized and managed. There are two main objectives:

1. Increased competition for EBT services, including that which can possibly be achieved through changes or alternatives to the current business model.

2. More stability and sustainability for this market, including that which can possibly be achieved through alternative pricing models and contract terms.

The Agency will consider all comments, and plans to follow up on alternatives and suggestions that appear to be most viable from both a technical and a cost/benefit standpoint. Responses will help inform any future actions or guidance issued by the Agency, including guidance to States on issuing EBT Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Interested stakeholders are invited to respond to any or all of the following questions, and to identify other issues which may not be listed. Responses which clearly reference the pertinent question below would facilitate FNS' review of the stakeholder feedback.

1. Do State agency procurements provide sufficient information about the operational characteristics of their EBT projects for new entrants to the EBT market? If not, are there alternatives for potential vendors to obtain the information needed?

2. How do State Agency requirements, (such as call center response standards, transaction processing requirements, card issuance timeframes and adjustment policies), compare to commercial practices? Would adjusting some of these requirements to closely resemble the commercial world increase the interest of potential new vendors, or impact contract costs or willingness of current vendors to bid? If so, what requirements or practices should be considered?

3. Are the amounts for liquated damages and penalty clauses currently required by State agencies reasonable? If not, what would be more reasonable amounts or ways for State agencies to safeguard against such problems as project delays, unscheduled system downtime, and below-standard processing times, etc.?

4. Can more economies of scale be realized without increasing complexity through any of the following:

a. Multi-state shared services for commercial call center services, card production and delivery, training and other services?

b. The inclusion of more agencies/programs?

5. Are there requirements for vendor experience that are necessary to establish minimum qualifications to bid to provide EBT services? Are there requirements you have seen that should not be used because you believe that they unnecessarily limit competition?

6. Would any vendors be interested in providing select service components (i.e. call centers, transaction processing, training, etc.) if there were an option to offer proposals for one or some rather than all of the service components? What pricing model(s) would work best for separate services when not bundled into the cost per case month pricing (CPCM)?

7. What alternative procurement models might State Agencies consider to ensure they receive viable competitive bids?

8. Should State agencies pursue coalition procurements with the benefits they bring, such as economies of scale, or does it tend to limit competition or discourage new entrants into the marketplace?

9. Does the impact of the EBT vendor assuming development and implementation costs before they begin processing transactions pose a major barrier to entering the market?

10. Are there ways to separate EBT system development/startup costs from operational costs to reduce risk for new entrants when bidding on a project? If so, what are they? 1

11. Are there other changes to the CPCM pricing model that would encourage potential vendors to enter the EBT market?

12. The tiered pricing model involves tiers within the CPCM pricing model, adjusted at smaller or larger intervals for different caseload levels. How can State consortia which want to procure together better realize economies of scale given their varying caseload sizes, and still benefit from a blended CPCM price based on their collective caseload volumes?

13. Are there pricing models other than the CPCM model that would be advantageous in reducing pricing risk to the vendor and still maintain sustainable prices for the State agencies? How can the disadvantages to State agencies in forecasting expenses be overcome, if costs are no longer tied to caseload levels?

Several stakeholders have advised FNS that too many procurements occurring in close succession may increase the risk that smaller State Agencies may receive fewer or even no bids, as vendors will devote scarce resources to preparing proposals for the most potentially profitable customers. Similarly, if too many implementations or conversions are scheduled in close succession, it may mean that vendors will not have sufficient technical resources to assign their top team to each one. Both of these situations represent risks which FNS would like to help State Agencies manage and mitigate.

14. Besides sharing known and estimated RFP release dates and conversion dates, what can FNS do to help State Agencies manage these risks and ensure smooth transitions?

15. Are there other areas or issues that we have not specifically asked for a response on which you would like to offer comment related to the two main objectives of this RFI?

The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.4

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www/trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum is identical in content.

Based on information Terphane submitted after the initiation of this administrative review and information collected from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Department has preliminarily determined that the record evidence indicates that Terphane currently had no reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Terphane but, rather, to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review, as is our practice.5

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and submit written arguments or case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise notified by the Department.6 Parties are reminded that written comments or case briefs are not the place for submitting new factual material. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later.7 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

Any interested party who wishes to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the day of publication of this notice. A request should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.8 Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued, unless the deadline for the final results is extended.9

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

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f).

The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded.2 PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

On December 1, 2014, Green Packing requested administrative review of subject merchandise exported by itself, and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”) requested an administrative review of subject merchandise exported by Dongfang, Fuwei Films, Green Packing, and Wanhua. Subsequently, on March 23, 2015, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of each company. No other parties requested a review with respect to Dongfang, Fuwei Films, and Wanhua. Therefore, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), is rescinding this administrative review with respect to each company. However, as Green Packing requested administrative review of itself and did not withdraw its request, the Department is continuing its review of Green Packing's exports of subject merchandise during the POR.

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. This memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov/login.aspx and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.3 Because Green Packing failed to establish that it is entitled to a separate rate for the POR, we are treating Green Packing as part of the PRC-wide entity.4 The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding is 76.72 percent.5

Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs.7 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of authorities.8

Further, interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the publication of this notice.9 Electronically filed case briefs/written comments and hearing requests must be received successfully in their entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those issues raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.11 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, including entries of subject merchandise from Green Packing, at 76.72 percent (the PRC-wide rate).12

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 76.72 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs federal agencies with respect to their use of and participation in the development of voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA's objective is for federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards, wherever possible, in lieu of creating proprietary, non-consensus standards. As the implementation of commercial cryptography, which is used to protect U.S. non-national security information and information systems, is now commoditized and built, marketed and used globally, NIST is seeking comments on using the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules standard as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=59142).

The standards for cryptographic module testing, conformance, and validation activities are currently specified by Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2. This standard is used to ensure encryption technologies used by the U.S. Government meet minimally acceptable requirements and can demonstrate an acceptable level of conformance to the Standard that is commensurate with the risk the U.S. Government finds acceptable when using encryption technologies to protect U.S. Government information and information systems.

NIST is interested in the commercial and market effects to U.S. industry and the potential changes to visibility in cryptographic modules conformance to standards, as well as the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 standards ability to meet requirements for the U.S. Government. NIST is also interested in comments on the possible uses of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 that range from use of only selected sections, continuing with a FIPS requirement that cites a baseline version of the ISO/IEC 19790:2014, and/or full use of the ISO/IEC standard. NIST is also interested in feedback on the impacts of a potential U.S. Government requirement for use and conformance using a standard with a fee-based model where organizations must purchase copies of the ISO/IEC 19790:2014.

NIST is particularly interested in comments from commercial implementers of cryptography, testing and conformance organizations, users of cryptography, and organizations who currently require or cite FIPS 140-2 as a normative reference, on the benefits versus risks in using ISO/IEC 19790:2014 rather than FIPS 140-2 from perspectives of technology, implementations, risks and impacts to commercial IT markets. NIST requests comments on the following questions regarding the use of ISO/IEC 19790:2014, but comments on other cryptographic test and conformance issues will also be considered.

(1) Have your customers or users asked for either ISO/IEC 19790:2014 or FIPS 140-2 validations in cryptographic products?

(2) Have the markets you serve asked for either validation and have you noticed any changes in what the markets you serve are asking for?

(3) Do you think the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 standard specifies tests and provides evidence of conformance for cryptographic algorithms and modules better, equally or less as compared to FIPS 140-2 and in what areas?

(4) Is there a difference in risk that you perceive would be mitigated or accepted in use of one standard versus the other?

(5) Are the requirements in ISO/IEC 19790:2014 specific enough for your organization to develop a cryptographic module that can demonstrate conformance to this standard?

(6) Would the U.S. Government citation of an ISO standard that has a fee for access to the standard inhibit your use or implementation of this standard?

(7) Do either FIPS 140-2 or ISO/IEC 19790:2014 have a gap area that is not required for implementation, test or validation that presents an unacceptable risk to users of cryptographic modules?

The responses to this request for information will be used to plan possible changes to the FIPS or in a decision to use all or part of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 for testing, conformance and validation of cryptographic algorithms and modules. In any decision made, it is the intention of NIST to continue specifying requirements for cryptography and cryptographic mechanisms used by the U.S. Government and a program for commercial products to demonstrate conformance to those requirements. It is also the intention of NIST to continue to specify the cryptographic modules, modes and key management schemes that are acceptable for use by the U.S. Government to protect its information and information systems regardless of any test, conformance or validation standards decision.

NIST is reconvening the External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) to develop external RNA controls for gene expression assays. This group has already established a set of 96 RNA control sequences, commonly referred to as the ERCC controls, which is maintained as NIST Standard Reference Material 2374. Participation in the ERCC is open to all. ERCC activities may include:

NIST is collecting nucleic acid sequences to form an extended library of ERCC sequences suitable for the preparation of RNA controls. The RNA control sequences are intended to mimic endogenous RNA molecules, including mRNA, mRNA isoforms, microRNA, and other classes of biological RNA molecules. Intellectual property rights may be maintained on submitted sequences, but submitted sequences must be declared to be free for use as RNA controls. Selected sequence contributions will be experimentally evaluated based on testing of the following three RNA control hypotheses:

Sequence submissions should consist of (1) a single sequence fasta file or multi-fasta file and (2) a single text file containing the following metadata for each submitted sequence:

To submit files or for further questions on sequence submission please contact [email protected].

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. We, NMFS, have been delegated the authority to issue such regulations and Authorizations.

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”

Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012, Federal Register Notice and 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. Under those regulations, we must publish a notice of issuance of an Authorization or Authorization renewal in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

On March 31, 2015, we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): one for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). On June 30, 2015, the Navy submitted an addendum to the SURTASS LFA application for 2015-2016 to reflect consideration of the presence of individuals of the western distinct population segment of spotted seal (Phoca largha) within one mission area in the Sea of Japan. NMFS considered the Navy's application as adequate and complete on July 6, 2015.

NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18, 2013) and again in 2014 (79 FR 49501, August 21, 2014). The Navy's 2015 application for renewal requests that these four Authorizations become effective on August 15, 2015, for a period not to exceed one year.

The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2014 through May 2015 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:

• The Navy conducted a total of seven missions from August 15, 2014, through May 14, 2015, in the western North Pacific Ocean, which totaled 14.4 days and resulted in 35.8 hours of LFA sonar transmissions.

• The cumulative total days of SURTASS LFA sonar operations for the VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), ABLE (T-AGOS 20), EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23), were 99.8, 99.3, 94.9, and 100 percent below the annual levels contemplated in the Final Rule for each vessel respectively (i.e., 240 days per vessel);

• The cumulative total hours of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions for the VICTORIOUS, ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and IMPECCABLE were 99.7, 99.4, 92.6, and 100 percent below the levels contemplated in the Final Rule for each vessel respectively (i.e., 432 hours per vessel);

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2014 Authorizations.

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2014 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.

The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the Final Rule and authorized in the 2014 Authorizations.

The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2014 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2014 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm#surtass.

For the 2015 to 2016 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean that they requested under the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the Final Rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 Final Rule.

Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the Final Rule and 2014 Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.

The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy reports that they are continuing to work on information transfer, declassification and archiving of ambient noise data from the Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System to the public.

Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2014-2015 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2015-2016 Authorizations.

The Final Rule and 2014 Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.

Section 218.241 of the Final Rule describes three scenarios that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time.

On December 4, 2014, April 16, 2015, and June 18, 2015, we and the Navy convened Adaptive Management meetings to review and discuss several topics, including: The Navy's mitigation monitoring results; the Navy's efforts in declassifying and transferring marine mammal monitoring data; consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) under the criteria specified in the Final Rule; and consideration of new information that could potentially inform decisions regarding modifying existing mitigation and/or monitoring measures. Representatives from the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission were also in attendance and participated in December 2014 and April 2015 meetings.

NMFS and the Navy continue to evaluate information relating to areas for potential consideration as OBIAs. All of these areas fall outside the areas in which the Navy may operate under the 2015 Authorizations. None of these areas is located within the Navy's mission areas for the 2015 Authorizations and the Navy will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in these areas within the timeframes of the 2015-2016 Authorizations. Throughout the effective period of the Final Rule, we will continue consider and discuss with the Navy any relevant new information as it arises related to areas that may qualify as potential OBIAs or any other mitigation for SURTASS LFA sonar.

We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.

These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2016, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.

The Committee will meet to review recent stock assessment information from the U.S/Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee and information provided by the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for the 2016 fishing year. They will also review information provided by the Council's Skate PDT and recommend the OFL and ABC for the northeast skate complex for fishing years 2016-18 and address other business as necessary.

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 listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Agenda items:

The panel will continue the development of a Risk Policy “Road Map,” which will address the implementation of the Council's Risk Policy across all Council-managed species; plan future work and address other business as necessary.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment for a period of one year or less, a notice of proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. The term “take” under the MMPA means “to harass, hunt, capture or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

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

Cook Inlet is a semi-enclosed tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska and home to the Cook Inlet beluga whale, a small resident population that was designated as depleted under the MMPA and listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008. The stock has not recovered, despite implementing subsistence hunting regulations in 1999, and cessation of hunting in 2007. In light of this, and in recognition of the increasing industrial activity and development in Cook Inlet, NMFS has taken a number of actions that reflect the high level of concern for the species, including:

1. On October 14, 2014, NMFS announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the effects on the human environment of issuing authorizations for the incidental take of marine mammals from activities occurring in both the state and Federal waters of Cook Inlet, AK, from Knik Arm in the northern part of the Inlet to the southern edge of Kachemak Bay on the southeastern part of the Inlet and to the southern edge of Cape Douglas on the southwestern part of the Inlet (“Cook Inlet beluga EIS”). NMFS included a 75-day public comment period for the Notice of Intent and conducted a scoping meeting in Anchorage Alaska on November 3, 2014.

2. On November 3, 2014, NMFS convened a multi-stakeholder meeting in Anchorage Alaska: Conservation and Recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales in the Context of Continued Development. The purpose of the meeting was to engage stakeholders and begin exploring Cook Inlet specific solutions for mitigating and monitoring adverse effects on belugas, while also allowing for sustainable development. The first day of the two-day workshop was devoted to background and updates related to the status, ecology, and stressors of Cook Inlet belugas and the standards set by the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The second day included an exploration of measures and strategies to minimize anthropogenic impacts, promote recovery, and increase understanding of impacts, as well as a discussion of these objectives in the context of ensuring MMPA and ESA compliance for future activities. Information related to this meeting is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/cookinlet.htm.

3. In May 2015, NMFS unveiled its “Species in the Spotlight: Survive to Thrive” initiative. This initiative includes targeted efforts vital for stabilizing eight species—including the Cook Inlet beluga whale—identified among the most at risk for extinction. The approach involves intensive human efforts to stabilize these species, with the goal that they will become candidates for recovery.

4. On May 15, 2015, NMFS released the Draft Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet belugas. The population continues to show a negative trend, despite the cessation of subsistence since 2005. Although the exact cause of the continued decline in the absence of subsistence hunting is unknown, the Recovery Plan identifies likely threats, including three threats of high relative concern: noise, catastrophic events, and the cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple stressors. Threats of medium relative concern include disease, habitat loss or degradation, reduction in prey, and unauthorized take. Due to an incomplete understanding of the threats facing Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMFS is unable to identify with certainty the actions that will most immediately encourage recovery. Until we know which threats are limiting recovery, the strategy of the Recovery Plan is to focus on threats identified as medium or high concern.

The actions summarized above include multi-year efforts that are not likely to result in substantial changes in the short-term. NMFS announces here additional steps to help inform agency decision making in the interim.

Annual Programmatic EAs—The preparation of an EIS is a lengthy and intensive process that, in the case of the for Cook Inlet beluga EIS, will likely take two or more years. Accordingly, in recognition of our ongoing concern over Cook Inlet belugas, while the Cook Inlet beluga EIS is being prepared, NMFS will develop annual Programmatic Environmental Assessments (EAs) to analyze the effects of issuing of multiple concurrent one-year MMPA authorizations to take Cook Inlet beluga whales. A programmatic EA will aid us in more effectively assessing the aggregate effects of multiple incidental take authorizations and to more comprehensively consider a range of mitigation and monitoring measures in the context of the multiple activities.

MMPA Authorization Cycle (Application Deadlines): To support our efforts to prepare an annual Programmatic EA that covers all MMPA incidental take authorizations issued within a year, NMFS is creating an application cycle for incidental take authorizations that include Cook Inlet beluga whales, beginning with the 2016 open water season. NMFS requests all prospective MMPA incidental take authorization applicants for a given open water season submit their applications by October 1st of the preceding calendar year (unless the activity is scheduled to occur before May, in which case they should be submitted earlier). Receipt of those MMPA applications by October 1 will aid NMFS in the development of a timely and well-informed EA and related MMPA authorizations. NMFS cannot guarantee the processing time for applications received after October 1.

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 ED assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the ED'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. ED is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of ED; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ED enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ED 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: 2016-2017 Federal Student Aid Application.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0001.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 40,135,807.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,560,481.

Abstract: Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance . . .”.

The determination of need and eligibility are for the following title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: the Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.

Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education (hereafter “the Department”), subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).

The Department seeks OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.

This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM), measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:

• The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;

• How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (e.g., by paper or electronically via FOTW®);

• How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates (e.g., the paper SAR or electronically via FOTW Corrections);

• The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);

• The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and

• The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.

The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2016-2017 is based upon two factors—estimating the growth rate of the total enrollment into post-secondary education and applying the growth rate to the FAFSA submissions. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. The Department accounts for each application component based on web trending tools, survey information, and other Department data sources.

For 2016-2017, the Department is reporting a net burden decrease of −3,522,674 hours. This decrease is considered to be an adjustment in burden hours from the 2015-2016 FAFSA.

On January 14, 2008, we published in the Federal Register final regulations for 34 CFR part 462, Measuring Educational Gain in the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS regulations) (73 FR 2306). The NRS regulations established the process the Secretary uses to determine the suitability of tests for use in the NRS by States and local eligible providers. We annually publish in the Federal Register and post on the Internet at www.nrsweb.org a list of the names of tests and the educational functioning levels the tests are suitable to measure in the NRS as required by § 462.12(c)(2).

On April 16, 2008, we published in the Federal Register a notice inviting test publishers to submit tests for review (73 FR 20616).

On February 2, 2010, we published in the Federal Register a notice (February 2010 notice) listing the tests and test forms the Secretary determined to be suitable for use in the NRS (75 FR 5303).

The Secretary determined tests and test forms to be suitable for a period of either seven or three years from the date of the February 2010 notice. A seven-year approval required no additional action on the part of the publisher, unless the information the publisher submitted as a basis for the Secretary's review was inaccurate or unless the test is substantially revised. A three-year approval was issued with a set of conditions to be met by the completion of the three-year period. If these conditions were met, the Secretary would approve a period of time for which the test may continue to be used in the NRS.

On September 12, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 56188) an annual notice of tests determined suitable for use in the NRS (September 2011 notice). The September 2011 notice updated the list published in the February 2010 notice and included suitable test delivery formats. The September 2011 notice clarified that some, but not all, tests using computer-adaptive or computer-based delivery formats are suitable for use in the NRS.

On August 6, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 46749) an annual notice of tests determined suitable for use in the NRS (August 2012 notice) that included the same list of forms and computer delivery formats for the tests published in the September 2011 notice. We also announced a sunset period during which States and local providers could continue to use tests with three-year NRS approvals otherwise expiring on February 2, 2013, during a transition period ending on June 30, 2014.

On January 25, 2013, we announced in the Federal Register (78 FR 5430) an extension of the approval period for tests approved for a three-year period beginning on February 2, 2010. The approval period was extended from February 2, 2013 to September 30, 2013, without affecting the sunset period ending on June 30, 2014.

On December 12, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 75550) an annual notice of tests determined suitable for use in the NRS (December 2013 notice) that updated the August 2012 notice and provided an extension of the approval period for three tests initially approved for a three-year conditional period from February 2, 2010. The approval period was extended to June 30, 2015. We also announced an extension of the approval period for one additional test—a revised version of a test previously approved for a three-year conditional period from February 2, 2010. The approval period for that test also was extended to June 30, 2015.

On October 29, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 64369) an annual notice of tests determined suitable for use in the NRS (October 2014 notice) that updated the December 2013 notice. We announced that the four tests with approvals extended through June 30, 2015, may be used in the NRS during a sunset period ending on June 30, 2016.

In this document, the Secretary announces the list of tests and test forms determined to be suitable for use in the NRS. These include: (1) The eight tests previously approved for a seven-year period from February 2, 2010 through February 2, 2017; (2) three tests previously approved for an extended period through June 30, 2015 and now approved for an extended period through February 2, 2017; and (3) one test—a revised version of a test previously approved for an extended period through June 30, 2015—for which the Secretary is providing approval through February 2, 2017. With respect to the latter four tests, although we have identified several issues that the test publishers still need to address related to the requirements in § 462.13, we are taking this action in light of the following intervening factors. These factors include (1) the Department's plan to implement new descriptors for the NRS educational functioning levels and to issue new regulations that will govern the assessment review process; (2) the Department's desire to minimize disruption for its grantees in the transition to AEFLA as authorized by WIOA, including with respect to measuring educational gain under the NRS; and (3) the attendant transition authority in section 503(c) of WIOA, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to “take such actions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to provide for the orderly transition” from AEFLA as authorized by WIA to AEFLA as authorized by WIOA.

Adult education programs must use only the approved forms and computer-based delivery formats for the tests published in this document. If a particular test form or computer delivery format is not explicitly specified for a test in this notice, it is not approved for use in the NRS.

(a) The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use at all Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary Education (ASE) levels and at all English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS) Reading Assessments (Life and Work, Life Skills, Reading for Citizenship, Reading for Language Arts—Secondary Level). Forms 27, 28, 81, 82, 81X, 82X, 83, 84, 85, 86, 185, 186, 187, 188, 310, 311, 513, 514, 951, 952, 951X, and 952X of this test are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: CASAS, 5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 220, San Diego, CA 92123-4339. Telephone: (800) 255-1036. Internet: www.casas.org/.

(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:

(1) Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS) Life Skills Math Assessments—Application of Mathematics (Secondary Level). Forms 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 505, and 506 of this test are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: CASAS, 5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 220, San Diego, CA 92123-4339. Telephone: (800) 255-1036. Internet: www.casas.org/.

(2) Massachusetts Adult Proficiency Test (MAPT) for Math. This test is approved for use through a computer-adaptive delivery format. Publisher: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and University of Massachusetts Amherst, College of Education, 156 Hills South, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003. Telephone: (413) 545-0564. Internet: www.sabes.org/.

(3) Massachusetts Adult Proficiency Test (MAPT) for Reading. This test is approved for use through the computer-adaptive delivery format. Publisher: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and University of Massachusetts Amherst, College of Education, 156 Hills South, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003. Telephone: (413) 545-0564. Internet: www.sabes.org/.

(4) Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE 9/10). Forms 9 and 10 are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: Data Recognition Corporation—CTB, 13490 Bass Lake Road, Maple Grove, MN 55311. Telephone: 800-538-9547. Internet: www.ctb.com/.

(5) Tests of Adult Basic Education Survey (TABE Survey). Forms 9 and 10 are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: Data Recognition Corporation—CTB, 13490 Bass Lake Road, Maple Grove, MN 55311. Telephone: (800) 538-9547. Internet: www.ctb.com/.

(c) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:

(1) Basic English Skills Test (BEST) Literacy. Forms B, C, and D are approved for use on paper. Publisher: Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th Street NW., Washington, DC 20016-1859. Telephone: (202) 362-0700. Internet: www.cal.org/.

(2) Tests of Adult Basic Education Complete Language Assessment System-English (TABE/CLAS-E). Forms A and B are approved for use on paper. Publisher: Data Recognition Corporation—CTB, 13490 Bass Lake Road, Maple Grove, MN 55311. Telephone: (800) 538-9547. Internet: www.ctb.com/.

(a) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS until February 2, 2017:

(1) General Assessment of Instructional Needs (GAIN)—Test of English Skills. Forms A and B are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: Wonderlic Inc., 400 Lakeview Parkway, Suite 200, Vernon Hills, IL 60061. Telephone: (877) 605-9496. Internet: www.wonderlic.com/.

(2) General Assessment of Instructional Needs (GAIN)—Test of Math Skills. Forms A and B are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: Wonderlic Inc., 400 Lakeview Parkway, Suite 200, Vernon Hills, IL 60061. Telephone: (877) 605-9496. Internet: www.wonderlic.com/.

(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS until February 2, 2017:

(1) Basic English Skills Test (BEST) Plus 2.0. Forms D, E, and F are approved for use on paper and through the computer-adaptive delivery format. Publisher: Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th Street NW., Washington, DC 20016-1859. Telephone: (202) 362-0700. Internet: www.cal.org/.

(2) Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS) Life and Work Listening Assessments (LW Listening). Forms 981L, 982L, 983L, 984L, 985L, and 986L are approved for use on paper and through the computer-based delivery format. Publisher: CASAS, 5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 220, San Diego, CA 92123-4339. Telephone: (800) 255-1036. Internet: www.casas.org/.

The Secretary has determined that the following test may be used at all ESL levels of the NRS during the sunset period ending on June 30, 2016:

Basic English Skills Test (BEST) Plus. Forms A, B, and C are approved for use on paper and through the computer-adaptive delivery format. Publisher: Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th Street NW., Washington, DC 20016-1859. Telephone: (202) 362-0700. Internet: www.cal.org/.

The sunset period for an expiring test allows a State and local provider to transition to other tests suitable for use in the NRS. The State and local provider may use the transition period to select new tests, purchase appropriate inventories of assessment materials, and provide training to staff.

Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may revoke the determination that a test is suitable (see 34 CFR 462.12(e)). If the Secretary revokes the determination of suitability, the Secretary announces through the Federal Register and posts on the Internet at www.nrsweb.org a notice of that revocation, along with the date by which States and local eligible providers must stop using the revoked test.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (such as braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice.

Electronic Access to This Document: 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.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB Chairs welcome the attendance of the public at their 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 Catherine Alexander at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed either before or after the meeting with the Designated Federal Officer, David Borak, at the address or telephone listed above. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should also contact David Borak. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling David Borak at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/em/services/communication-engagement/em-site-specific-advisory-board-em-ssab/chairs-meetings.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. Established in 1975 under FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). FIFRA established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Agency.

In accordance with the statute, the SAP is composed of a permanent panel of seven members, selected and appointed by the Deputy Administrator of EPA, as designated by the Administrator from nominees submitted by both the NSF and the NIH. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting two new members to serve on the panel as a result of membership terms that will expire this year. The Agency requested nominations of experts to be selected from the fields of human toxicology, environmental toxicology, pathology, risk assessment and/or environmental biology with demonstrated experience and expertise in all phases of the risk assessment process including: Planning, scoping, and problem formulation; analysis; and interpretation and risk characterization (including the interpretation and communication of uncertainty). Nominees should be well published and current in their field of expertise. The statute further stipulates that we publish the name, address and professional affiliation in the Federal Register.

A Charter for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel dated October 17, 2014 was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App. I).

Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert comments on the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the Panel by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). The Deputy Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Panel for staggered terms of 3 years. Panel members are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 3, subpart F, Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees, which include rules regarding conflicts of interest. Each nominee selected by the Deputy Administrator, before being formally appointed, is required to submit a confidential statement of employment and financial interests, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any.

In accordance with section 25(d)(1) of FIFRA, the Deputy Administrator shall require all nominees to the Panel to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, educational background, employment history, and scientific publications.

With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest, the Charter provides that EPA's existing regulations applicable to Special Government Employees, which include advisory committee members, will apply to the members of the Scientific Advisory Panel. These regulations appear in 40 CFR part 3, subpart F. In addition, the Charter provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation.

In accordance with the provisions of section 25(d) of FIFRA, EPA, on April 21, 2015, requested that the NIH and the NSF nominate scientists to fill vacancies occurring on the Panel. The Agency requested nominations of experts in the fields of human toxicology, environmental toxicology, pathology, risk assessment, and/or environmental biology with demonstrated experience and expertise in all phases of the risk assessment process including: Planning, scoping, and problem formulation; analysis; and interpretation and risk characterization (including the interpretation and communication of uncertainty). NIH and NSF responded by letter, providing the Agency with a total of 34 nominees. Copies of these letters, with the listed nominees, are available in the public docket referenced in unit I.B.1. of this notice. Of the 34 nominees, 18 are interested and available to actively participate in SAP meetings (see Section IV. Nominees). One nominee is currently serving as member of the FIFRA SAP, and is not listed. In addition to the current nominees interested, at EPA's discretion, nominees who were interested and available during the previous nomination process in the January 24, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 4158) (FRL-9904-66), may also be considered. Of the current 34 nominations, the following 15 individuals are not available:

Following are the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of current nominees being considered for membership on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency anticipates selecting two individuals to fill vacancies occurring in 2015.

i. Expertise: Epidemiology control of arthropod-borne diseases including evaluation of vector ecology, habitat management, and adult control strategies, disease risk modeling using GIS and remote sensing technologies, and evaluation of chemical actions against mosquito vectors under both laboratory and field conditions.

ii. Education: Ph.D. Medical Entomology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; MSc, Zoology, Texas A&M University; BS, Biology, St. Louis University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Achee is a Medical Entomologist (Research Associate Professor) within the Department of Biological Sciences and holds a joint Associate Professor appointment in the Eck Institute for Global Health at the University of Notre Dame. She joined the University of Notre Dame faculty in 2013, following a 2-year position as Assistant Professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. She has a combined 15 years of experience in vector behavior research related to the epidemiology and control of arthropod-borne diseases, including evaluation of vector ecology, habitat management and adult control strategies, disease risk modeling using GIS and remote sensing technologies, and evaluation of chemical actions against mosquito vectors under both laboratory and field conditions. She has worked in the international settings of Belize, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Indonesia, Nepal, South Korea, Thailand, and Tanzania. Dr. Achee was the principal investigator of a research program funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation focused on the development of spatial repellents in combination push-pull systems to reduce human-vector contact for dengue prevention. She is a Working Group member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES), the Chair of the American Committee of Medical Entomology (ACME) of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), a representative of the WHO Global Collaboration for the Development of Pesticides for Public Health partnership (GCDPP), Vector Control Working Group member of Roll Back Malaria and served as the lead scientist for the recent publication of the WHO Guidelines for Efficacy Testing of Spatial Repellents. She is currently the lead Principal Investigator of a multicenter intervention trial dedicated to generating evidence of the protective efficacy of spatial repellents for prevention of malaria and dengue human infections for use towards full WHO recommendations. Her latest efforts have been dedicated to co-Directing the Belize Vector and Ecology Center (BVEC) in Orange Walk Town, Belize to serve as a regional platform of excellence for research and education in arthropod-borne diseases.

i. Expertise: Pharmacological and toxicological adverse cellular outcomes, and factors that govern drug and chemical injuries including drug metabolism and nutrition.

ii: Education: Ph.D., Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, George Washington University; MS, Chemistry, Bucknell University; BA, Chemistry, Ithaca College.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Corcoran is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Wayne State University, and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine. Dr. Corcoran earned his BA in Chemistry (Ithaca College `70), MS in Chemistry (Bucknell University `73), and Ph.D. in Pharmacology/Toxicology (George Washington University `80), before completing Postdoctoral Fellow training in Toxicology (Baylor College of Medicine and Methodist Hospital `81). Prior to his appointment at Wayne State, Dr. Corcoran served as Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutics at the State University of New York at Buffalo, followed by Associate Professor and later Professor, and Director of the Toxicology Graduate Program at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Corcoran has published over 200 original research papers, abstracts and other reports, and has received nearly $6 million in grants and contracts as Principal Investigator, Co-Principal Investigator, and Co-Investigator. He has chaired grant review panels for the NIH, the National Academies, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and has refereed papers for more than 50 national and international scientific journals. He has contributed to the training of over 150 MS and Ph.D. graduates, 3200 pharmacists, and hundreds of undergraduate research students. His research interests are multidisciplinary and translational. They focus on cellular injury and cell death, and factors that govern drug and chemical injuries, including drug metabolism and nutrition. Approaches to translate basic discoveries to improve human health involve retrospective and prospective clinical investigation of human volunteers and patients, integrated in vivo models, cellular and molecular biology, pharmacokinetics, and synthetic chemistry. Specific areas of investigation include cell death by necrosis and apoptosis, the role of DNA damage in acute cell death, drug and chemical injury to the liver, nutrition and particularly obesity as overlooked factors in drug and chemical injury, drug biotransformation including by CYPs, and toxicity of drugs such as acetaminophen (paracetamol). Dr. Corcoran is a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, the top US credentialing organization for toxicologists. He was elected to its Executive Board and appointed to the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors in 2012. He has been a Delegate to the International Congress of Toxicology and member of the International Union of Toxicology Developing Countries Committee. He is a former Member of the Science Advisory Board of the US Environmental Protection Agency, is former Chair of the Executive Board of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, and is a past member of the Intergovernmental Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods. He has contributed to the scientific direction of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics as a member of its Scientific Council, and served on the Research and Graduate Affairs Committee of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Dr. Corcoran is sought as an expert in toxic tort, product liability and other legal matters. At the University of New Mexico, Dr. Corcoran advised Health Sciences Vice President Jane Henney (FDA Commissioner 1998-2000) as a member of her Health Sciences Leadership Council. He is Past President of the Society of Toxicology, the largest toxicology organization in the world with over 7,000 members from academia, industry, government, medicine, law and other fields practicing in the USA and over 50 foreign countries. He has contributed to Society positions having national and international impact, from the best science for evidence-based safety legislation, to organization ethics and governance. He serves as Associate Editor of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology [2002-date], Editor of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacology [2014-date] and Editor of the MO Online Journal of Toxicology [2014-date]. He has been an Editorial Board Member of the international journals Pharmacology and Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Toxicology Letters, and the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. During his service on the National Institutes of Health Alcohol-Toxicology 1 Study Section, he evaluated over 1,000 NIH grant applications.

i. Expertise: Relationship between brain neurotransmitter systems and neurodevelopment associated with alteration by exposures to environmental toxicants.

ii: Education: Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, University of Minnesota; MA, Experimental Psychology, Western Michigan University; BS, Psychology, Western Michigan University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta became Chair of its Department of Environmental Medicine and Director of the NIEHS Environmental Health Sciences Center in 1998, and served as Dean for Research from 2000-2002. She then became Director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) and Chair of the Department of Environmental and Community Medicine at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School from 2003-2007, before returning to URMC as Professor in Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences. Dr. Cory-Slechta has served on national review and advisory panels of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Center for Toxicological Research, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control. In addition, Dr. Cory-Slechta has served on the editorial boards of the journals Neurotoxicology, Toxicology, Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Neurotoxicology and Teratology, and American Journal of Mental Retardation. She has held the elected positions of President of the Neurotoxicology Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology, President of the Behavioral Toxicology Society, and been named a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Her research has focused largely on the relationships between brain neurotransmitter systems and neurodevelopment, and how such relationships are altered by exposures to environmental toxicants, including the role played by environmental neurotoxicant exposures in developmental disabilities and neurodegenerative diseases. This work has included the effects of developmental exposures to metals, pesticides, and air pollutants as well as combined exposures to metals and stress in experimental animal models as well as in human cohort studies. These research efforts have resulted in over 155 papers and book chapters to date.

i. Expertise: Development of innovative study designs and analytical methods for evaluation of new therapies for HIV-related disease.

ii. Education: ScD, Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health; SM, Bioengineering, Harvard University; SM, Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health; BS, Physics, Brown University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. De Gruttola received his ScD in 1986 from the Biostatistics Department at HSPH—the department for which he served as Chair from 2009-2014. His research focuses on development of statistical methods required for appropriate public health response to the AIDS epidemic both within the US and internationally. The aspects of the epidemic on which he has worked include transmission of, and natural history of infection with, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), as well as research on antiretroviral treatments, including the development and consequences of resistance to treatments. The broad goals of his research include developing treatment strategies that provide durable virologic suppression while preserving treatment options after failure, and evaluating the community-level impact of packages of prevention interventions, including antiviral treatment. He served as the Director of the Statistics and Data Analysis Center of the Adult Project of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group from 1996 to 2003—the period in which highly active antiretroviral treatment was developed, and he was instrumental in designing and analyzing studies of the best means of providing such therapy. He also served from 2011-2015, as co-PI (with PI Max Essex) on a community-randomized study of a combination HIV prevention strategy in Botswana.

i. Expertise: Neurotoxicology, and risk assessment.

ii: Education: Ph.D., Veterinary Biosciences/Toxicology, University of Illinois; DVM Colorado State University; B.A. Chemistry, University of San Diego.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Dorman is a professor of toxicology in the Department of Molecular Biosciences in the College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University. Dr. Dorman received his undergraduate training in chemistry from the University of San Diego, his DVM from Colorado State University, and he completed a combined Ph.D. and residency program in toxicology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology and the American Board of Toxicology. Dr. Dorman has chaired or served on numerous NRC committees. His recent NRC chairmanships include the Committee on Predictive-Toxicology Approaches for Military Assessments of Acute Exposures and the Committee on Design and Evaluation of Safer Chemical Substitutions—A Framework to Inform Government and Industry Decisions. He has been recently named as chair of the NRC's Committee on Toxicology and the Committee on Unraveling Low Dose Toxicity: Case Studies of Systematic Review of Evidence. He has served on other advisory boards for the US Navy, NASA, and USDA, and is currently a member of the National Toxicology Program's Board of Scientific Counselors. He is an elected fellow of both the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. The primary objective of his research is to provide a refined understanding of chemically induced neurotoxicity in laboratory animals that will lead to improved assessment of potential neurotoxicity in humans. Dr. Dorman's other research interests include clinical veterinary toxicology, nasal toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and cognition and olfaction in animals. He has over 145 peer-reviewed research publications including work with pesticides, metals, hydrogen sulfide, and a variety of industrial chemicals.

i. Expertise: Population ecology and modeling, fate and effects of toxic chemicals in sediments, and ecological risk assessment.

ii. Education: Ph.D., Coastal Oceanography, State University of New York; MSc Marine Environmental Science, State University of New York; BA Biology; BA Geology, State University of New York.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Valery E. Forbes is Dean of the College of Biological Sciences at University of Minnesota. Dr. Forbes was Director of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln from 2011-2015. From 1989-2010, she lived and worked in Denmark, most recently as the Founding Chair of the Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change and Professor of Aquatic Ecology and Ecotoxicology at Roskilde University. Dr. Forbes received her Bachelor's Degree (Biology & Geology) from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1983, a MSc (Marine Environmental Science) from SUNY-Stony Brook in 1984, and a Ph.D. (Coastal Oceanography), also from SUNY- Stony Brook in 1988. Specific research topics include population ecology and modeling, fate and effects of toxic chemicals in sediments, and ecological risk assessment. Dr. Forbes has graduated approximately 50 MSc and Ph.D. students over her career and established a Danish Graduate School in Environmental Stress Studies (GESS) based at Roskilde University. While based in Europe, Dr. Forbes served as work package leader on two major EU 7th Framework Projects: CREAM (a Marie Curie Initial Training Network on Mechanistic Effect Models for Ecological Risk Assessment of Chemicals) and NanoReTox (a multi- institution research project on The Reactivity and Toxicity of Engineered Nanoparticles: Risks to the Environment and Human Health). More recently, she has received funding from the National Institute of Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) for multi-partite initiatives to develop predictive models for the ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Dr. Forbes has published well over 100 internationally peer-reviewed articles and two books on these topics. She has served on the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council, the European Research Council and as ad hoc reviewer for numerous funding agencies from various countries. She is on the editorial board of several international journals and provides scientific advice to the private and public sectors.

i. Expertise: Epidemiology, ecology, and transmission dynamics of vector-borne illness.

ii. Education: Ph.D., Medical Zoology, Uniformed Services University; MS Medical Entomology, Texas A&M University; BS, Biology, University of Notre Dame.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. John Grieco is a Research Associate Professor of Medical Entomology and Associate Director of the Eck Institute of Global Health at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana. Dr. Grieco's work is multidisciplinary with a focus on the biology, ecology and transmission dynamics of vector-borne illness. He has a long history of working on vector borne disease throughout the tropics and his research centers on malaria, Japanese Encephalitis, Dengue, Chagas, and rickettsial pathogens. Dr. Grieco has an extensive history in the design of novel repellents, irritants and toxicants for disease vectors. He has developed a number of field and laboratory assays for identifying and optimizing behavior modifying compounds for use in the control of mosquito, sandfly, and triatome vectors. Dr. Grieco serves as an external advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of Defense in the area of Spatial Repellents and their advancement to recommendation. Dr. Grieco has co-authored the WHO guidelines for the evaluation of spatial repellents and he currently holds two patents for novel repellent compounds.

i. Expertise: Toxicogenetics, neurobehavioral, and developmental toxicology.

ii. Education: BA, Psychology, Eastern Washington University; MA, Psychology, University of Arizona; Ph.D. Physiological and Comparative Psychology, Psychopharmacology, University of Arizona.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Byron Jones is professor of Genetics, Genomics, and Informatics at the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis. Dr. Jones received his Ph.D. training in the Departments of Psychology and Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arizona. He received postdoctoral training in neuropharmacology at the University of Arizona and in pharmacogenetics at the University of Colorado. In 1991, he was a founding member of the Department of Biobehavioral Health at The Pennsylvania State University and developed a program in pharmacogenetics and toxicogenetics at that institution. He has trained 10 Ph.D. and 8 MS students and supervised numerous undergraduate honors theses at PSU. In 1998-1999, he was awarded a Poste Orange senior visiting research position at Institute François Magendie, Bordeaux, France to study the genetics of alcohol consumption. In 2000, he was awarded a Harry Dozor visiting professorship at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel. In 2001 and again in 2004, he was awarded invited professorships at the University of Strasbourg and University of Bordeaux in France. Together with his colleague, Dr. Pierre Mormède and others, he has helped to organize and deliver 15 1-2 week workshops on neural and behavioral genetics in France, the USA, Brazil, Russia, and Sweden. He and Dr. Mormède co-edited two volumes of a book on neuro and behavioral genetics. Dr. Jones has published more than 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 2013, Dr. Jones was invited to help develop research infrastructure to study the effects of mercury and pesticide exposure on neurocognitive development in Ecuador. In 2014, he was awarded two grants from the National Institutes of Health. One is focused on the role of genetics in the impact of chronic stress on neuroendocrine adaptation and alcohol consumption and the other to study the effects of genetics on paraquat neurotoxicity. In that year, he was recruited to help found a new department in Genetics, Genomics, and Informatics in the College of Medicine at UTHSC. He has served on several NIH and NSF review panels. He is on the editorial board of Frontiers in Genetics and Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior and is Editor-in-Chief, Nutritional Neuroscience. His current research interests include: (1) The toxicogenetics of paraquat and other pesticides; (2) the impact of chronic stress on neurobehavioral adaptation, including alcohol consumption; (3) the role of iron status on accumulation of heavy metals; and (4) iron status and the exposure in pregnant women and in early childhood development.

i. Expertise: Development of methodologies for creating and analyzing data on the effects of the natural, built, social, and policy environments on health disparities.

ii. Education: Ph.D., Public Policy and Social Research, Brandeis University, Waltham; MEd Psychology, Western Washington University; BA, Western Washington University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Paul D. Juarez is Professor, Preventive Medicine and founding co-director of the Research Center on Health Disparities, Equity, and the Exposome at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. He received his Ph.D. in social policy from the Heller School, Brandeis University in 1983. Dr. Juarez currently is serving appointments on the Federal Advisory Committee on Minority Health for the US Department of Health and Human Services (2014-2018) and the Community-Level Health Promotion Study Section, Center for Scientific Review of the NIH (2013-2016). Dr. Juarez previously served as the Vice Chair, Division of Community Health, Family & Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College. While at Meharry, Dr. Juarez was PI for the Meharry Health Disparities Research Center of Excellence and directed its community engagement core. As PI, Dr. Juarez led Center activities in developing a systems approach to health disparities research. In 2011, Dr. Juarez received a grant from the EPA to increase our understanding of the environmental context of health disparities. In pursuit of this effort, he led efforts to apply an exposome framework that considers the cumulative effects of environmental exposures on human health and development at critical life stages and from conception to death. He has been at the forefront nationally in developing a methodology for creating and analyzing data on the effects of the natural, built, social, and policy environments on health disparities. To achieve this, he has established a transdisciplinary team of investigators to conduct focused studies of the environmental effects on population level health disparities that apply mathematical, spatial-temporal, statistical and computational methods, models and analytics. His recent work has focused on analyzing the effects of the exposome on black white disparities in pre-term births and lung cancer mortality.

i. Expertise: Ecological toxicology, chemical environment fate and effects, examining technologies (including genomics and green chemistry designs) to minimize environmental impacts from chemical contamination.

ii. Education: BS, Honors Biology, University of Illinois; MS, Entomology, University of Georgia; Ph.D., Ecology, University of Georgia.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Rebecca D. Klaper is a Professor at the School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Director of the Great Lakes Genomics Center. Dr. Klaper received her MS in Entomology in 1995 and her Ph.D. in Ecology in 2000 from the Institute of Ecology University of Georgia examining the impacts of chemicals on the population dynamics of insects. Dr. Klaper currently studies the potential impact of emerging contaminants, such as nanoparticles, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and pesticides on aquatic life and how we may design these chemicals to be sustainable and have the least environmental impact. She published some of the first studies on the impacts of nanomaterials on aquatic organisms, describing differences in toxicity among nanomaterials, discussing the possible impacts of surfactants on nanomaterial toxicology. Dr. Klaper is now one of the lead PI's for the Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology, a distributed Center of eight universities to evaluate the mechanisms by which nanomaterials may cause toxicity and investigate the potential for principles to use in the design process of these chemicals. Dr. Klaper received a AAAS-Science and Technology Policy Fellowship where she worked in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the US Environmental Protection Agency evaluating the potential use of genomic technologies in risk assessment. She currently serves on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the US Environmental Protection Agency's Chemical Safety for Sustainability/Human Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee. She has served as a technical expert to the Alliance for the Great Lakes and the International Joint Commission regarding the potential impacts of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other emerging contaminants on the Great Lakes. She has also served as an invited scientific expert to both the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development panel on nanotechnology where she has testified on the potential impact of nanoparticles on the environment and the utility of current testing strategies. She served on the National Academy of Sciences Panel to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. She is also on the editorial board of the SETAC journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry as well as the ACS journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. Her current research focuses on (1) determining the presence of contaminants in freshwater systems; (2) the impacts of low level chronic exposures of these chemicals to fish and invertebrates in freshwater systems; (3) evaluating the ability of contaminant removal technologies to remove biological impacts of chemicals; (4) methods to quickly assess the potential impacts of a chemical, including genomic technologies; and (5) alternative options for minimizing the impacts of emerging contaminants including chemical redesign and Green Chemistry, altering use and distribution, and evaluating prescription levels for pharmaceuticals. Dr. Klaper's goal is to conduct basic and applied research to inform policy decisions involving freshwater resources.

i. Expertise: Evaluating environmental exposures, such as metals, alcohol, tobacco, and medications, and lifestyle or physical factors, such as physical activity, body mass, genetics, and tumor characteristics.

ii. Education: Ph.D., University of Washington, Seattle, Epidemiology; MPH, Epidemiology, University of Washington; BS, Molecular Biology, The Evergreen State College.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Polly Newcomb is Head of the Cancer Prevention Program of the Public Health Sciences Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Fred Hutch), a Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington's School of Public Health, and a Senior Scientist at the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center. She received her doctorate in Epidemiology at the University of Washington in 1986 and completed her Post-doctoral Fellowship in the Department of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin in 1987. She has more than 25 years of extramurally funded research on cancer genetics, etiology, screening, and survival, demonstrating her broad expertise in the field. Her current research in relation to health and cancer includes environmental exposures such as metals, alcohol, tobacco, and medications; lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and body mass; as well as genetics and tumor characteristics. Her research has been funded by nearly a score of foundation and NIH-grants for these studies of colorectal neoplasia, breast and other cancers, and their precursors. She also participates in several international consortia. Dr. Newcomb has over 360 peer-reviewed publications, has served as a mentor for over 40 pre-doctoral, post-doctoral, and junior investigators and is on the Executive Committees of four University of Washington/Fred Hutch T32/R25 training programs. She is active in training new researchers through a National Cancer Institute “Established Investigator” award focused on colorectal cancer survival. She has served as a member of numerous NIH Study Sections, a consultant to national and international organizations, and is an Editor/Associate Editor for top tier journals such as American Journal of Epidemiology and Cancer, Epidemiology, and Biomarkers & Prevention. She has recently been awarded mentoring awards from the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and is a Fulbright Scholar (2015). She is also the President of the American Society for Preventive Oncology.

i. Expertise: Epidemiologic research in public health.

ii. Education: BA, Psychology, University of Vermont; MHS, Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health; ScD, Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.

iii. Professional Experience: Professor Melissa Perry is the elected President of the American College of Epidemiology. Dr. Melissa Perry received Master of Health Science and Doctor of Science degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. She has spent more than two decades conducting epidemiologic research and educating over 50 graduate students in public health. Prior to coming to George Washington University in 2010, Dr. Perry spent 13 years on the Harvard School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health faculty. She is currently Chair on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). She is also President of the American College of Epidemiology. She is an associate editor of the Journal Reproductive Toxicology, and she serves as a standing member of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research grant study section. In 2014, Dr. Perry was elected to the prestigious international Collegium Ramazzini in recognition of her contributions to advancing occupational and environmental health and her professional integrity. From 2009-2011, she was a member of the CDC's Scientific Understanding Work Group, National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. From 2003-2007, she was a co-investigator with the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute of Arusha, Tanzania, and the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her laboratory at the Milken Institute School of Public Health focuses on reproductive epidemiology and hormone disruptors, and her group has developed new techniques for high-volume identification of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm cells. Her research group was the first to use semi-automated imaging methods to show how pesticides are associated with sperm abnormalities. In addition to numerous book chapters and published abstracts, she has over 110 peer-reviewed publications in areas including DNA damage linked to pesticides and other chemical exposures, managing hazardous substances in the workplace, and occupational issues related to agricultural, meat-packing, and construction work. Current research on pesticides, biomarkers and hormonal effects in her laboratory focuses on identifying the mutagenic and hormonal effects of herbicide and insecticide exposure in vivo. Her interests focus on pre-disease exposure markers signaled by early mutational damage or hormone disruption, across the spectrum of pesticide exposure levels. She has been the principal investigator on research grants from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

i. Expertise: Applied insect toxicology, insect endocrinology, and insect biochemistry and physiology.

ii. Education: Ph.D., Entomology, University of California; MS, Entomology, Insect Toxicology track, University of California; BS Agronomy, Plant Breeding Track, University of Buenos Aires.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Patricia Pietrantonio is a tenured Professor and AgriLife Research Fellow in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. She is an associate member of the interdisciplinary programs in Toxicology and a member of the Faculty of Neuroscience at the same university. She received her BS in Agronomy from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, after which she was a permanent technical staff member at INTA (National Institute of Agriculture and Cattle Technology) in Castelar, Buenos Aires (1982-1987). She obtained both her MS (1990) and Ph.D. (1995) in Entomology from the University of California at Riverside (both under Prof. Sarjeet S. Gill), with emphasis in insect toxicology, biochemistry, and physiology. As a Ph.D. student, she received the Henry Comstock Award from the Entomological Society of America (ESA) for outstanding graduate student achievement. Since 1996, she has advanced through the ranks at Texas A&M University, receiving the title of “AgriLife Research Fellow” for Outstanding Research Leadership and Grantsmanship in 2006. She has received funding from the NIH-NIAID (RO1), NIFA-AFRI, EPA Section 6 and the NSF-IOS, as well as from the Texas Department of Agriculture and USDA-Southern Region IPM program. She has served three times as a member on national proposal review panels for USDA-NIFA Insects and Nematodes (organismal and sub-organismal panels) and twice for NSF-IOS panels. She reviews research proposals for European Organizations such as the FWO (Belgium), the ANR (French Natl. Agency), BBSRC from the UK, the DFG (German Research Foundation), and national universities. She has served 19 years at Texas A&M University conducting entomological research ranging from applied insect toxicology to basic aspects insect endocrinology and insect biochemistry and physiology (G protein-coupled receptors: GPCRs) focusing on target validation. In applied toxicology her laboratory elucidated mechanisms of insecticide resistance to pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and organophosphates in various pests such as mosquitoes, cotton bollworm (H. zea), boll weevil, and whiteflies. Some of this work was in collaboration with Extension Entomologists. She has conducted international research on insecticide resistance in Cyprus funded by the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation. She has served as major professor of 7 Ph.D. students and 4 masters students in her laboratory and served as committee member for 11 graduate students (all completed). She has served as co-major professor or committee member for students enrolled in Universities in Mexico and Europe (UK Leuven, Belgium). Scholarly accomplishments include 49 published peer-reviewed journal articles, 7 book chapters, and 18 papers in conference proceedings, as well as published abstracts of 75 invited presentations (21 international) and 116 volunteered presentations. She teaches yearly Graduate Courses in Insect Toxicology (ENTO619) and Insect Physiology (ENTO615). She has served as Subject Editor for “Environmental Entomology,” for which she received an Outstanding Service Award from the ESA. She is currently an associate editorial member in the Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology and member of the Editorial board of Open Access Insect Physiology (Ed. Guy Smagghe). Other honors include the Paul A. Dahm Memorial Lecture in Insect Toxicology (Iowa State University) and the 2013 College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Dean's Outstanding Achievement Award for Faculty Mentoring. She was appointed to the University (TAMU) ADVANCE-NSF funded project as mentor for minority women. Current research funded by the NSF-IOS focuses on insect neurobiology and neuroendocrinology, and research funded by Cotton Incorporated focuses on Bt toxin and other receptors in the cotton bollworm, H. zea. Other projects focus on target validation in ticks. Dr. Pietrantonio is also a member of the tick genome Ix. scapularis expert group.

i. Expertise: Genomics and computational biology, molecular medicine, environmental health, and toxicology.

ii. Education: BS, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemistry, University of Puerto Rico, Ph.D., Biochemical Pharmacology, The University of Texas; MD, University of Louisville Health Sciences Center.

iii. Professional Experience: Kenneth Ramos, MD, Ph.D., PharmB, works across numerous organizational units at the University of Arizona (UA) to develop precision-health strategies and approaches to health outcomes and health-care delivery. He provides senior leadership in the development of personal diagnostics and therapeutics for complex diseases, including cancer, cardiopulmonary disorders, and diabetes. Dr. Ramos also is a professor of medicine at the UA College of Medicine-Tucson in the Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine, where he directs a highly competitive and innovative research program in translational and clinical genetics and genomics. Dr. Ramos' research integrates approaches ranging from molecular genetics to population-based studies to understand the genomic basis of human disease. He is regarded as a leading expert in the study of gene-environment interactions and directs a competitive research program in translational and clinical genomics with a focus on genetic and epigenetic determinants of toxicity and disease, computational biology and molecular signaling. Dr. Ramos has mentored over 100 doctoral, medical, veterinary medicine, undergraduate and high school students, many of whom have gone on to successful careers in academia, medicine, government and industry. He is committed to initiatives that attract and retain minorities in science and medicine. Dr. Ramos served as SOT President from 2008-2009, and is a current member of the Continuing Medical Education Task Force, Hispanic Organization of Toxicologists Specialty Interest Group, and the Molecular and Systems Biology Specialty Section. He has been a member of SOT since 1982.

i. Expertise: Microbial biodegradation, molecular microbiology, bioluminescence sensing and ecotoxicology.

ii. Education: Ph.D., Bacteriology and Biochemistry, University of Idaho; BS, Bacteriology, North Dakota State University; AA, Liberal Arts, Bismarck Junior College.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Sayler is Distinguished University Professor, and Alvin and Sally Beaman Endowed Professor of Microbiology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at The University of Tennessee. Dr. Sayler received his Ph.D. in Bacteriology and Biochemistry, University of Idaho, 1974; BS, Bacteriology, North Dakota State University, 1971; AA, Bismarck Junior College, Liberal Arts, 1969. He was Postdoctoral researcher in Marine Microbiology at the University of Maryland (1974-1975). He is the founding Director, Center for Environmental Biotechnology at the University of Tennessee (1986-present) and was the first Director of the UT-ORNL Joint Institute for Biological Sciences (2006-2014). As Director for the Waste Management Research and Education Institute Tennessee Center of Excellence (1991-2005) he conducted a consolidation and reorganization to create the Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment serving as interim director (2005-2006). Specializing in microbial biodegradation, molecular microbiology, bioluminescence sensing and ecotoxicology, he has directed the research of over 100 Ph.D. and MS students and postdocs during his 40 year career, with approximately 400 peer reviewed publications, 16 patents, and over 500 lectures and seminars worldwide. He serves on the Sciences Advisory Board for the US Defense Department, Strategic Environmental Research Defense Program (2011-present); and was a member of the US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (2008-2013). He was an Executive member and Chair of the Board of Scientific Counselors for the EPA Office of Research and Development (2002-2010) and served on the EPA's Science Advisory Board drinking water committee (2002-2009), the Water Environment Research Foundation Research Council (1995-2001) and was Peer Review Chair for the EPA Exploratory Biology Program (1990-1993). He has served on National Academy/NRC Committees evaluating the US EPA Laboratory Enterprise (2013-14), DOE NRSB-Environmental Management Roadmap (2007-2008) Stand-Off Explosives Detection (2003) and DOE Site Decontamination and Decommissioning (2002). He is Co-founder China-US Joint Research Center For Ecosystem and Environmental Change, Beijing, (2006-present) and US State Department Eco partnership (2010-present) and has held honorary Professorships at China Agricultural University, Beijing (2012), Northeast Normal University, Changchun (2012), East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai (2008-2011), Institute for Water Research Distinguished Researcher, Xi'an (2008); and Adjunct Professorship, Gwanju Institute of Science and Technology, Korea (2005-2010). Dr. Sayler is an Associate Editor of Environmental Science and Technology and is an active member in ACS, AAAS, ASM and SETAC. Elected to AAAS Fellowship in 2012. He received the DOW Foundation Support for Public Health Environmental Research and Education (SPHERE) Award (1998-2000); and was elected to the Fellow American Academy for Microbiology (1995-present). He received the Distinguished Alumni Award, University of Idaho and the UT Senior Researcher Award from the College of Arts and Sciences (1995) and received the Procter and Gamble Prize, American Society for Microbiology (1994). He was designated Chancellor's Research Scholar, UTK (1988), and received the NIH Research Career Development Award (NIEHS), (1980-1985).

i. Expertise: Discovery of molecular toxicological and disease pathways resulting from complex environmental exposures including techniques in new high-throughput molecular techniques and evolutionary theory, statistical analysis, and bioinformatics.

ii. Education: Ph.D., University of Kentucky; BS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Joseph R. Shaw is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University and holds adjunct appointments in their School of Public Health and Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics. He also holds a partial appointment as a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Genomics in the School of Biosciences at the University of Birmingham, UK. Dr. Shaw earned his doctoral degree in environmental toxicology from the Graduate Center for Toxicology at the University of Kentucky in 2001. He then moved to Dartmouth College where he received an NIEHS post-doctoral fellowship to apply emerging Omics technologies to characterize mechanisms of toxicant actions. He joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington in 2007. Dr. Shaw was named an Outstanding New Environmental Scientist (ONES) by the NIEHS in 2010, and recognized as an exceptional talent in the environmental sciences by the Royal Society, UK in 2013 for his work investigating toxicant exposure, genome structure, and toxic effects on individuals and populations. Contributing to these efforts he is a founding member of the Daphnia and Fundulus Genomics Consortia where he helps lead over 600 scientists around the world working to develop new models for environmental genomics. He also helped establish the Consortium for Environmental Omics and Toxicology that seeks to apply twenty-first century technologies to predictive toxicology. Dr. Shaw has trained over 150 students in environmental genomics through the Mount Desert Island Bio Lab Workshop in environmental genomics that he co-developed in 2011. The workshop is now held annually in the US and UK. Dr. Shaw's research program has received over $6.4M in research funding from NIH, NSF, and DOD since 2002, producing over 38 publications in the area of environmental genomics and toxicology. He has served on the editorial board and in 2013, was promoted to editor for the journal “Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.” His research group seeks to discover critical, specific, and causative molecular toxicological and disease pathways resulting from complex environmental exposures. His work embraces new high-throughput molecular techniques and couples these with evolutionary theory, statistical analysis, and bioinformatics to integrate toxic-response across levels of biological organization. Current research in his laboratory focuses on (i) associating variation in genome structure with disease and toxicant response within and between populations; (ii) identifying the mechanisms of actions of chemical stress, especially metals, and (iii) elucidating the genetic and epigenetic underpinnings of mutations and establishing their role in evolved tolerance.

i. Expertise: Behavioral, immunological and neurotoxicological consequences of prenatal and neonatal drug administration and drug and environmental stress.

ii. Education: Ph.D. Physiological Psychology, from Carleton University; BA and MA (Experimental) in Psychology from St. John's University; MA equivalent in Pharmacology from Ottawa University.

iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Sonya K. Sobrian is an Associate Professor of Pharmacology at the Howard University College of Medicine, Director of the Developmental Neurobehavioral Pharmacology Laboratory, and Immediate Past Chair of the University's IACUC. Dr. Sobrian received her doctorate in Physiological Psychology from Carleton University, Ottawa Canada, and served a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University in Developmental Neurobiology; she also added pharmacology and immunology to her graduate (MA, Neuropharmacology: Ottawa University) and post graduate (Fulbright Fellow: Immunology Research Center, Belgrade, Yugoslavia) training. During her tenure at the College of Medicine, Dr. Sobrian successfully mentored medical, graduate, and undergraduate students. She has served as President of the Neurobehavioral Teratology Society, is currently on the Editorial Advisory Board of the journal, “Neurotoxicology and Teratology”, and is Guest Editor of a special issue of the journal on “Developmental Cannabinoid Exposure: New Perspectives on Mechanisms, Outcomes, and Implications for Public Health.” Dr. Sobrian is currently on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the Department of Health & Human Services National Toxicology Program. She also served as a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel for the US EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and previously served on the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act Advisory Committee. As a visiting scientist at the National Center for Toxicological Research, Dr. Sobrian was instrumental in establishing a prenatal model of cocaine toxicity. She served on the ILSI Risk Science Institute's Expert Panel on the evaluation and interpretation of neurodevelopmental endpoints for human risk. Dr. Sobrian served as Director of the Behavioral Neuroscience Program at the National Science Foundation, where she directed and managed funding of research on the neural mechanisms underlying behavior and learning. In addition, she has served as Chair of the Board of Trustees of AAALAC International, as well as Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Capital Area Chapter of the Fulbright Association. During her tenure as an AAAS Congressional Science and Technology Fellow, her scientific expertise was utilized to inform public policy on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, aging, and NIH research funding. The major focus of Dr. Sobrian's research involves the behavioral, immunological, and neurotoxicological consequences of prenatal and neonatal drug administration and drug and environmental stress-induced alterations in behavioral and immunological development. She has a longstanding interest in sex differences, and her lab was the first to show that prenatal environmental and psychological stress differentially altered immune parameters in rat male and female offspring, research that she continued as a Fulbright Scholar at the Immunological Research Institute in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Her current research involves the life-span consequences of prenatal exposure to cocaine and nicotine, alone and in combination, with an emphasis on drug addiction in the aging organism. In developing animal models for neuropsychiatric diseases, Dr. Sobrian is currently exploring the role of prenatal environmental noise stress [PENS] in the etiology of autism and depression. For her work in establishing an environmentally-mediated neurodevelopmental animal model of depression, Dr. Sobrian was designated a L. Vernon Maddox NARSAD investigator.

i. Expertise: Understanding the role of environmental exposures in diabetes and obesity, evaluating the predictive utility of high throughput screening data, and methods of exposure assessment.

ii. Education: BS, Psychology, Pennsylvania State University; Ph.D., Biological Sciences, University of Missouri.

iii. Professional Experience: Kristina Thayer, Ph.D. is Deputy Director of Analysis at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Director of the NTP Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) located on the campus of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). OHAT conducts evaluations to assess the evidence that environmental chemicals, physical substances, or mixtures (collectively referred to as “substances”) may cause adverse health effects and provides opinions on whether these substances may be of concern given what is known about current human exposure levels. As Deputy Director of Analysis, she oversees OHAT and the NTP Office of the Report on Carcinogens. Before becoming director of OHAT, she held positions in the NTP Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, the NIEHS Office of Risk Assessment Research and the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). Prior to joining the NTP/NIEHS, she was a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund and then at the Environmental Working Group. In addition to overseeing the development of OHAT and ORoC monographs, she has research interests in the areas of understanding the role of environmental exposures in diabetes and obesity, evaluating the predictive utility of high throughput screening data, and methods of exposure assessment. She is considered an expert on the application of systematic review methods to environmental health topics.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting states and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include (but are not limited to) persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any non-government organization. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please consult the person in this notice listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0086, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

1. Pollinator protection issues:

2. Briefing on a new system for data sharing that could provide opportunities for states to engage in meaningful data sharing.

3. Results of the joint project with the National Marine Fisheries Service dealing with targeted monitoring for the Endangered Species Act Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) in final biological opinions for pesticides.

4. Discuss final submittal of Pesticides of Interest National Tracking System (POINTS) recommendation paper.

5. An update on EPA's stance on treated seed.

6. Pesticide general permit reissuance update.

7. Worker Protection Standard final rule status and further update on implementation strategy or staff to discuss specific inconsistencies of personal protective equipment between label and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

8. Safer Choice related discussion.

9. Registrant agreement by EPA with Wellmark on methomyl.

10. 2,4-D report from International Agency for Research on Cancer discussion.

11. Pyrethroid re-evaluation.

12. Cannabis follow-up and update.

13. Distributor label follow-up-update on letter and enforcement by the agency.

14. Demonstrate a field inspection tool developed by the National Pesticide.

15. Information Retrieval System for use by inspectors.

16. Performance measures update.

17. Laboratory Discussion to increase regulatory awareness.

This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.

Section 109(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. EPA to conduct periodic reviews of the air quality criteria for each air pollutant listed under section 108 of the Act. Based on such reviews, EPA is to retain or revise the NAAQS for a given pollutant as appropriate. As part of these reviews, NCEA assesses newly available scientific information and develops ISA documents (formerly known as Air Quality Criteria Documents) that provide the scientific basis for the reviews of the NAAQS.

NCEA is holding this workshop to inform the Agency's evaluation of the scientific evidence for the review of the secondary NAAQS for NO2 and SO2. Section 109(b)(2) of the CAA defines secondary NAAQS must, “specify a level of air quality the attainment and maintenance of which, in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria, is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of [the] pollutant in the ambient air.” The purpose of the workshop is to obtain review of the scientific content of preliminary draft materials that will inform the development of the draft ecological effects ISA. Workshop sessions will include review and discussion of preliminary draft materials on the atmospheric chemistry, including air quality/deposition, biogeochemistry, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, freshwater acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and ecosystem services. In addition, roundtable discussions will help identify key studies or concepts within each discipline to assist EPA in integrating relevant literature within and across disciplines. These preliminary materials are not being released as an external draft, but will be used to guide workshop discussions and inform the development of the draft ecological effects ISA. This workshop is planned to help ensure that the ISA, once developed, is up-to-date and focuses on the key evidence to inform the scientific understanding for the review of the NOX and SOX secondary NAAQS. EPA is planning to release the first external review draft ecological effects ISA for NOX and SOX for review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the public during the first quarter of 2016.

Members of the public may attend the teleconference as observers. Space in the teleconference may be limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration for the workshop is available online at https://nox-sox-eco-criteria-webinars.eventbrite.com.

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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

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 shall 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; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Prevention Research Centers Program National Evaluation Reporting System (OMB No. 0920-0650, exp. 5/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 1984, Congress passed Public Law 98-551 directing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish Centers for Research and Development of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. In 1986, the CDC received lead responsibility for this program, referred to as the Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program. PRC Program awardees are managed as a CDC cooperative agreement with awards made for five years.

In 2013, the CDC published program announcement DP14-001 for the current PRC Program funding cycle (September 30, 2014—September 29, 2019). Twenty-six PRCs were selected through a competitive, external, peer-review process; the program is currently in its first year of the five year funding cycle.

Each PRC is housed within an accredited school of public health or an accredited school of medicine or osteopathy with a preventive medicine residency program. The PRCs conduct outcomes-oriented, applied prevention research on a broad range of topics using a multi-disciplinary and community-engaged approach. Research projects involve faculty from the funded school and various departments within the university, as well as community partners. Partners include, but are not limited to, state, local, and tribal health departments, departments of education, schools and school districts, community-based organizations, health providers, and other health organizations. Partners collaborate with the PRCs to assess community needs; identify research priorities; set research agendas; conduct research projects and related activities such as training and technical assistance; and disseminate research results to public health practitioners, researchers, and the general public.

Each PRC receives funding from the CDC to establish its core infrastructure and functions and support a core research project. Core research foci reflect each PRC's area of expertise and community needs. Most PRC core research aligns with the health disparities and goals outlined in Healthy People 2020. In addition to core research projects, most PRCs are awarded funding to complete special interest projects (SIPs) and conduct other research projects.

The DP14-001 program announcement included language that was used to develop and operationalize a set of 24 PRC Program evaluation indicators. The PRC Program evaluation indicators were collaboratively developed in 2013 and 2014 with internal and external stakeholders and correspond to the PRC Program conceptual framework (or logic model). The PRC Program logic model identifies program inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The list of indicators was revised to better reflect program needs and capture center and research activities, outputs, and outcomes.

The CDC is currently approved to collect information from the PRCs through a structured telephone interview and a web-based survey hosted by a third-party. The web-based survey is designed to collect information on the PRCs' collaborations with health departments; formal training programs and other training activities; and other-funded research projects conducted separate from their core projects or SIP research. Structured telephone interviews with key PRC informants allow PRC Program staff to collect indicator data that do not lend themselves to a survey-based methodology and require a qualitative approach.

CDC requests OMB approval to revise the information collection plan as follows:

(1) The content of the web-based survey will be updated to more closely align with revised evaluation indicators and/or to reflect the current needs of the PRC Program. In addition, the web-based survey will be migrated from a third party platform to a web-based data collection system hosted on CDC servers. Although the estimated burden per response will increase, the revised data collection system will be comprehensive and will reduce the need for follow-up clarification by PRC Program awardees.

(2) CDC will continue to conduct annual interviews (herein key informant interviews) with PRC staff to capture qualitative data about PRC activities and outcomes; however, the content of the in-depth interview will vary from year to year. In the previous OMB approval period, the annual interview focused on implementation of environmental and systems-wide strategies. CDC will continue to collect this information on a bi-annual basis (Key Informant Interview Part I). In alternate years, interview content will focus on PRC partnerships (Key Informant Interview Part II).

(3) CDC will bi-annually conduct focus group discussions to capture additional qualitative information about network formation and cohesion. Bi-annually, PRC Program awardees will be required to participate in focus group discussions about PRC Network formation and cohesion. In the same years, PRC Program awardees will be invited and encouraged, but not required, to participate in focus group discussions about Thematic Network formation and cohesion.

CDC will continue to use the information reported by PRCs to identify training and technical assistance needs, respond to requests for information from Congress and other sources, monitor grantees' compliance with cooperative agreement requirements, evaluate progress made in achieving goals and objectives, and describe the impact and effectiveness of the PRC Program.

The CDC currently funds 26 PRCs and each center will annually report the required information to the CDC. The annualized estimated burden is expected to increase. This increase equates to an estimated weekly burden of one hour per respondent and more fully accounts for the burden of preparing responses, as well as the burden of reporting responses. Web-based data collection will occur on an annual basis. The Key Informant Interview (Part I) will be conducted in years 2 and 4 of the current funding cycle, and the Key Informant Interview (Part II) will be conducted in year 3 of the current funding cycle. During the three-year OMB approval period, this equates to two Part I interviews and one Part II interview per PRC Program awardee. Both focus group discussions will take place in years 2 and 4 of the current funding cycle. This equates to one PRC Network focus group discussion and one Thematic Network focus group discussion per PRC Program awardee during the three year OMB approval period. Responses are annualized in the burden table below.

The proposed web-based data collection system will allow data entry during the entire year, which will enable respondents to distribute burden throughout each funding year. Response burden may decrease significantly in years 2 through 5, since the web-based data collection system will replicate a number of data elements from year to year, and respondents will only need to enter changes.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. CDC plans to implement revised reporting requirements in December 2015. PRC Program awardees are required to participate in information collection. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

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. 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-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.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Monthly File of Medicaid/Medicare Dual Eligible Enrollees; Use: The monthly data file is provided to CMS by states on dually eligible Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, listing the individuals on the Medicaid eligibility file, their Medicare status and other information needed to establish subsidy level, such as income and institutional status. The file is used to count the exact number of individuals who should be included in the phased-down state contribution calculation that month. CMS merges the data with other data files and establishes Part D enrollment for those individuals on the file. The file may be used by CMS partners to obtain accurate counts of duals on a current basis. Form Number: CMS-10143 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0958); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 51; Total Annual Responses: 612; Total Annual Hours: 6,120. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Vasanthi Kandasamy at 410-786-0433).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Transparency in Coverage Reporting by Qualified Health Plan Issuers; Use: Section 1311(e)(3) of the Affordable Care Act requires issuers of Qualified Health Plans (QHPs), to make available and submit transparency in coverage data. This data collection would collect certain information from QHP issuers in Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State-based Exchanges that rely on the federal IT platform (i.e., HealthCare.gov). HHS anticipates that consumers may use this information to inform plan selection.

Although this proposed data collection is limited to certain QHP issuers, HHS intends to phase in implementation for other entities over time. As stated in the final rule Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers (77 FR 18310; March 27, 2012), broader implementation will continue to be addressed in separate rulemaking issued by HHS, and the Departments of Labor and the Treasury (the Departments). For State-based Exchanges not addressed in the current proposal, standards will be proposed later.

Consistent with Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2715A, which largely extends the transparency reporting provisions set forth in section 1311(e)(3) to non-grandfathered group health plans (including large group and self-insured health plans) and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage (non-QHP issuers), the Departments intend to propose other transparency reporting requirements at a later time, through a separate rulemaking conducted by the Departments, for non-QHP issuers and non-grandfathered group health plans. Those proposed reporting requirements may differ from those prescribed in the HHS proposal under section 1311(e)(3), and will take into account differences in markets, reporting requirements already in existence for non-QHPs (including group health plans), and other relevant factors. The Departments also intend to streamline reporting under multiple reporting provisions and reduce unnecessary duplication. The Departments intend to implement any transparency reporting requirements applicable to non-QHP issuers and non-grandfathered group health plans only after notice and comment, and after giving those issuers and plans sufficient time, following the publication of final rules, to come into compliance with those requirements. Form Number: CMS-10572 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 475; Total Annual Responses: 475; Total Annual Hours: 16,150. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Valisha Price at 301-492-4343).

3. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Home Health Face-to-Face Encounter Clinical Templates; Use: The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the collection of data required to support the eligibility of Medicare home health services. Home health services are covered under the Hospital Insurance (Part A) and Supplemental Medical Insurance (Part B) benefits of the Medicare program. It consists of part-time, medically necessary skilled care (nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy) that is ordered by a physician. The CMS has developed a list of clinical elements within a suggested electronic clinical template that would allow electronic health record vendors to create prompts to assist physicians when documenting the HH face-to-face encounter for Medicare purposes. Once completed by the physician, the resulting progress note or clinic note would be part of the medical record. The primary users of these new clinical templates will be physicians and/or allowed non-physician practitioners (NPPs). The templates will help users to capture the necessary information needed to complete the face-to-face encounter documentation. This will help physicians and/or allowed NPPs comply with Medicare policy requirements, thereby reducing the possibility of a home health claim not being paid because of failure to meet Medicare requirements. Form Number: CMS-10564 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 2,926,420; Total Annual Responses: 2,926,420; Total Annual Hours: 1,220,317. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kristal Vines at 410-786-0119).

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: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Skilled Nursing Facility and Skilled Nursing Facility Health Care Complex Cost Report Form; Use: Providers of services participating in the Medicare program are required under sections 1815(a), 1833(e) and 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g) to submit annual information to achieve settlement of costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24 require adequate cost data and cost reports from providers on an annual basis. The Form CMS-2540-10 cost report is needed to determine a provider's reasonable cost incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries and reimbursement due to or from a provider. The revisions made to the SNF cost report are in accordance with the statutory requirement for hospice payment reform in § 3132 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Form Number: CMS-2540-10 (OMB control number 0938-0463); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 14,398; Total Annual Responses: 14,398; Total Annual Hours: 2,908,396. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Amelia Citerone at 410-786-8008).

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 collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

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

The definition of “food” under section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) See 21 U.S.C. 321(f), includes “articles used for food or drink” and thus includes alcoholic beverages. As such, alcoholic beverages are subject to the FD&C Act's adulteration and misbranding provisions, and implementing regulations, related to food. For example, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages are responsible for adhering to the registration of food facilities requirements in 21 CFR part 1 and to the good manufacturing practice regulations in 21 CFR part 110. There are also certain requirements for nutrition labeling on menus, menu boards, and other written materials for alcohol beverages served in restaurants or similar retail food establishments in 21 CFR part 101 (79 FR 71156, December 1, 2014). However, as reflected in a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding between FDA and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), TTB is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations with respect to the labeling of distilled spirits, certain wines, and malt beverages pursuant to the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act). In TTB Ruling 2008-3, dated July 7, 2008, TTB clarified that certain beers, which are not made from both malted barley and hops but are instead made from substitutes for malted barley (such as sorghum, rice, or wheat) or are made without hops, do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Accordingly, TTB stated in its ruling that such products (other than sake, which is classified as a wine under the FAA Act), are not subject to the labeling, advertising, or other provisions of the TTB regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.

In cases where an alcoholic beverage is not covered by the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, the product is subject to ingredient and other labeling requirements under the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations that we administer. In addition, as provided for under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), alcoholic beverages that are not covered by the labeling provisions of the FAA Act are subject to the provisions of the FPLA, which we administer.

Therefore, the beers described in the TTB's Ruling as not being a “malt beverage” are subject to the labeling requirements under the FD&C Act and FPLA, and our implementing regulations. In general, we require that food products under our jurisdiction be truthfully and informatively labeled in accordance with the FD&C Act, the FPLA, and FDA's regulations. Furthermore, some TTB labeling requirements, such as the Government Health Warning Statement under the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act and certain marking requirements under the Internal Revenue Code, continue to apply to these products.

In the Federal Register of December 23, 2014 (79 FR 77013), we announced the availability of a guidance entitled, “Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration”. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances. This guidance is intended to assist manufacturers on how to label bottled or otherwise packaged beers that are subject to our labeling laws and regulations.

Our food labeling regulations under parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 (21 CFR parts 101, 102, 104, and 105) were issued under the authority of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the FPLA (15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, and 1455) and under sections 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 411, 701, and 721 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 350, 371, and 379e). Most of these regulations derive from section 403 of the FD&C Act, which provides that a food product shall be deemed to be misbranded if, among other things, its label or labeling fails to bear certain required information concerning the food product, is false or misleading in any particular, or bears certain types of unauthorized claims. The disclosure requirements and other collections of information in the regulations in parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 are necessary to ensure that food products produced or sold in the United States are in compliance with the labeling provisions of the FD&C Act and the FPLA.

The primary user of the information to be disclosed on the label or labeling of food products is the consumer that purchases the food product. Consumers will use the information to assist them in making choices concerning their purchase of a food product, including choices related to substances that the consumer must avoid to prevent adverse reactions. This information also enables the consumer to determine the role of the food product in a healthful diet. Additionally, FDA intends to use the information to determine whether a manufacturer or other supplier of food products is meeting its statutory and regulatory obligations. Failure of a manufacturer or other supplier of food products to label its products in compliance with section 403 of the FD& C Act and parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 of FDA's food labeling regulations may result in a product being misbranded under the FD&C Act, subjecting the firm and product to regulatory action.

Description of respondents: The respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of beers that are subject to our labeling laws and regulations.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Our estimate of the number of respondents in table 1 is based on the number of regulatory submissions submitted to TTB for beers that do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Based on its records of submissions received from manufacturers of such products, TTB estimates the number of respondents to be 12 and the number of disclosures annually to be 24. Thus, we adopt TTB's estimate of 12 respondents, and an annual number of disclosures per respondent of 2, in table 1 of this document.

Our estimates of the average burden per disclosure for each regulation are based on our experience with food labeling under the Agency's jurisdiction. The estimated average burden per disclosure for §§ 101.3, 101.4, 101.5, 101.9, 101.22, and 101.105 in table 1 are equal to, and based upon, the estimated average burden per disclosure approved by OMB in OMB control number 0910-0381. We further estimate that the labeling burden of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, which specifies requirements for the declaration of food allergens, will be 1 hour based upon the similarity of the requirements to that of § 101.4. Finally, FDA estimates that a respondent will spend 1 hour reading the guidance document.

Thus, we estimate that 12 respondents will each label 2 products annually, for a total of 24 labels. We estimate that the manufacturers will spend 7.25 hours (0.5 hours + 1 hour + 0.25 hour + 4 hours + 0.5 hour + 1 hour = 7.25 hours) on each label to comply with our labeling regulations and the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 174 hours (24 labels × 7.25 hours = 174 hours). In addition, 12 respondents will each spend 1 hour reading the guidance document, for a total of 12 hours. Thus, we estimate the total hour burden of the proposed collection of information to be 186 hours (174 hours + 12 hours = 186 hours).

The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in our regulations. The collections of information in §§ 101.3, 101.4, 101.5, 101.9, 101.22, and 101.105 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381. Allergen labeling of these beers under section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, which was added by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0792.

FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Guidance for Entities Considering Whether to Register as Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” On November 27, 2013, President Obama signed the DQSA (Pub. L. 113-54) into law. The DQSA added a new section 503B to the FD&C Act that created a category of entities called “outsourcing facilities.” Section 503B(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b(d)(4)) defines an outsourcing facility, in part, as a facility that complies with all of the requirements of section 503B, including registering with FDA as an outsourcing facility and paying associated fees. If the conditions outlined in section 503B(a) of the FD&C Act are satisfied, a drug compounded by or under the direct supervision of a licensed pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from certain sections of the FD&C Act, including section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use) and section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)). Drugs compounded in outsourcing facilities are not exempt from the requirements of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice for drugs).

FDA has received questions about whether entities engaged in various types of activities (e.g., a facility that is compounding only non-sterile drugs or only repackaging biological products) should register as an outsourcing facility. Because entities that register as outsourcing facilities must pay a registration fee and FDA has determined that fees paid pursuant to sections 503B and 744K of the FD&C Act will not be refunded, FDA is issuing this guidance to answer some of these questions and to provide potential registrants additional information about the regulatory impact of registering as an outsourcing facility.

In the Federal Register of February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8871), FDA issued a notice announcing the availability of the draft version of this guidance. The comment period on the draft guidance ended on May 20, 2015. FDA received eleven comments on the draft guidance. Some of the comments raised issues that were not directly pertinent to the topics addressed in this guidance. FDA intends to consider those comments as they relate to issues being addressed in other policy documents being developed by the Agency.

In response to received comments or on its own initiative, FDA made the following changes as it finalized this guidance: (1) Removed the reference to a separate guidance document that explains how outsourcing facilities should report the products they compound to FDA because that guidance is not directly related to the issue of entities considering whether to register as outsourcing facilities; (2) noted that FDA has issued separate guidance documents addressing some of the conditions of section 503B and that it intends to publish additional guidance addressing other conditions; (3) added a reference to FDA's draft guidance regarding compounding animal drug products from bulk drug substances, which addresses outsourcing facilities engaging in this activity; and (4) made grammatical and other minor editorial changes for clarity.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on registering as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act. It does not create any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

FDA is requesting that public stakeholders, including patient and consumer advocacy groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts, notify the Agency of their intent to participate in periodic consultation meetings on the reauthorization of GDUFA. GDUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain generic human drug applications, certain drug master files, and certain facilities. GDUFA requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable generic drug program enhancements. The statutory authority for GDUFA expires at the end of September 2017. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future fiscal years to fund the human generic drug review process. Section 744C(d) (21 U.S.C. 379j-43(d)) of the FD&C Act requires that FDA consult with a range of stakeholders in developing recommendations for the next GDUFA program, including representatives from patient and consumer groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts. FDA initiated this process on June 15, 2015, by holding a public meeting at which stakeholders and other members of the public were given an opportunity to present their views on reauthorization (April 21, 2015, 80 FR 22204). The FD&C Act further requires that FDA continue meeting with these stakeholders at least once every month during negotiations with the regulated industry to continue discussions of stakeholder views on the reauthorization.

FDA is issuing this Federal Register notice to request that stakeholder representatives from patient and consumer groups, health care professional associations, as well as scientific and academic experts notify FDA of their intent to participate in periodic consultation meetings on GDUFA reauthorization. FDA believes that consistent stakeholder representation at these meetings will be important to ensuring progress in these discussions. If you wish to participate in this part of the reauthorization process, please designate one or more representatives from your organization who will commit to attending these meetings and preparing for the discussions as needed. Stakeholders who identify themselves through this notice will be included in all stakeholder discussions while FDA negotiates with the regulated industry. Stakeholders who decide to participate in these monthly meetings at a later time may still participate in remaining monthly meetings by notifying FDA (see ADDRESSES). These stakeholder discussions will satisfy the requirement in section 744C(d)(3) of the FD&C Act.

If you intend to participate in continued periodic stakeholder consultation meetings regarding GDUFA reauthorization, please provide notification by email to [email protected] by April 30, 2016. Your email should contain complete contact information, including name, title, affiliation, address, email address, phone number, and notice of any special accommodations required because of disability. Stakeholders will receive confirmation and additional information about the first meeting once FDA receives their notification.

With this notice, we announce the availability of the final CCP and final EIS for three national wildlife refuges that are part of the refuge complex. We started this process through a notice of intent in the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14042). Following a lengthy scoping and alternatives development period, we published a second notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 50937, August 26, 2014) announcing the availability of the draft CCP and draft EIS and our intention to hold public meetings, and requested comments. Comments were due October 27, 2014. In addition, EPA published a notice announcing the draft CCP and EIS (79 FR 53061; September 5, 2014), as required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) We now announce the final CCP and EIS. Under the CAA, EPA will notice the final CCP and EIS as well.

The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review all Federal agencies' environmental impact statements (EISs) and to comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.

EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the Federal Register. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Database provides information about EISs prepared by Federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments concerning the EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, which publishes a notice of availability each Friday in the Federal Register.

The notice of availability is the start of the 45-day public comment period for draft EISs, and the start of the 30-day “wait period” for final EISs, during which agencies are generally required to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. You may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) are located in the San Luis Valley, a high mountain basin in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties, Colorado. A wide variety of habitats are found across the refuge complex, including wet meadows, playa wetlands, riparian areas within the flood plain of the Rio Grande and other creeks, desert shrublands, grasslands, and croplands. Totaling about 106,000 acres, the refuges are an important stopover for numerous migratory birds. The refuges support many groups of nesting, migrating, and wintering birds, including sandhill cranes, grebes, herons, ibis, ducks, geese, hawks, eagles, falcons, shorebirds, owls, songbirds, and others. Other wildlife includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, pronghorn, coyotes, and other small mammals, amphibian species, and native fish.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act) by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including, where appropriate, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years as necessary in accordance with the Administration Act.

We started the public outreach process in March 2011. At that time and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included holding nine public meetings, mailing planning updates, maintaining a project Web site, and publishing press releases. We have considered and evaluated all the comments we have received during this process.

During the public scoping process with which we started work on the draft CCP and EIS, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the public raised several issues. Our final CCP and final EIS addresses both the scoping comments and the comments we received on the draft CCP and draft EIS. A full description of each alternative is in the final CCP and final EIS. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.

Habitat and wildlife management: There would be few changes in management of habitats and wildlife populations across the refuge complex through the manipulation of water. We would continue to manage wetland areas, wet meadows, riparian areas, and upland habitats to provide for a variety of waterbirds and other migratory birds. We would continue to protect habitat for the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and other species of concern. We would continue to produce small grains at current levels on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes. The management of elk populations would be limited to nonlethal dispersal, agency culling, and the limited distribution (dispersal) hunts on the former State lands of Baca NWR. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for season-long bison use within Baca NWR, and we would not use bison as a management tool in the future.

Water resources management: We would continue to manage water in the same manner, except as modified by changed State rules, regulations, and policies, and we would augment water supplies in accordance with State law.

Visitor services: We would continue to provide for limited wildlife-dependent public uses, including waterfowl and small game hunting, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. We would not build new facilities to support visitor services. Baca NWR would remain closed to all public access except for limited guided tours and access to refuge offices.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: There would be few changes from current management. When the legislation passed authorizing the Baca NWR, it did not come with additional funding, and additional operations costs were absorbed into the current operations. We would seek some additional staff and operations funding to support current management needs.

Wilderness review: We would not recommend protection for any areas having wilderness characteristics or values.

Habitat and wildlife management: Although we would manage wetland and riparian areas within the refuge complex to achieve a variety of wetland types and conditions in order to support a diversity of migratory birds, we would focus on the focal species, including the federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher, greater sandhill cranes, and other migratory bird species or wildlife species that represent larger regional and landscape conservation goals. In specific areas, we would restore historical water flow patterns through more effective and efficient water management practices (e.g., moving water to areas that historically held more water). This could include removal or replacement of water infrastructure. We would restore riparian habitat along streams in Baca NWR and along selected areas along the Rio Grande in Alamosa NWR, and we would manage upland habitats to create a variety of conditions to provide for a diversity of wildlife species. We would use public hunting, including elk hunting across the refuge complex, to complement the State's management of elk herds in the San Luis Valley, with more limited elk hunting used on Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for bison management on Baca NWR, but we would research the feasibility of using semi-free-ranging bison year-round to effectively maintain and enhance refuge habitats. The research area (about 12,140 acres) would have habitat-type acreages that are roughly in proportion to the habitat types found on the greater Sand Dunes landscape that includes lands managed by the National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, and refuge lands. We would continue to grow limited amounts of small grain on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes, but there would be a small decrease in the amount of grains grown as a result of restoring historic water flow patterns.

Water resources management: We would continue to work with other landowners and agencies throughout the watershed to keep flexibility as well as to protect and, if necessary, augment our water rights as State regulations evolve. Our water infrastructure, delivery, and efficiencies would require upgrades to make sure our wildlife, habitat, and visitor services objectives are met.

Visitor services: In addition to continuing waterfowl and limited small game hunting opportunities on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would offer limited elk hunting on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, and we would open Baca NWR for big game and limited small game hunting. We would improve public access on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, including allowing more access from approximately mid-July through the end of February for wildlife viewing and interpretation on roads and trails that are currently only open to waterfowl hunters during hunting season. We would also improve existing access opportunities. We would seek funding to build a visitor center and refuge complex offices at either Monte Vista NWR or Alamosa NWR to provide for safer access to the refuge complex headquarters and to provide for a modern work environment, as well as to offer a place for visitors to come and learn more about the refuge complex resources. We would permit walk-in fishing access and bank fishing just below and above the Chicago dam on Alamosa NWR (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). We would open Baca NWR for a variety of compatible, wildlife-dependent opportunities, including providing facilities to support them, including an auto tour route, trails, viewing blinds, and interpretation and environmental education programs.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: We would increase our efforts toward identifying and protecting the significant cultural resources found on the refuge complex. We would work with partners and volunteers to accomplish our objectives, but we would also seek increased staffing levels of both full-time and seasonal employees, as well as increased funding for operations.

Wilderness review: We would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR and adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve that possess wilderness characteristics and values.

Habitat and wildlife management: We would take all feasible actions to restore—or mimic, where needed—the native vegetation community, based on ecological site characteristics, ecological processes, and other factors. We would restore the function of the riparian and playa areas on the Baca NWR. Where possible, we would restore natural waterflow patterns. We would phase out and end the production of small grains for migrating sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR. Similar to alternative B, we would use hunting to manage elk populations across the refuge complex. Periodically (not annually), we would use bison on Baca NWR to mimic the ecological benefit they may have once provided.

Water resources management: We would manage water to restore the hydrologic conditions, with less focus on habitat management for specific species or for providing wildlife viewing. In some years, water might not be available to meet life cycle needs for some waterfowl species. Existing water infrastructure would be removed or modified as needed.

Visitor services: We would continue to allow waterfowl and limited small game hunting on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. Similar to under alternative B, we would open the Baca NWR for limited big game and limited small game hunting, whereas, on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would rely more on limited public hunting or agency dispersal methods for elk management.

There may be other changes in public use, depending on the habitat management action. Some areas could be closed, or wildlife viewing would be more limited. Current public access would be evaluated on the Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. If existing roads or trails are not needed, or if these facilities fragment habitat, they could be removed or altered. Viewing areas for sandhill cranes may be moved, depending on restoration efforts. As under alternative B, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would also allow for access opportunities within the hunt boundary from mid-July through the end of February. We would not build a refuge headquarters or visitor center on Monte Vista or Alamosa NWR. Except for limited hunting access to achieve our management objectives, there would be few visitor facilities or programs on Baca NWR, and most of the refuge would remain closed.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except that on Baca NWR, roads that are not needed or that are fragmenting habitat would be removed.

Wilderness review: This would be the same as under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

Habitat and wildlife management: Under this alternative, our habitat management practices would be a blend of alternatives A and B. We would manage wildlife habitats on the refuge complex consistent with our mission and purposes, while maximizing and emphasizing quality visitor experiences and wildlife-dependent public uses. For example, we could irrigate areas that are closer to public access to facilitate wildlife viewing. We would increase agricultural production of small grains for sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR, including the consideration of producing grain in specific places to enhance wildlife viewing. We would offer a variety of opportunities for elk hunting (e.g., youth hunts or additional provisions for persons with disabilities), managing numbers at levels that would restore and foster the long-term health of native plant communities. We would introduce and manage a small bison herd on a confined area of the Baca NWR, emphasizing wildlife viewing and interpretive opportunities.

Water resources management: We would manage water similar to alternative B, except we would make a concerted effort to make sure there is water in specific areas to enhance wildlife viewing; this practice could require additional augmentation of water.

Visitor services: We would provide for the widest variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Similar to under alternative B, public access and visitor programs would be expanded, including building a visitor center and refuge complex at either Monte Vista or Alamosa NWR; however, there would be additional trails, viewing blinds, and seasonal auto tour routes provided across the refuge complex. Subsequently, we would increase interpretation and environmental education opportunities and seek more staff, volunteers, and partnerships to support the visitor services program. We would allow for limited fishing access on Alamosa NWR. We would also consider additional commercial uses.

Cultural resources, partnerships and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except there would be greater emphasis on using students and volunteers to help us survey areas with high potential for cultural resources. We would pursue more outside partnerships and seek to increase staffing and funding to support our refuge complex operations.

Wilderness review: This would be the same as that under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

We solicited comments on the draft CCP and draft EIS from August 26, 2014, through October 27, 2014 and accepted them through November 3, 2014. During the comment period we received over 1,000 letters, email, petitions (form letters), or verbal comments, and we thoroughly evaluated them all.

We made the following changes in the final CCP and final EIS from the draft CCP and draft EIS.

• Fishing on Alamosa NWR. Under alternative B, we would provide for fishing access along the banks of the Rio Grande just above and below the Chicago dam (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). This was part of broader fishing opportunity element that was considered under alternative D in the draft CCP and draft EIS. Prior to our acquisition of the property near the Chicago dam, the area was popular with local fisherman who fished for game fish like northern pike and carp. When we acquired the property, we closed the access due to concerns of having people fish off the dam. After further review, under alternative B and D, we would use signs, barriers, and increased law enforcement to keep people off the dam and allow an opportunity for bank fishing just above and below the dam. Currently, there are no nesting territories for southwestern willow flycatcher found in this area, but monitoring for these protected birds would continue. Should territories be established in the area, we would institute seasonal closures as needed. Other opportunities for fishing along the Rio Grande could be considered in the future.

• For Baca NWR, we modified several trails under alternative B and D to provide for some shorter loops and longer loops. We provided additional clarity on how the public use program would be managed on the refuge.

• We also provided additional clarification under the action alternatives about opening Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs for limited big game hunting and Baca NWR for limited big game and limited small game hunting, making it clearer that we would develop and implement a hunt plan within 1-3 years under all three action alternatives.

• Under the objectives for cultural resources, we added information about the importance of oral traditions practiced by Native Americans, and we would reach out to the Tribes regarding their oral traditions and regional knowledge about the history of the San Luis Valley.

• To emphasize the importance of water quality and monitoring and the importance of the San Luis Valley as a primary staging area for sandhill cranes from their winter grounds in northern New Mexico and the breeding grounds to the north, we added two new figures to the document: (1) Impaired waters in the San Luis Valley; and (2) Distribution of the Rocky Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. We would also initiate a research project to better understand the trends in agricultural practices in the San Luis Valley, including the amount and distribution of small grain production on private lands, the energetic demands of spring migrating cranes, and whether other changes to Monte Vista NWR's farming program are needed as a result of ongoing drought, climate changes, and changes in State groundwater regulations.

• As necessary, we updated maps, corrected errors and provided additional clarification throughout the final CCP and final EIS.

In addition to any one method in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain documents at the following locations:

• Our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/refuges/refugesUpdate/alm_bac_mtv.php

• Public libraries:

We will document the final decision in a record of decision, which will be published in the Federal Register after a 30-day “wait period” that begins when EPA announces this final CCP-EIS. For more information, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process.

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the TAMWG and the TMC will hold a joint teleconference meeting.

The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.

• FY 2016 Trinity River Restoration Plan budget.

The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata.

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date above, so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, or one electronic copy with a digital signature via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).

Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.

Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The draft minutes will be available for public inspection within 14 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata.

Meetings of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee are open to the public. Additional information about the NGAC and the meeting are available at www.fgdc.gov/ngac.

The National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity (NLRSEORA) is an effort that involves the development of a U.S. National consortium in building the capability to receive, process and archive remotely sensed data for the purpose of providing access to university and State organizations in a ready-to-use format; and to expand the science of remote sensing through education, research/applications development and outreach in areas such as environmental monitoring, climate change research, natural resource management and disaster analysis. Respondents are submitting proposals to acquire funding for a National (U.S.) program to promote the uses of space-based land remote sensing data and technologies through education and outreach at the State and local level and through university-based and collaborative research projects. The information collected will ensure that sufficient and relevant information is available to evaluate and select a proposal for funding. A panel of USGS Land Remote Sensing Program managers and scientists will review each proposal to evaluate the technical merit, requirements, and priorities identified in the Program's call for proposals.

This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0085.

Form Number: NA.

Title: National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity (NLRSEORA).

Type of Request: Extension.

Affected Public: Non-profit organizations.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to receive benefits.

Frequency of Collection: Once per year.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: Approximately 5 applications.

Estimated Time per Response: We expect to receive approximately 5 applications per year, taking each applicant approximately 24 hours to complete, totaling 120 burden hours. We anticipate awarding one (1) grant per year. The grantee will be required to submit an interim Annual Progress Report to the designated USGS Project Officer within 90 days of the end of the project period and a final report on or before 90 working days after the expiration of the agreement for a total of 48 hours.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 168 hours per year.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this ICR.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice is for renewal of information collection.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)).

Public Law 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), as amended, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, was designed by Congress to help local governments recover some of the expenses they incur in providing services on public lands. These local governments receive funds under various Federal land payment programs such as the National Forest Revenue Act, the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, and the Taylor Grazing Act. PILT payments supplement the payments that local governments receive under these other programs. The FY 2016 budget proposes a one-year extension of the current PILT program, maintaining the existing formula for calculating payments to counties. That proposal is currently pending before Congress. This renewal authority is being done in anticipation of reauthorization by Congress.

The PILT Act requires that the Governor of each State furnish the Department of the Interior with a listing of payments disbursed to local governments by the States on behalf of the Federal Government under 12 statutes described in Section 6903 of 31 U.S.C. The Department of the Interior uses the amounts reported by the States to reduce PILT payments to units of general local governments from that which they might otherwise receive. If such listings were not furnished by the Governor of each affected State, the Department would not be able to compute the PILT payments to units of general local government within the States in question.

In fiscal year 2004, administrative authority for the PILT program was transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Applicable DOI regulations pertaining to the PILT program to be administered by the Office of the Secretary were published as a final rule in the Federal Register on December 7, 2004 (69 FR 70557). The Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary is now planning to extend the information collection approval authority in order to enable the Department of the Interior to continue to comply with the PILT Act.

(1) Title: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT Act), Statement of Federal Land Payments, 43 CFR 44.

OMB Control Number: 1093-0005.

Current Expiration Date: December 31, 2015.

Type of Review: Information Collection Renewal.

Affected Entities: State, local, or tribal government.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 45.

Frequency of responses: Annual.

(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:

Total annual reporting per response: 53 hours.

Total number of estimated responses: 45.

Total annual reporting: 2,385 hours.

(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The statutorily required information is needed to compute payments due units of general local government under the PILT Act (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907). The Act requires that the Governor of each State furnish a statement as to amounts paid to units of general local government under 12 revenue-sharing statutes in the prior fiscal year. The FY 2016 budget proposes a one-year extension of the current PILT program, maintaining the existing formula for calculating payments to counties. That proposal is currently pending before Congress. This renewal authority is being done in anticipation of reauthorization by Congress.

The Departments invite comments on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and 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 respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

“Burden” means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment by using the contact information provided in the ADDRESSES section above. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the September 10th meeting, there will be an update on the University of Idaho Sage-Grouse Spring Grazing Study, an overview of the Gateway West Transmission project, a Christmas tree permit fee proposal presented by the Sawtooth National Forest, an overview of the Sage-Grouse Environmental Impact Statement Amendments, and field office updates. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements.

More information is available at www.blm.gov/id/st/en/res/resource_advisory.3.html. RAC meetings are open to the public.

The 10-member Pecos District RAC elected to create a subcommittee to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Pecos District, about possible livestock grazing within the LPC ACEC. Planned agenda includes a discussion of management strategies for the LPC ACEC.

For any interested members of the public who wish to address the Subcommittee, there will be a public comment period beginning at 2:15 p.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and time available, the time for individual comments may be limited.

On August 4, 2015, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 24970, May 1, 2015) and the respondent interested party group responses with respect to the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain were adequate. The Commission determined that it will proceed to full reviews of the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain. The Commission also found that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to the orders on SSWR from Japan and Taiwan were inadequate. The Commission further determined that it will proceed to full reviews of the orders on SSWR from Japan and Taiwan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to proceed to full reviews with respect to the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

In order to promote openness, and increase public participation, webinar and audio conference technology will be used throughout the meeting. Webinar and audio instructions will be posted prominently on the Office of Apprenticeship homepage: http://www.dol.gov/apprenticeship. Members of the public can attend the meeting in-person or virtually. Members of the public that will attend the meeting in-person are encouraged to arrive early to allow for security clearance into the Frances Perkins Building.

Meeting participants should use the visitor's entrance to access the Frances Perkins Building, one block north of Constitution Avenue on 3rd and C Streets NW. For security purposes meeting participants must:

1. Present valid photo identification (ID) to receive a visitor badge.

2. Know the name of the event you are attending: the meeting event is the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship meeting.

3. Visitor badges are issued by the security officer at the Visitor Entrance located at 3rd and C Streets NW., as described above.

4. Laptops and other electronic devices may be inspected and logged for identification purposes.

5. Due to limited parking options, Metro rail is the easiest way to travel to the Frances Perkins Building. For individuals wishing to take metro rail, the closest metro stop to the building is Judiciary Square on the Red Line.

All meeting participants are being asked to submit a notice of intent to attend by Wednesday, September 9, 2015, via email to Mr. John V. Ladd at [email protected], with the subject line “September 2015 ACA Meeting.”

1. Please indicate if you will be attending virtually, or in person, to ensure adequate space is arranged to accommodate all meeting participants.

2. If individuals have special needs and/or disabilities that will require special accommodations, please contact Kenya Huckaby on (202) 693-3795 or via email at [email protected] no later than Wednesday, September 9, 2015.

3. Any member of the public who wishes to file written data or comments pertaining to the agenda may do so by sending the data or comments to Mr. John V. Ladd via email at [email protected], subject line “September 2015 ACA Meeting,” or to the Office of Apprenticeship, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Such submissions will be included in the record for the meeting if received by Wednesday, September 9, 2015.

4. See below regarding members of the public wishing to speak at the ACA meeting.

The purpose of the meeting is to focus on apprenticeship expansion and employer engagement efforts in order to seek advice from the ACA on industry issues and how best to increase Registered Apprenticeships across the country. The agenda will cover the following topics:

The agenda and meeting logistics may be updated should priority items come before the ACA between the time of this publication and the scheduled date of the ACA meeting. All meeting updates will be posted to the Office of Apprenticeship's homepage: http://www.dol.gov/apprenticeship. Any member of the public who wishes to speak at the meeting should indicate the nature of the intended presentation and the amount of time needed by furnishing a written statement to the Designated Federal Official, Mr. John V. Ladd, by Wednesday, September 9, 2015. The Chairperson will announce at the beginning of the meeting the extent to which time will permit the granting of such requests.

The UCX law (5 U.S.C. 8521-8525) requires State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) to administer the UCX program in accordance with the same terms and conditions of the paying state's unemployment insurance law which apply to unemployed claimants who worked in the private sector. Each state agency needs to obtain certain military service information on claimants filing for UCX benefits to enable the state to determine their eligibility for benefits. As needed, most state agencies record required UCX information on the form developed by the Department, ETA 843, Request for Military Document and Information. States not using the ETA 843 record required UCX information on form ETA 841, Request for Determination of Federal Military Service and Wages. The use of these forms is essential to the UCX claims process. Information pertaining to the UCX claimant which is recorded on the ETA 841 report can only be obtained from the individual's military discharge papers, maintained by the appropriate branch of military service or the Department of Veterans' Affairs (formerly the Veterans' Administration). Without the claimant's military information, a state cannot adequately determine potential UCX eligibility of ex-servicemembers and would not be able to properly administer the program.

The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

• 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;

• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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 submissions of responses.

Type of Review: Extension without changes.

Title: Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers.

OMB Number: 1205-0176.

Affected Public: State Workforce Agencies.

Form(s): ETA 841, ETA 843.

Total Annual Respondents: 53.

Annual Frequency: As needed.

Estimated Annual Responses: 6,898 for the ETA 843, 260 for the ETA 841.

Average Time per Response: 1 minute.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 119.3 hours.

Total Annual Burden Cost for Respondents: There are no costs for respondents.

We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR part 75. In order to prevent occupational injuries resulting from falls of roofs, faces, and ribs—which are a leading cause of injuries and death in underground coal mines—regulations 30 CFR 75.215 and 75.220 to 75.223 make it mandatory for an underground coal mine operator to develop and to submit roof control plans to the MSHA for evaluation and approval. The agency evaluates each roof control plan to determine whether it is adequate for prevailing mining conditions. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a), 103(h), and 302(a) authorize this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 811(a); 813(h); 862(a).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0004.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71129).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0004. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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.

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines.

OMB Control Number: 1219-0004.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 494.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,965.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 7,924 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $6,795.

Authority:

44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Training Plans, New Miner Training, Newly Hired Experienced Miner Training information collection. Training informs miners of safety and health hazards inherent in the workplace and enables miners to identify and avoid such hazards. Training becomes even more important in light of certain conditions that can exist when production demands increase—such as an influx of new and less experienced miners and mine operators, longer work hours to meet production demands, and increased demand for contractors who may be less familiar with the dangers on mine property. This ICR covers reporting and recordkeeping as follows: regulations 30 CFR 46.3(a) requires a mine operator to develop and implement a written training plan that contains effective training programs; § 46.3(c) specifies when an operator must submit a plan to the MSHA for approval; § 46.3(e) allows for a miner or miner representative to submit written comments on a training plan; § 46.3(g) requires the mine operator to provide the miners' representative, if any, with a copy of the approved training plan within one (1) week of approval (at a mine where no miners' representative has been designated, the operator must post a copy of the plan at the mine site or provide a copy to each miner); § 46.3(h) allows a mine operator, contractor, miner, or miners' representative to appeal—in writing—the Regional Manager's decision to the MSHA Director for Educational Policy and Development; § 46.3(i) requires mine operators and contractors to make available at the mine site a copy of the current training plan for inspection by the MSHA and for examination by miners and their representatives (if the training plan is not maintained at the mine site, the operator must have the capability to provide the plan within one (1) business day upon request to the MSHA, miners, or their representatives); § 46.5(a) requires a mine operator to provide each new miner with no less than 24 hours of training; § 46.6(a) requires an operator to provide each newly hired experienced miner with certain specified training before the miner begins work; § 46.7(a) requires that before a miner performs a new task for which the miner has no experience, the operator must train the miner in the safety and health aspects and safe work procedures specific to that task; § 46.7(b) requires that if changes have occurred in a miner's regularly assigned task that affects the health and safety risks encountered by the miner, the operator must provide the miner with training that addresses the changes; § 46.8(a) requires an operator provide each miner with no less than eight (8) hours of refresher training, at least every twelve (12) months; § 46.9 requires an operator, upon completion of each training program, to record and certify on MSHA Form 5000-23 (separately cleared under control number 1219-0009) the miner has completed the training; and § 46.11(a) requires an operator to provide site-specific hazard training to specific persons before they are exposed to mine hazards. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) authorize this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 811(a); 813(h).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0131.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2015 (80 FR 26953).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0131. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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.

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Training Plans, New Miner Training, Newly Hired Experienced Miner Training.

OMB Control Number: 1219-0131.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,657.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,157,241.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 155,240 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $356,004.

Section 104 of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 U.S.C. 2111 note) and 36 CFR 1275.42(b) of the PRMPA regulations implementing the Act, direct NARA to provide notice in the Federal Register of materials we make available to the public.

We are making the following materials available through this notice:

Volume: 2,880.5 cubic feet available for review-on-demand.