Federal Register Vol. 80, No.161,

The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, is an invasive wood-boring beetle from Asia threatening ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) in the United States. EAB larvae feed on ash phloem, cutting off the movement of resources within the tree and killing the tree in 4-5 years. EAB is able to attack and kill healthy trees in both natural and urban environments and is well suited for climatic conditions in the continental United States. As a result, EAB infestations have been detected in 24 States: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for the field release of a parasitic wasp, Spathius galinae, into the continental United States to reduce the severity of EAB infestations.

On February 12, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 7827, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0094) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment (EA) that examined the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of S. galinae into the continental United States.

We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending March 16, 2015. We received 10 comments by that date. The comments were from a government agency, State departments of agriculture, an organization of state plant regulatory agencies, and private citizens. Five commenters supported the action and five were opposed. The commenters who were opposed to the action raised issues related to the potential effects the release of S. galinae would have on human and environmental health and post-release monitoring methods. APHIS has provided responses to specific concerns raised by the comments in an appendix to the final EA.

In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of S. galinae into the continental United States for use as a biological control agent for EAB. The finding, which is based on the final EA, reflects our determination that release of this biological control agent will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

The final EA and FONSI may be viewed on Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1). Copies of the EA and FONSI are also available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead to (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The purpose of the meeting is:

1. Discuss Environmental Education; and

2. Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.

The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members. Written comments are invited and should be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; and must be received by September 4, 2015, in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 28, 1988 designated the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, to be Administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety (90) days after Congress receives the transmittal.

The Automated Export System (AES) or successor system, is the instrument used for collecting export trade information. The data collected from this source is compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and functions as the basis for the official U.S. export trade statistics. These statistics are used to determine the balance of international trade and are also designated for use as a principal economic indicator. Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301 authorizes the Census Bureau to collect, compile, publish, and require the electronic filing of export data. Section 302 of Title 13, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to publish regulations for the collection, publication, confidentiality, and disclosure of data collected pursuant to Chapter 9. Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 30, contains these regulatory provisions, and is known as the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). These data collected are used in the development of U.S. Government policies that affect the economy. These data also enable U.S. businesses to develop practical export marketing strategies as well as provide a means for the assessment of the impact of exports on the domestic economy. These data collected from the AES record are also used for export control purposes under Title 50, U.S.C., Export Administration Act, to detect and prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.

The FTR was recently amended on February 9, 2015, through the issuance of a Final Rule, “Clarification on Uses of Electronic Export Information,” to provide clarity on the confidentiality provisions of the Electronic Export Information (EEI) and to facilitate the legitimate sharing of export data consistent with the goals for the International Trade Data System (ITDS). However, these changes did not impact the reporting burden imposed upon the export trade community.

Currently, the Census Bureau is drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to amend the FTR with new export reporting requirements. The proposed changes include the addition of two new data elements in the AES and clarification to existing reporting requirements. The proposed fields are not mandatory data elements and will only be required if a shipment meets a specific reporting requirement.

The proposed data elements are an Original Internal Transaction Number (ITN) field and a New or Used Electronics indicator field. The Original ITN field will be an optional field that may be utilized if the filer has to create an additional AES record for a shipment that was previously filed. Adding the Original ITN field will assist the export trade community and enforcement agencies in identifying that a filer completed the mandatory filing requirements for the original shipment. In doing so, this may decrease the issuance of unnecessary penalties for these types of shipments. Because this data element is optional and only applies to a small percentage of shipments, it will have a minimal impact on response burden.

The proposed New or Used Electronics indicator field will be used to improve information on trade flows and the disposal of used electronics. This information will be collected from the trade community for those who export electronics, in order to better understand the quantity and destinations of used electronics being exported. This field is being added to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, signed on March 19, 2015. The goal of the Executive Order is to employ environmentally sound practices with respect to Federal agency's disposal of all excess or surplus electronic products, to reduce the likelihood of negative impacts to the health and environment in developing countries. Adding the New or Used Electronics indicator will not contribute significantly to response burden because it is optional and is a check box that only applies to shipments of electronics.

The draft NPR also includes language to address the implementation of the ITDS in compliance with the Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses. The ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single window,” through which businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo.

Lastly, the draft NPR also includes language to clarify the reporting requirements for items such as Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), specific or general licenses and split shipments. Unlike other export licenses, general and specific licenses issued by OFAC do not require a specific value or quantity to be reported. Currently, the definition of export license in the FTR does not account for licenses that do not have a specific value or quantity and, as a result, we are adding language to clarify 15 CFR 30.2(a)(1)(iv). The Census Bureau is revising requirements for split shipments to incorporate new timeframes that were initially announced in FTR Letter #6, Notice of Regulatory Change for Split Shipments. In practice, the export trade community already adheres to these filing timeframes. These clarifications do not impose new reporting requirements because these shipments currently require filing in the AES.

While the Census Bureau is proposing to add two additional data elements, the overall time per response is expected to remain at three minutes per AES filing. Data captured based on the new export reporting requirements are essential in compiling complete and accurate export statistics, as well as strengthening export controls.

Except as noted in 15 CFR 30.2(a)(1)(iv), an electronic AES record is required for all export shipments valued more than $2,500 per Schedule B number from the United States, including Foreign Trade Zones located therein, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to foreign countries; for exports between the United States and Puerto Rico; and for exports to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Additionally, an AES record is required for the export of rough diamonds, used self-propelled vehicles and all exports requiring an export license from any other government agency or license exemption from the Department of State, regardless of value. The AES record is also required for exports with certain license exceptions from the Bureau of Industry and Security. The AES program is unique among Census Bureau statistical collections since respondents are not solicited for responses, as is the case with surveys. Filing export information via the AES is a mandatory process under Title 13, Chapter 9, U.S.C. The export trade community can access the AES via a free Internet-based system, AESDirect, or they can use software that connects directly with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Automated Commercial Environment.

For exports to Canada, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CBP, Canada Border Services Agency, Statistics Canada, and the U.S. Census Bureau enables the United States to substitute Canadian import statistics for U.S. export statistics. Similarly, in accordance with the MOU, Canada substitutes U.S. import statistics for Canadian exports to the United States. This exchange of data eliminates the requirement for the export trade community to file the EEI with the U.S. Government for the majority of export shipments to Canada, thus resulting in the elimination of over eight million AES records annually. Export shipments to Canada of rough diamonds, used vehicles, or those that require a license must be filed through the AES. In addition, export shipments from the United States through Canada destined to a country other than Canada require an AES record.

In most instances, a U.S. Principal Party in Interest or authorized agent must file EEI via the AES and annotate the commercial loading documents with the proof of filing citation prior to the export of a shipment. In instances where the AES filing is not required, the proper exemption legend must be noted on the commercial loading documents per 15 CFR 30.7.

The AES enables the U.S. Government to significantly improve the quality, timeliness, and coverage of export statistics. Since July 1995, the Census Bureau and the CBP have utilized the AES to improve the reporting of export trade information, customer service, increase compliance with and enforcement of export laws, and provides paperless reports of export information. The AES also enables the U.S. Government to increase its ability to prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties, to unauthorized destinations and end users through electronic filing.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0152.

Form Number(s): Automated Export System (AES) submissions.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Exporters, Forwarding agents, Export Carriers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 304,223 filers who submit 15,218,820 shipments through the AES.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes for each AES submission.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 760,941.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $14,724,208.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Chapter 9, Sections 301-307.

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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare SARs for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, the stock's Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions.

As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2014, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (80 FR 4881, January 29, 2015). NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of the final 2014 reports for the 88 stocks that are currently finalized. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2014 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Makah Tribe, seven non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Hawaii Longline Association, Sustainable Fisheries Association, and the Maine Lobstermen's Association), and five individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2014 SARs.

Comment 1: The Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity commented that NMFS failed to submit the draft 2014 SARs for public review in timely manner, thus rendering any comments on the draft 2014 SARs moot as the draft 2015 SARs had already been reviewed by the SRGs.

Response: We acknowledge that the draft 2014 SARs were made available for public comment later than usual. While the SRG review of the draft 2015 SARs occurred prior to the 2014 reports being finalized, should any substantive comments on the draft 2014 reports have been received that would have led to changes to the draft 2015 reports and required SRG review, we would have sent the revisions to the SRGs for review prior to submitting the draft 2015 reports for public review.

Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS expand its efforts to understand and estimate the recovery rates of carcasses for marine mammal stocks (where the requisite data are available) and report those estimated rates and their associated uncertainties in future stock assessment reports.

Response: We agree that there is a need to better understand and estimate undetected marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries. We are working on estimating carcass recovery rates for some species, and by extension, estimating the “cryptic mortality” rate for these species. When such rates are estimated and it is appropriate to do so, NMFS will report those estimated rates and their associated uncertainties in the SARs on a stock-by-stock basis.

Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS immediately publish new stock-assessment guidelines from the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) III recommendations that are not controversial or problematic.

Response: We appreciate this recommendation and will endeavor to do so as promptly as feasible.

Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS develop guidelines for the development of new stock assessment methods that include review by appropriate experts not only on their scientific merit but also on their application to the management decision-making process. The Commission also recommended that NMFS develop a mechanism for the timely (i.e., faster than the GAMMS process), joint review and adoption of new methods by all six of the science centers.

Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for this recommendation. We are investigating the most efficient process to incorporate new methodologies in a standardized way across regions where appropriate. NMFS is working to ensure that all centers have access to comparable analytical tools as new methods become available, and that these methodologies are being applied consistently across regions.

Comment 5: The Commission recommended that when NMFS reviews and revises the policy on serious injury that it considers changing criterion L8 by deleting the provision for altering initial assessments about risks of separating mothers and calves pending better information on the length of calf dependence and in the interim refrain from making alterations based on subsequent sightings.

Response: NMFS appreciates this recommendation and will consider it when reviewing and revising the Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. Each injury event is carefully evaluated and all available information used to make the best judgment of prognosis under the serious injury definition of “likely to die” being equal to or greater than a 50 percent. Our intention is to provide the most accurate injury outcome results given the information available. A whale that has sustained a serious injury and is re-sighted many months later with the injury resolving and in relatively good health compared to non-injured conspecifics is considered not likely to die due to that injury and is no longer counted against PBR as a removal from the population. In the rare case of subsequent sightings indicating deterioration of health that can be attributed to the injury, the whale would again be considered seriously injured and counted against PBR.

Comment 6: To clarify the information presented in the Atlantic stock assessment reports, the Commission recommended that NMFS replace the term “Fate” as a column header in Table 2 with the term “Injury Determination” and limit the categories used under that heading to the following three: “Mortality” (when the individual is known to have died), “Serious injury,” or “Prorated serious injury” as appropriate based on the large whale injury determination categories.

Response: NMFS will rename the “Fate” column to “Injury Determination” and change the “unknown” category to “prorated injury” in the Atlantic reports. We would rather not use the phrase “prorated serious injury” because in such cases it not known whether the injury is serious or not.

Comment 7: The Commission suggests that three serious injuries to North Atlantic right whales (#1151, #4160, and #3308) should be added to Table 2 in the SAR.

Response: The following is a summary statement about each case. Cases were reviewed by NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) staff and determinations made by NEFSC staff were later reviewed by experienced staff at all other Fisheries Science Centers, per the Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals.

• 08/09/09-#1151 was badly entangled but freed with her condition subsequently deteriorating. Re-sightings confirmed the whale was gear free and indicate both mom and calf healthy. This whale was categorized L2 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to disentanglement and evident healing.

• 07/19/11-#4160, Calf of #2660—Entanglement Scarred Calf with significant cuts and wounds seen off Provincetown. The whale was re-sighted healthy in 2014. The last SAR listed this whale with a serious injury value as 1.0, but that was changed to 0 in the 2014 report based on the healthy re-sight.

• 7/20/12-#3308—Entanglement scarred (but gear free) whale found in Gulf of Maine with extensive wounds whose condition subsequently declined in 2013 and 2014. Re-sights showed some health decline but overall condition was fair and injuries healing. This whale was categorized as L10 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to evident healing.

Comment 8: The Maine Lobstermen Association (MLA) recommended that the “Population Size” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR should have a more in-depth discussion of recent changes in right whale distribution over the last five years, during which time fewer are being seen in their known historic habitats. The comment stated that since the minimum population estimate (NMIN) for right whales is based only on those whales observed in surveys in combination with photo-identification of whales, if they are not seen, they are not counted. The MLA fears that as the population continues its positive growth trend, the population estimate could actually decrease because the whales are no longer frequenting the same habitats, which would impact PBR.

Response: This comment may be valid in future SARs; however, the data used in this assessment show no appreciable decline in capture probability during the years succeeding the reference year. Because it is the probability of seeing an individual at least once that determines the robustness of NMIN when calculated as Minimum Number Alive, there has been no discernible impact on that estimate due to changes in right whale residence times in surveyed habitats. NMFS closely monitors mean group-wise capture probabilities using a mark recapture (MRR) statistical model. At the point in time that population estimation via MRR offers a more robust estimate of NMIN than does Minimum Number Alive, that new estimate can then be vetted and used in the SAR.

Comment 9: The MLA recommended that the minimum population estimate for the North Atlantic right whale should be revised to 510 whales, based on the best available science from the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2014 Annual Report Card.

Response: The MMPA requires that NMFS report a minimum abundance estimate that provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate. The estimates provided by the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium do not meet that standard in that they count whales that are likely to be dead (what the Consortium calls “presumed alive”—those whales not seen for one to five consecutive years). Including those whales in an NMIN for the SAR would increase the likelihood that the estimate is biased high, which fails to meet the mandate of MMPA. Note also that the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium's 2014 Annual Report Card includes the statement that their number “should not be considered a ‘population estimate.’ ”

Comment 10: The MLA recommended that the “Current Population Trend” section of the SAR for the North Atlantic right whale should be revised to reflect that the population has been increasing over the past decade.

Response: The SAR provides a graph that depicts the population increase over a 12-year period and it includes in the text an estimate of growth during that time frame. The current wording in the “Current Population Trend” section is “Examination of the minimum number alive population index calculated from the individual sightings database, as it existed on 25 October 2013, for the years 1990-2011 (Figure 1) suggests a positive and slowly accelerating trend in population size. These data reveal a significant increase in the number of catalogued whales with a geometric mean growth rate for the period of 2.8 percent.” This text reflects that the population has been increasing over the past decade.

Comment 11: The MLA recommended that the “Current and Maximum Net Productivity Rates” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR be revised to include a more recent analysis of the pool of reproductive females, mean calving intervals, and age structure of the population.

Response: NMFS agrees that providing a demographically-based productivity value in the SAR would be slightly more informative than the present SAR's accounting of the number of detected calves. NMFS will revise the section in future years by providing a per capita production value. Because many whales are of unknown age, the development of detailed information on age structure will require vetting estimates through a peer review process that cannot be organized in the short term, but will be included in the next SAR feasible. The same is true for calving interval.

Comment 12: The MLA recommended that the PBR for the North Atlantic Right Whale should be revised to 1.02, using 510 as the minimum population size for the population as referenced above.

Response: See response to comment 9.

Comment 13: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR include a short explanation of the methodology used to make the assignment for serious injury and mortality rates in U.S. versus Canadian waters. The comment states that the SAR should not include 13.75 reported fisheries entanglements as being “from U.S. waters,” as the origin of the gear in these cases is unknown. The location of where the entanglement was first observed does not indicate the origin of the gear, so this extrapolation cannot be made.

Response: The SAR text will be revised to read “Of the 13.75 reported fisheries entanglements first reported in U.S. waters during this five-year time period . . .” Further details on assigning entanglements to countries can be found in Cole T.V.N., and Henry A.G. (2013) Serious injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2007-2011. Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13-24; 14p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1324/crd1324.pdf.

Comment 14: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR be revised to include data from the last ten years to characterize the overall impacts of serious injury and mortality on the North Atlantic right whale population size.

Response: NMFS is presently working on a more robust depiction of the impact of entanglement-related serious injury and mortality on the right whale population, which should be available in subsequent SARs (assuming the procedures receive a favorable peer review, possibly beginning with the next SAR).

Comment 15: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR note that it is unknown whether any of U.S. fisheries entanglements relate to the efficacy of the sinking line rule.

Response: At this point, too little time as passed to make any statements relative to entanglement rates and the sinking ground rule.

Comment 16: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR include the value of Optimal Sustainable Population (OSP) for right whales, as well as the value of the size of the stock to substantiate the statement that the “size of the stock is extremely low relative to OSP in the US Atlantic EEZ.”

Response: NMFS has provided a graph that depicts North Atlantic right whale population growth during 1990-2011. That graph indicates that population growth is accelerating and has not passed an inflection point. An inflection point would suggest that the population could be reaching Maximum Net Productivity Level (MNPL). Because the population appears to be at levels clearly lower than MNPL it is, by mathematical definition, less than OSP. Until population growth begins to decelerate—due to density dependence, not deaths caused by human activities—then it would be unwise to attempt to fit a growth curve and estimate OSP from the population data.

Comment 17: The MLA recommended that in the North Atlantic right whale SAR NMFS revise the sentence “the North Atlantic right whale is considered one of the most critically endangered populations of large whales in the world.” The comment states that this conclusion is based on a 1999 report that estimates the population of right whales to be 295 animals, which is substantially lower than the current estimate of 510 whales. The comment states that therefore, more recent data should be used to substantiate such a statement.

Response: NMFS' comment regarding the critically endangered status of North Atlantic right whale is still true. There are likely only four large whale stocks in more dire straits than the North Atlantic right whale: Western gray whales, Gulf of Mexico Brydes whales, Arabian humpback whales, and North Pacific right whales.

Comment 18: Two individuals noted data deficiencies in the stock assessment reports for North Atlantic gray seals and recommended that NMFS provide current abundance and trend estimates.

Response: NMFS gray seal research has been constrained by lack of resources allocated specifically to seal work. Aerial surveys of index sites have occurred sporadically over the past decade, when resources allowed. Images from those surveys are being processed to inform trend estimates for seals in U.S. waters, and should provide a minimum estimate of abundance. NMFS is working with collaborators (at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Duke University, particularly) to develop cost-effective tools to better survey seals along the New England coast. In addition, NMFS is actively pursuing additional resources and expanding partnerships with other seal research groups to improve and enhance data collection and analytical methods.

Comment 19: The Commission recommended that NMFS conduct further research on the ecological relationship between Hawaiian monk seals and two deep-water fish species also targeted by the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) bottomfish handline fishery and explicitly incorporate the requirements of the MHI monk seal population into future stock assessments of the two fish species in question.

Response: The NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) is conducting ongoing research on the habitat use and diet of MHI monk seals using a variety of tools, including fatty acid analysis, seal-mounted video cameras and a variety of telemetry devices. Information about the presence, prevalence, and importance of any commercially fished bottomfish species in the monk seal diet is currently too uncertain to determine the requirements of the MHI monk seal population. This issue is a high priority of MHI monk seal research and the Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program is working with the State of Hawaii and PIFSC Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division to better understand and quantify direct and ecological (or indirect) interactions between monk seals and the bottomfish fishery.

Comment 20: The Commission recommended that NMFS use the default RMAX for cetaceans (four percent) for the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident stock of killer whales, until such time that the research from which the specific RMAX estimate for this stock was derived has been peer reviewed and published.

Response: There are published estimates of RMAX for other resident killer whales in the region that can be used as a reasonable substitute for the default RMAX of four percent. Matkin et al. (2014) provides an RMAX estimate of 3.5 percent for southern Alaska resident killer whales, which is applied to southern resident killer whales. This represents a better estimate than the default maximum, while also providing a lower, and hence, more conservative estimate of PBR than that calculated using the default RMAX of four percent. In context, the difference between PBR calculated using the default RMAX of four percent (PBR = 0.16 animals) and the published estimate of 3.5 percent for southern Alaska resident killer whales (PBR = 0.14 animals) is negligible.

Comment 21: The Turtle Island Restoration Network recommended that NMFS calculate the PBR for the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whale using the full range of abundance estimates available—rather than only one study by Moore and Barlow (2014)—and the species-specific growth rate estimates from the scientific literature. They stated that this will result in a PBR calculation of 0.4, rather than the current estimate of 2.7 calculated in the SAR. The comment cites Whitehead (2002), IWC (1982), and Moore and Barlow (2014), which estimate annual population growth rates ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 percent.

Response: Abundance estimates from the Moore and Barlow (2014) study were used, rather than prior published estimates, because these newer estimates are considered to represent the best available science, based on the use improved statistical methodology that has been vetted through multiple peer-reviewed journal publications (Moore and Barlow 2011, 2013, and 2014), and based on revised estimates of g(0) (from Barlow 2015). The analytical method employed makes use of all available survey data dating back to 1991 to estimate abundance in each year, rather than basing each estimate solely on information contained within an individual survey. As such, the annual estimates are substantially more stable through time (not less, counter to Turtle Island Restoration Network's suggestion). In contrast, sperm whale estimates based only on data from a particular survey are highly imprecise estimates due to small within-year sample sizes. The strong increase in mean estimated abundance compared to previously published estimates is mostly due to the use of new g(0) estimates (from Barlow 2015), not due to revised statistical methodology. General imprecision in the estimates for many of the model parameters is a problem of limited information in the data, not of the method. The minimum (20th percentile) abundance estimate accounts explicitly for these uncertainties. Substantial estimated levels of process variance are not surprising given that the population is highly mobile and wide-ranging (i.e., the study area is not closed). The current PBR estimates do not make use of estimates older than eight years. Rather, the current PBR estimate is based on a current abundance estimate, which is appropriately informed by data spanning two decades. The default maximum population growth rate of four percent for cetaceans is used in the calculation of PBR for this stock. There are no reliable empirical estimates of maximum potential population growth rates for sperm whales. The values used by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) (1982) were based on uncertain estimates of life history parameters now considered to have been pessimistic (Whitehead 2002). Potential growth estimates proposed by Whitehead (2002) were based on a survival schedule for killer whales, while those of Chiquet et al. (2013) were based on assumed ranges for annual survival. Distributions for the growth rate estimates by Chiquet et al. were centered on approximately zero percent per year with half of the distribution being negative. Such results suggest consideration of implausible life table schedules. Reproductive rate estimates for sperm whales used in these and other previous models may also be pessimistic in that the data come from heavily exploited populations rather than maximally growing ones.

Comment 22: Oceana recommended NMFS update the estimates of fishing-induced mortality and serious injury (M/SI) for both humpback and gray whales, based on: (1) New data through 2014 on whale entanglements, which reflect substantially higher rates than reported in the 2008-2012 period; and (2) revising the mortality and serious injury estimates to reflect the best available scientific estimate of the number of M/SI from entanglements that go unreported.

Response: The SARs incorporate serious injury determinations that have been vetted through the Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals and reviewed by the SRGs. As a result of the reporting and revision process, data used for these determinations typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR; in this case, the 2014 SARs include mortality and serious injury estimates for the 2008-2012 period.

NMFS acknowledges in the SARs that observed whale entanglements represent underestimates, because the number of undetected cases is unknown. The NMFS report cited by the commenter (Saez et al. 2013) refers to an unpublished estimate for Gulf of Maine humpback whales indicating that approximately ten percent of entanglements were documented (Robbins and Mattila 2004). The Robbins and Mattila (2004) report is not directly applicable to large whale entanglements on the U.S. west coast, as fishery characteristics and spatial overlap with large whales are different in each region. NMFS will continue to pursue the development of methods that would enable the accurate correction for underestimating entanglement impacts on large whales.

Comment 23: Oceana recommended that NMFS assess how the decreased availability of humpback whale prey may be affecting the stock, and cited a Hillet al. (2015) presentation related to Pacific sardine and anchovy fisheries.

Response: NMFS assumes this comment was directed at the SAR for the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales, which was not updated in 2014. We appreciate the comment and will consider it when the SAR is next updated.

Comment 24: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS note in the SAR for Western North Pacific (WNP) gray whales that the newly seen non-calves may be immigrants to the Sakhalin feeding aggregation.

Response: Text in the SAR for WNP gray whales has been revised to state that: “While a few previously unidentified non-calves are identified annually, a recent population assessment using photo-identification data from 1994 to 2011 fitted to an individually-based model found that whales feeding off Sakhalin Island have been demographically self-contained, at least in recent years, as new recruitment to the population is almost exclusively a result of calves born to mothers from within the group (Cooke et al. 2013).”

Comment 25: The Makah Tribe questioned the assertion that the WNP stock of gray whales is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and further recommended that in the absence of scientific evidence for rejecting hypotheses 1 through 6 and adopting hypothesis 7 from Bickham et al. (2014) [a list of hypotheses regarding the population biology of North Pacific gray whales], NMFS alter the SAR for WNP gray whales in the following ways:

(1) Remove the statements in the draft SAR asserting that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation is considered “endangered” under the ESA and “strategic and depleted” under the MMPA;

(2) state instead that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation does not have a formal status under the MMPA, although the population size has been increasing for the last ten years;

(3) change the title of the draft SAR to “GRAY WHALE (Eschrichtius robustus): Sakhalin Feeding Aggregation” to help eliminate confusion between the whales identified as a stock in the SAR and the WNP stock listed as endangered under the ESA; and

(4) re-calculate the Sakhalin feeding aggregation's PBR based on a recovery factor of 0.5 (the default factor for a stock of unknown status).

Response: In 2012, a NMFS Task Force (TF) was established to assess stock structure of gray whales in the North Pacific. With respect to gray whales in the western North Pacific, the primary objective of the TF was to determine if currently available data supported the recognition of gray whales in the WNP as a “population stock” under the guidance provided in the MMPA and the GAMMS (Weller et al. 2013). After completion of their review, the TF provided unambiguous advice that WNP gray whales should be “recognized as a population stock pursuant to the GAMMS guidelines and the MMPA” (Weller et al. 2013). The TF did not explicitly consider how the available data fit in with the hypotheses presented in Bickham et al. (2014). However, the datasets examined by the TF and by Bickham et al. (2014) were very similar, and both included a review of the results of genetic analyses of biopsies collected from whales feeding off Sakhalin as well as of information on the movements of some whales between Sakhalin Island, Russia and the eastern North Pacific.

In the TF's consideration of whether gray whales in the WNP represent a population stock under the MMPA, most of the data reviewed were collected from the gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Thus the recognition of a western North Pacific stock of gray whales that includes those animals that feed off Sakhalin is consistent with the TF's advice. Similarly, the listing of western gray whales as “Endangered” under the ESA and designation as “Critically Endangered” by the IUCN were largely based on data collected from the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin. The recent data on movements of gray whales between the eastern and western North Pacific were not available when these whales were listed under the ESA and would be considered in any future reviews of these populations. Until such reviews are conducted, however, the continued recognition of the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin as “Endangered” under the ESA is consistent with the data used to inform these listings.

As outlined in the report of the IWC Scientific Committee (SC) (2015), additional analysis and modeling of gray whale range-wide population structure and status has been underway since 2014 and will be the topic of further review of a third IWC inter-sessional workshop in April 2016. This report states the following: In order to successfully complete modeling efforts required for the workshop, data need to be compiled on: (1) Updated abundance estimates and variance and covariance matrices for feeding grounds, (2) complete matching of gray whales photographed south of Sakhalin Island along the coast of Asia, (3) fishing effort along the U.S. and Canadian west coast to determine trends by fishery type (e.g. pots, gillnets, set nets, etc.), and (4) further analyses to narrow the bounds on the stock composition of whales observed at Sakhalin Island. Modelling efforts will include (1) update modelling framework with revised abundance estimates and mixing matrices, (2) conduct further sensitivity examination to pre-specified parameter values, (3) incorporate available data on fishing effort for the west coast of the United States, (4) evaluate parameter uncertainty using bootstrapping, and (5) integrate the gray whale and PCFG strike limit algorithms (SLA) into the modelling framework.

Comment 26: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for WNP gray whales should discuss the available data regarding whales seen feeding off of both Sakhalin and Kamchatka, and the implications of this information for the conclusions and analysis in the SAR, including the identification of a separate WNP stock and the abundance estimate for this stock.

Response: A description of information regarding whales off Kamchatka is provided in the Stock Definition and Geographic Range section as well as the Population Size section of the report. Division of nearshore vs. offshore feeding areas off Sakhalin is not provided because both areas are considered to be part of the overall Sakhalin feeding area and the intra-seasonal interchange of whales between the two sites is extensive. See response to Comment 25 regarding the IWC's upcoming range-wide population structure and status workshop.

Comment 27: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS explain the basis of using a 0.575 multiplier in the PBR calculation for WNP gray whales.

Response: Moore and Weller (2013) evaluated the risk that a proposed Makah hunt of Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales posed to WNP gray whales and stated that “The proportion of the WNP population that migrates along the North American coast is unknown but based on recent photo-identification, telemetry, and genetic matches of WNP whales to Eastern North Pacific (ENP) areas, we estimate the value to be at least 0.15, based on there being 23 known matches out of an estimated population size of 155 (Mate et al., 2011; IWC, 2012; Urbán et al., 2012; Weller et al. 2012).” The upper limit of this estimate is 1.0, or a precautionary value that represents the entire WNP population. The 0.575 multiplier represents the estimated proportion of the WNP population that utilizes U.S. EEZ waters and represents the mean value of a uniform distribution ranging from 0.15 to 1.0 that was used in risk models. NMFS has clarified the origin of the 0.575 multiplier in the final SAR.

Comment 28: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR and PBR calculation for WNP gray whales to include information from Cooke (2015), which concludes that the proportion of gray whales feeding off Sakhalin that utilize wintering grounds off the coast of Asia is no greater than 63 percent. The comment stated that as a result, the proportion of such whales that migrate to North America would be between 0.37 and 1.0.

Response: At the IWC SC inter-sessional workshop on gray whale population structure held in April 2015, a number of recommendations were made for work to be undertaken that would narrow the confidence range for this estimate of 63 percent reported in Cooke et al. (2015). Revision of this work will be reviewed at the next IWC inter-sessional workshop on gray whales (tentatively scheduled for April 2016).

Comment 29: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR for the Sakhalin population of WNP gray whales to include the new abundance estimate from the 14th IUCN Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel's meeting's Second Rangewide Workshop (IUCN 2014), which concluded that as of 2013, the population contained 38 mature females (SE = ±2) growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent (SE = ± 0.5 percent) over the previous 10 years, and that the best estimate of the age 1-plus population in 2013 was 176 (SE = ± 2). The comment stated that the estimate currently listed in the SAR is biased low because it only accounts for whales observed at Sakhalin Island, and that the SAR should include and utilize this new abundance estimate (IUCN 2014), including whales sighted in Kamchatka, in the PBR calculation.

Response: While it is true that an analysis of the data from the parallel photo-ID team of the Vladivostok Institute of Marine Biology (IBM) has been conducted, including incorporation of their photo-ID data from Kamchatka, the reliability of these datasets is unclear. That is, analysis of the IBM photo-ID data from Sakhalin resulted in a “less optimistic population projection” as compared to the Russia-United States data, “with a high probability of future decline.” Until the reasons for the apparent difference in results from the two datasets have been elucidated, this difference should be treated as a potential caveat to the assessment results presented in Cooke et al. (2013). Therefore, we have reported numbers from only the Russia-United States data which at this time represent the best available science.

Comment 30: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for the ENP gray whale, the recovery factor for the Pacific Coast Feeding Group should be 0.75 instead of 0.5. The comment stated that in the 2013 SAR, NMFS agreed to consider this change in the 2014 SAR. The Makah Tribe believe that a recovery factor of 0.75 is consistent with the best available science regarding the PCFG, the guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments, the available precedent, and NMFS' February 27, 2014 analysis.

Response: NMFS considered alternatives to the recovery factor of 0.5 in consultation with the Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) in 2014, including a proposal to increase the recovery factor to 0.75. The PSRG did not support the change in recovery factor and NMFS has retained the default factor of 0.5.

Comment 31: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) recommended that NMFS streamline the SAR administrative process to be more timely, because at any given time “there are presently three versions of the False Killer Whale (FKW) SAR available to the public, any one of which might be construed by the public to be “current”: (i) The Final 2013 SAR; (ii) the Draft 2014 SAR (dated October 2014), presently open for public comment; and (iii) the Draft 2015 SAR (dated February 2015).”

Response: While we understand the potential for confusion, at any given time the most recent “final” SARs should be considered the “current” version of the reports. The draft reports are reviewed by the Scientific Review Groups and then by the public; they are not considered “final” until the agency has addressed comments and issued a notice of availability of final reports. In this case, the draft 2014 reports were made available for public comment from January 29, 2015 through April 29, 2015; during that time, the final 2013 SARs were the most current final versions, and the draft 2015 reports were made available to the Scientific Review Groups for review but not yet available to the general public (and therefore should not have caused any confusion for the public). With this Federal Register notice, NMFS is finalizing the 2014 SARs and the 2014 reports should be construed as the “current” assessment reports. The draft 2015 SARs are forthcoming and will be made available for public comment for 90 days, as directed by the statute.

Comment 32: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR be revised to reflect the current FKW management framework. The comment states that “the Draft 2014 SAR will effectively report information in 2015 that is current only through the end of 2012. However, the FKW Take Reduction Plan (TRP) regulations became effective in 2013 and a full two years of data gathered under the significantly new regulatory framework established by the TRP regulations are available. None of this (sic) data will be reported in the final SAR and, as a result, the Draft 2014 SAR is entirely irrelevant to the management of the Hawaii longline fisheries because it is based upon data gathered under a very different management framework.”

Response: The timelines associated with the drafting of SARs unfortunately require some lag in the use of various datasets. The SAR is prepared early in the calendar year, at which time the previous year's Observer Program data are not yet available for use in estimating bycatch. In the case of the 2014 SAR, bycatch estimates were available only through 2012 at the time the SAR was reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group.

Comment 33: The HLA requested that NMFS eliminate the five-year look-back period for the FKW SAR. The comment states “data reported in the FKW SAR should reflect the data gathered after the implementation of the TRP regulations to accurately measure the effects of the Hawaii longline fisheries on FKW stocks.”

Response: As already indicated, the draft 2014 SAR uses data through 2012. The TRP regulations did not go into effect until early 2013, such that no data after the period of TRP implementation are included. It is appropriate to continue the 5-year look back for data collected prior to the TRP. When 2013 bycatch data are available, NMFS will evaluate whether it is appropriate to continue use of the five-year look-back in the bycatch estimates.

Comment 34: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR for the Hawaii pelagic FKW stock should expressly recognize the discrepancy between the reported M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery and the positive population trend for the stock, and requests that NMFS revisit the manner in which it determines M/SI for FKW interactions. The comment states “For a decade, NMFS has reported a M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery that far exceeds PBR for the Hawaii pelagic FKW stock . . . However, the best available information suggests that the number of FKWs in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring.”

Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR 19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014, comment 26). The comment and included footnote continue to suggest that the pelagic stock of FKWs is increasing or stable since 2002 and, as such, deep-set fishery takes are not of concern, although serious injury and mortality have been above PBR for more than a decade. The commenter attributes this persistence of FKWs despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS' “improper” assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from fisheries interactions, “improper” assessment of population abundance and trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under the NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals has been discussed in numerous previous comment responses, and is based on the best available science on whether a cetacean is likely to survive a particular type of injury. Further study of FKWs would certainly better inform the assigned outcomes, but until better data become available, the standard established in the NMFS 2012 Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals will stand.

The referenced 2002 and 2010 survey abundance estimates are not comparable in their published form, as the methodology for accurately enumerating FKW groups changed between surveys, significantly increasing the average group size of false killer whales and therefore, the resulting abundance estimate. Further, because the entire stock range of pelagic FKWs is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size. A robust assessment of population trend would require assessment of environmental variables that influence FKW distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period. Finally, many years of unsustainable take does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the population is declining. PBR was designed to provide a benchmark, in the face of great uncertainty about marine mammal populations, below which human-caused mortalities would not reduce the population beyond its OSP, which is defined as the abundance where there is “the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality.” The benchmark does not consider whether a population is declining, as this is very hard to prove, particularly for population abundance estimates with low precision.

Comment 35: The HLA recommended that NMFS produce a publicly available report that documents further analysis of the 2010 Hawaiian Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey data for pelagic FKWs. The comment states that otherwise, NMFS should remove the comment from the draft 2014 SAR that states that there was “some suggestion” of “attractive movement” of FKWs in the 2010 survey. The comment states that there is no citation to support this statement.

Response: Citation to Bradford et al. (2014) has been added to the SAR within the sentence: “There is some suggestion of such attractive movement within the acoustic data, though the extent of any bias created by this movement is unknown.” Reports of responsive movement and its potential impact on the estimates is discussed within the Bradford et al. (2014) peer-reviewed publication.

Comment 36: The HLA recommended that the SAR for the pelagic stock of FKWs use a recovery factor greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5). The comment stated that the pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status unknown, and therefore the draft SAR should not assign it a recovery factor of 0.5.

Response: The current status of pelagic FKWs is unknown. This population may be depleted given fishing pressures within and outside of the EEZ over several decades. The status of Hawaii pelagic FKWs is considered unknown because there are no trend data available to evaluate whether the population is increasing, stable, or declining. Designation of a stock as “depleted” requires specific analysis of population trend which is not currently possible with the available data. The recovery factor for Hawaii pelagic FKWs will remain 0.5, as indicated, for a stock of unknown status with a coefficient of variation of the mortality and serious injury estimate ≤0.30, as directed by the GAMMS.

Comment 37: The HLA recommended that the 2014 draft SAR for the insular stock of FKW be revised to report the “correct” range, M/SI level, and status (i.e., status should be non-strategic). The comment stated that “. . . the Draft 2015 SAR appropriately proposes to modify the range of the insular stock. . . the Draft 2014 SAR continues to present the inaccurately assumed insular stock range, which will effectively be reported as the “best available science” through most of 2016. This inaccuracy is very significant. The draft 2014 SAR reports an M/SI rate of 0.9, which is greater than the PBR of 0.3. In contrast, if the correct insular stock range were used, then the M/SI rate should be 0.0.”

Response: NMFS has not completed the draft 2015 SARs, nor have we made them available for public notice and comment and, therefore, we cannot make this comparison.

Comment 38: The HLA recommended that the language of the draft SAR be revised to remove all implied allegations that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are responsible for dorsal fin disfigurements observed in Insular Stock animals. The comment states that these fisheries have been excluded from nearshore fishing grounds for several years.

Response: The sentence has been reworded to be less explicit about any specific type of fishery. It now reads: “The commercial or recreational hook-and-line fishery or fisheries responsible for these injuries is/are unknown.”

Comment 39: The HLA recommended that NMFS acknowledge in the SAR for the insular stock of FKW that the population has maintained a stable abundance since 2000, as maintained by the best available information, and asserted that the assumption that the insular stock has declined is speculative.

Response: The SAR cites the most recent Status Review for the MHI insular stock of FKW. Within that Review, a Population Viability Analysis was conducted, including 45 different scenarios incorporating various uncertainties in anthropogenic and natural mortality, the impact of allee and other small population size effects, and uncertainty around various measures of abundance. All but one model indicated the population has undergone decline. The SAR acknowledges that some two-stage models suggest a lower rate of decline since 2000. The Status Review does not consider the two-stage models as any more appropriate than the single growth rate models. When new data become available to support an updated analysis of trend in the MHI insular stock, NMFS will update the assessment of population status accordingly.

Comment 40: The HLA recommended that NMFS alter the proration assumptions used in the draft SAR for FKW interactions, as they do not reflect the best available information. The comment stated: “NMFS categorizes certain interactions as FKW interactions when, in fact, no data exist from which NMFS can reliably determine whether the interactions in question involved FKWs . . . First, NMFS assigns a proportion of FKW interactions for which no injury determination has been made as M/SI interactions that ultimately count against the fisheries. Second, NMFS assigns a proportion of “blackfish” interactions (i.e., interactions with unidentified cetaceans) as FKW interactions that also count against the fisheries. Neither of these methods is reasonable or lawful.”

Response: FKW bycatch proration reflects the best available information on the species and injury status of cetaceans observed hooked or entangled in the longline fishery. First, NMFS prorates injuries with a status of `cannot be determined' according to the ratio of known serious and non-serious injuries. To treat all `cannot be determined' cases as non-serious would be a clear under-representation of total M/SI within the fishery. This proration supported within GAMMS, judged by NMFS, and supported by external peer-review, as the best approach for dealing appropriately accounting for injuries whose injury status cannot be determined based on the information provided by the observer. Second, when a species code of “unidentified blackfish” has been assigned to an interaction by the Pacific Islands Regional Office Observer Program, the Program has determined that the species identity is known to be either FKW or short-finned pilot whale. This species assignment is much more specific than “unidentified cetacean.” Because the species identity is known within two possible candidates, NMFS has used all other interactions with those two species to develop a proration model for assigning these blackfish interactions to be false killer whales or short-finned pilot whales. All available interaction data inform the proration scheme. Cetacean interaction with a species identity of “unidentified cetacean” are not currently prorated to any specific species and are therefore not included in any assessment of M/SI.

Comment 41: The HLA recommended that NMFS further consider its delineation of a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stock of FKWs. HLA's comment indicates that HLA remains “highly skeptical of NMFS's ability to so quickly and conclusively `confirm' that NWHI whales are a distinct stock separate from the Insular Stock and the Pelagic Stock.” HLA believes that “NMFS's rush to judgment regarding the existence of this new `stock' appears to reflect an aversion to attributing these additional 552 whales to the Insular Stock or to the Pelagic Stock.”

Response: NMFS disagrees with the comment: The separation of the NWHI stock and the Hawaii insular and pelagic stocks is sound and based on multiple lines of evidence including genetic analyses indicating significant differentiation in both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, photo-ID indicating separation from the tight social network of the Main Hawaiian Islands animals, and satellite telemetry data suggesting island and atoll association within the NWHI. The data on FKW stock structure, including the new NWHI stock, have been evaluated both for demographic independence, the benchmark for separation under the MMPA, and for evolutionary separation, the more stringent standard for separation under the ESA.

Comment 42: The HLA recommended that the draft 2014 SAR for the NWHI stock of FKWs be revised to state that the M/SI rate for the NWHI Stock is zero. The comment stated, “The Hawaii longline fisheries are excluded from fishing within the range of the NWHI Stock and, moreover, there has never been a reported interaction between either of the Hawaii longline fisheries and the NWHI Stock.”

Response: The Hawaii longline fishery is not excluded from fishing within the range of the NWHI stock of FKWs. The range of the NWHI stock extends outside of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (where fishing is prohibited) to the islands of Kauai. Much of the NWHI stock range east of the Monument is exposed to longline fishery for a portion of the year when the Longline Exclusion Zone contracts toward the islands. Although such contraction was eliminated in 2013, prior to that time the NWHI stock did overlap with a reasonable level of fishing effort during the contraction period. There are in fact two takes of FKWs within the overlap zone between the fishery and all three stocks of FKWs in 2012.

Comment 43: One commenter recommended that NMFS include a statistical test to determine whether the regression analysis of California harbor seals net production is statistically different from no change.

Response: The previous text (and figure) in this SAR addressing net production for this harbor seal population is being deleted, because any assessment of net production needs to incorporate accurate information on human-caused mortality. Such information is lacking for this stock, as the fishery historically responsible for most mortality has only been observed sporadically in recent years. Text appears in the SAR detailing why the estimation of net production for this stock is not possible.

Comment 44: One commenter suggested that the population estimate for California harbor seals does not represent the entire population of the stock. Another commenter suggested that NMFS's current sampling methods understate harbor seal and California sea lion populations along the California coast.

Response: The SAR states that a complete count of all harbor seals is not possible because not all seals will be hauled out of the water during the time of surveys. NMFS has worked with other researchers to develop haul-out correction factors, which are used to account for the number of animals not hauled out at the time of surveys. Such correction factors are incorporated into final population size estimates, which represents the best available method to adjust raw counts upwards to account for animals in the water at the time of surveys.

Comment 45: The Commission recommended that NMFS reference in the Alaska Region SARs any workshop reports or recommendations that came from meetings in December 2010 and March 2011, when NMFS partnered with the Indigenous People's Council on Marine Mammals to convene two workshops of marine mammal hunters and representatives from Alaska Native Organizations.

Response: We appreciate the recommendation and will review the workshop reports and recommendations from these meetings to determine whether to include any of this information in future SAR revisions.

Comment 46: The Commission recommended that NMFS provide an update on the status of the development of a statewide program for monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests. The Commission further recommended that NMFS should update all related information in the SARs and address concerns about any potential shortcomings in these efforts. For example, NMFS should clarify if the following statement from the ribbon seal SAR is still accurate: “at this time, there are no efforts to quantify the total statewide level of harvest of ribbon seals by all Alaska communities.”

Response: NMFS agrees that a comprehensive statewide program for monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests would be desirable, but is not funded. NMFS works with our partners in Alaska Native Organizations and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to obtain information for many subsistence-harvested marine mammal species. While incomplete, these efforts provide some assurance that the current and foreseeable levels of subsistence use are sustainable for all marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are presently harvested.

We have made considerable updates of the subsistence harvest information in the draft 2015 ringed seal, ribbon seal, and bearded seal SARs, and we will update this information in the spotted seal SAR the next time it is revised.

Comment 47: For the SAR for the North Pacific stock of right whales, the Commission recommended that NMFS estimate the range of ship-strike probabilities and assess the results in the context of this stock's PBR level and a population viability analysis.

Response: Unfortunately, at this time there are no data with which to undertake this exercise and too few data on other relevant variables to construct a meaningful population viability analysis for North Pacific right whales.

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): threatened Central Valley spring-run (CVSR); endangered Sacramento River winter-run (SRWR).

Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened California Central Valley (CCV);

North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medisrostris): threatened southern distinct population segment (SDPS).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-227). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research and enhancement permit (18251) was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2014 (79 FR 13279). Permit 18251 was issued to the Marine Science Institute on June 30, 2014 and expires on December 31, 2018. Permit 18251 authorizes take of SRWR Chinook salmon smolts, CVSR Chinook salmon smolts, CCV steelhead smolts, and juvenile SDPS green sturgeon associated with monitoring and research activities conducted in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Central Valley, California. The purpose of the research is to educate local 6th graders and their parents about the Delta ecosystem and to teach them how to be better stewards of the watershed. The students will go on a 3.5 hour voyage. During the voyage they will rotate through four stations: Hydrology (discussion based), Benthic (mud grab and invertebrate study), Plankton (plankton tow and identification), and Ichthyology (Otter trawl and fish identification). During the Ichthyology station a five minute mid-water trawl using an Otter trawl will be deployed to collect fish for the students to study. The net will be emptied by instructional staff into a tank that is constantly refilled with water from the Delta. Any species of concern are then identified and immediately released back into the Delta. Fish are transferred from the tank back into Delta by buckets filled with water from the Delta to minimize stress.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is requesting to modify Permit 18181. Permit 18181 was issued to CDFW on January 14, 2014 for take of CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon associated with research and rescue activities in the Upper Sacramento River and associated tributaries in Shasta and Tehama counties, the Colusa Basin Drainage Canal (CBDC), Wallace and Fremont weirs in the Yolo Bypass, and Tisdale Weir in the Sutter Bypass. CDFW is requesting to modify Permit 18181 to include additional rescue and monitoring efforts that routinely occur throughout the Central Valley. Further, after conducting capture and relocation activities within the CBDC and at Wallace Weir, the project description, sampling methodologies and take estimates can be refined to better reflect the current rescue operations. The primary purpose of the proposed monitoring will be to assess entrainment of ESA-listed salmonids and SDPS green sturgeon resulting from extreme environmental conditions and complex water operations within California's Central Valley. CDFW will assess the conditions leading to entrainment and determine whether rescue and relocation activities are warranted. The rescue and relocation efforts proposed are: (1) The CBDC Trapping and Relocation Operation, which aims to trap and relocate adult Chinook salmon and other species of management concern before they enter and become entrained within the CDBC; (2) Monitoring of Sacramento River Flood Control Project Weirs and Flood Relief Structures, bypasses are surveyed after high flow events to determine the level of entrainment and if warranted rescues will be conducted, with a specific focus on Tisdale and Fremont weirs in the Sacramento River; and (3) Upper Sacramento River Redd Dewatering Surveys and Rescue of Stranded Juvenile Winter-run Chinook Salmon, which allows CDFW biologists to predict the flow at which redds will be dewatered on a redd-by-redd basis and conduct rescues if necessary. Rescue and relocation of ESA-listed fish will be carried out using fyke traps, Alaskan-style resistance board weirs, block nets, hoop nets, fyke nets, and beach seines. Observational surveys using dual identification sonar (DIDSON) imagery may also be conducted if necessary. The majority of captured fish would be identified to species, enumerated, measured for standard length, sampled for tissues and released. Juvenile SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon would be identified using the Length-at-Date-of-Capture Table. ESA-listed species would be processed first and released. Adult salmonids that are trapped during rescue and relocation activities will be sampled for tissues (genetics), tagged with two individually numbered Floy tags, and relocated to the nearest, accessible location on the Sacramento River. If SDPS green sturgeon are encountered during rescue activities, acoustic tags will be surgically implanted by trained staff and data will be recorded on fish size, condition, and time of release. To reduce handling mortality, investigators will conduct water to water transfers, use fish-friendly nets, avoid handling when possible, and release fish will at the nearest suitable location to reduce handling and transport times.

Permit 14808 was issued to CDFW on September 26, 2012 for take of juvenile CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, and CCV steelhead while conducting juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing in the Lower Sacramento River, Yolo County, California. The permit modification is being requested in order to refine sampling methods, increase take levels and address changes to the proposed procedures. Additionally, CDFW requested that all ongoing research and monitoring be consolidated into a single section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit to improve efficiencies associated with reporting. In addition to the juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing, which aims to compile information on timing, composition (species/race), and relative abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead emigrating from the Upper Sacramento River system into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CDFW is requesting that the following research and monitoring efforts be added to Permit 14808: (1) The Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring Program, that includes studies targeting CCV steelhead throughout the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins in order to examine the distribution, abundance, and population trends of CCV steelhead and provide the data necessary to help assess progress towards restoration and recovery goals; and (2) Upper Sacramento River Restoration Site Monitoring, which will establish baseline use at proposed restoration sites to help determine the success once restoration projects are implemented through juvenile presence/absence surveys at a variety of sites on the Upper Sacramento River. CDFW will conduct juvenile emigration monitoring through the use of paired 8-foot rotary screw traps (RSTs) on the Sacramento River beginning in October and continuing through June of the following year. Traps will be fished continuously and checked once every 24 hours unless conditions such as high flows or excessive debris warrant more frequent sampling. Captured salmonids will be handled (including measurements), allowed to recover in fresh aerated water and released back into the Sacramento River. A small subsample of adipose fin-clipped (hatchery-origin) Chinook salmon will be sacrificed (directed mortality) daily for coded wire tag extraction and analysis. The Steelhead Monitoring Program will utilize wire fyke traps to capture, mark, and recapture upstream migrating adult steelhead in order to estimate adult steelhead escapement from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Fyke trapping will occur annually from August through May. A DIDSON camera or device of similar capabilities will be placed at the entrance to the fyke traps to monitor salmonid movements and assist in adjusting trap placement to maximize capture rates. Traps will be fished 24 hours a day with all traps being inspected, cleaned, and emptied at least once every 24 hours to minimize the period of time steelhead are detained. All captured steelhead (hatchery and wild) will be enumerated, weighed, measured, sexed (if possible), photographed for body condition, checked for previous tags, and sampled for scales. Healthy steelhead captured in good condition will receive a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag. Hatchery-origin steelhead will receive a two inch, individually numbered, bicolor Floy tag posterior to the dorsal fin. A randomly selected subset of captured steelhead will receive an acoustic tag in addition to PIT and Floy tags to determine migration and survival behavior. Individuals selected for acoustic tagging will be surgically tagged with a VEMCO acoustic transmitter tag or similarly compatible device in the abdomen posterior to the pelvic fins. Tag recapture monitoring in Sacramento River tributaries will be performed using in-stream PIT tag detection antennas. Current angler harvest surveys and hatchery broodstock collection programs combined with advances in tag detection technology will allow biologists to estimate the number of tag recaptures to Sacramento River tributaries. All Upper Sacramento River Restoration Site Monitoring will be observational and no handling of juvenile salmonids will occur. Sampling methods will include snorkel surveys, video surveys and DIDSON surveys. The survey results will help Restoration Ecologists design better projects in the future. Information collected will also help to determine locations where juvenile Chinook salmon are rearing upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

Permit 1415 was issued to the USFWS, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office on February 6, 2014. The overall purpose of the project is to provide monitoring data for various evaluations, including restoration actions, stream flow assessments, management actions, and life-history investigations. Species under investigation include CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research studies in Battle Creek, Clear Creek, and the Upper Sacramento River Basin (i.e., Upper River and surrounding watersheds). The permit modification requested by USFWS is specific to Study 6—Sacramento River Juvenile Fish Monitoring at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. All other studies authorized under Permit 1415 will remain unchanged at this time. Take resulting from the research and monitoring activities carried out by USFWS will involve observations (snorkel surveys, redd counts and escapement/stream surveys) or capture (by trawl, seine, fyke-net trap, benthic D-net, substrate samplers, hook and line, backpack electrofishing, weir trap, trammel or gill net, rotary screw trap, egg mats, or by dip net), handling (sedation, fin clipping, tissue sampling, coded-wire tag extraction, otolith extraction), marking (Bismark brown Y stain), tagging (acoustic, PIT), and release of fish once adequately recovered. A majority of the ESA-listed fish that are captured will be immediately collected from the sampling gears, placed in containers filled with river water collected at the location being sampled, processed, held in a recovery container filled with aerated river water, and subsequently released at the sampled location. One exception includes the proposed intentional directed mortality of up to 80 SRWR Chinook salmon juveniles associated with Study 6. The purpose of the directed intentional mortality of SRWR Chinook salmon is to determine potential mechanisms for reduced survival in collaboration with the USWFS California-Nevada Fish Health Center. Extreme drought conditions and poor in-river conditions appear to be having adverse effects on emigrating juvenile salmonids. Elevated water temperatures are likely increasing the prevalence of some bacteria and parasite infections. USFWS will obtain up to 10 live juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon per week (for approximately 8 weeks) from RST monitoring carried out at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (Study 6), from early September through October. The subsample of juveniles collected from the traps will be sacrificed in order to identify microbial (e.g. parasite and bacteria) and non-infectious (e.g. coagulative yolk, gill hyperplasia) disease in the out-migrant juvenile SRWR Chinook salmon population passing the RSTs during the typical peak period. The low sample number proposed would likely limit detection to high prevalence pathogens. The histological approach will provide information on the severity of any given condition and is logistically prudent for the RST monitoring.

Permit 17299 was issued to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), Fishery Ecology Division (FED), on April 4, 2013 for research to be conducted at various sites and hatcheries within California's Central Valley. The main purpose of the research conducted by the SWFSC is to carry out comparative studies on salmonid ecology across all Central Valley habitats (streams, rivers and Delta) to increase knowledge of California's Chinook salmon and steelhead life histories. The modification request relates to the life stages sampled and the total take associated with Studies 1 and 3 authorized by Permit 17299. These studies include investigations into outmigration survival based upon telemetry technology and investigations of the physiological response (as measured by aerobic scope) to varying temperature and flow regimes. Given the current threats posed to SRWR Chinook salmon including anthropogenic alterations of natural flow regimes and climate change, these studies quantitatively measures the capacity for adaptation of SRWR Chinook salmon juveniles to these conditions. The unprecedented conditions associated with the California drought have exacerbated these challenges, such that more detailed and finer resolution studies are needed to evaluate the potential consequences of a range of water management options including management of cold water storage pools behind large dams and pulse flows. The permit modification request aims to address these needs by increasing the sample sizes and associated take, and by broadening the scope of studies to include additional life stages. Study 1 is a large scale telemetry project to assess habitat use, behavior and survival of hatchery- and natural-origin SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead. Additional take associated with increased sample sizes will allow for better estimates of survival and identification of conditions that may be affecting juvenile salmonid emigration. Study 3 will measure the physiological capacity (aerobic scope and other cardiovascular capabilities) of hatchery-origin salmonids to deal with potential seasonal and geographic temperature challenges, by identifying their combined threshold tolerance to abiotic factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and flow. The SWFSC will use this data to determine sites where these factors may be limiting migration, survival and growth. This study requires that all fish tested be euthanized in order to collect the appropriate information and assess the aerobic scope. All euthanized fish will also be sampled for otoliths (age/growth), and organ tissue (isotope, biochemical and genomic expression assays), examined for parasite infections, and will contribute to tag effects/retention studies. The SWFSC proposes to broaden the scope of Study 3 through increased sample sizes and the addition of take for other life stages (eggs, fry, alevin, and parr). This additional take is in response to an urgent data gap on the temperature tolerance of these life stages. The proposed research will benefit ESA-listed fish by supporting conservation and management of anadromous salmonids and green sturgeon in California by directly addressing information needs identified by NMFS and other agencies.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 expected to respond, including 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).

Organizations from all sectors seeking to become Employers of National Service will be filling out this form, including businesses, nonprofits, institutions of higher education, school districts, state/local governments, and federal agencies. One of the form's key purposes is to document what the organization is committing to doing as an Employer of National Service and provide organizational information to CNCS, the Peace Corps, the Points of Light Foundation, the Aspen Institute and the National Peace Corps Association. The information in the form will also allow CNCS to display the organization's information accurately online as a resource for job seekers. It will also enable CNCS to speak to the diversity within the program's membership, both for internal planning and external audience use. The information will be collected electronically via our Web site.

This is a new information collection request. The items on the form are: Employer name; a short description of the employer; the sector in which the employer operates (private, nonprofit, etc.); location (specific address for headquarters and list of additional cities/states or countries, if applicable); workforce information (total employees, hires in last year, and number of national service alumni); human resources policy commitment as an Employer of National Service; contact information; a link to the Web page where alums can apply for employment; optional statement from leadership; the source from which the employer learned about the program, and any optional comments.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Employers of National Service Enrollment Form.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Any organization seeking to join the Employers of National Service program.

Total Respondents: 300.

Frequency: Ongoing.

Average Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 75 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291, Section 2836), ordered transfers as follows:

(1) CAMP FRANK D. MERRILL.—Not later than September 30, 2015, the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army for required Army force protection measures certain Federal land administered as part of the Chattahoochee National Forest, but permitted to the Secretary of the Army for Camp Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, consisting of approximately 282 acres identified in the permit numbers 0018-01.

(2) LAKE LANIER PROPERTY.—In exchange for the land transferred under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers) shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture certain Federal land administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and consisting of approximately 10 acres adjacent to Lake Lanier at 372 Dunlap Landing Road, Gainesville, Georgia.

The legal descriptions and maps of the transferred parcels, Camp Merrill and Lake Lanier are provided below:

Being a part of USA Tracts G-274, G-380, G-641-L, G-641-L-II, G-678a, G-678b, G-1320Ah, G-1320Aj, and G-1634, and lying and being in Land Lots 310, 311, & 312 of the 6th District, 1st Section, and Land Lots 937, 938, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, & 1080 of the 11th District, 1st Section, Lumpkin County, Georgia, containing 282.21 acres more or less. Said tracts were acquired by the United States in the hereinafter listed Condemnation Actions:

• United States of America v. J. E. Collins. Tract G-274, consisting of 399.45 acres, At Law #38, entered on December 29, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-61 on February 26, 1930.

• United States of America v. Craig R. Arnold. Tract G-380, consisting of 313.00 acres, At Law #144, entered on December 2, 1935 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book S1-427 on March 16, 1936.

• United States of America v. Rowland Lumber Company. Tract G-641-L, consisting of 187.56 acres, At Law #59, entered on April 27, 1931 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-430 on May 28, 1931.

• United States of America v. Rowland Lumber Company. Tract G-641-L-II, consisting of 12.44 acres, At Law #59, entered on April 27, 1931 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-430 on May 28, 1931.

• United States of America v. J. H. Hawes. Tract G-678a, consisting of 78.94 acres, At Law #1255, entered on December 15, 1930 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-299 on February 9, 1931.

• United States of America v. J. H. Hawes. Tract G-678b, consisting of 18.08 acres, At Law #1255, entered on December 15, 1930 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-299 on February 9, 1931.

• United States of America v. Morse Brothers Lumber Company. Tract G-1320Ah, consisting of 169.16 acres, At Law #1106, entered on April 11, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-170 on June 9, 1930.

• United States of America v. Morse Brothers Lumber Company. Tract G-1320Aj, consisting of 267.04 acres, At Law #1106, entered on April 11, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-170 on June 9, 1930.

• United States of America v. William Black. Tract G-1634, consisting of 188.40 acres, At Law #478, entered on October 21, 1952 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book C2-305 on December 30, 1952.

Depicted as USA Tract C-2368 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Army Camp Merrill” dated July 13, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyors Mark E. Chastain and Jason D. Watkins, and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Lumpkin County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at Corner 2 of USA Tract G-641 L-I, a 11/4″ galvanized pipe, being also the SE corner of land lot 1007, 11th District, 1st Section Lumpkin County, Georgia; thence N. 05°10′13″ W. 1,506.72 feet to Corner 1 of USA Tract C-2368, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap, being a point interior to USA Tract G-641-L and Land Lot 938, and the Point of Beginning; thence S. 15°08′01″ W. 920.63 feet to Corner 2, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1007; thence S. 61°58′52″ W. 193.61 feet to Corner 3, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S. 52°49′47″ W. 1,082.21 feet to Corner 4, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1009; thence N. 74°08′17″ W. 1,074.48 feet to Corner 5, a point in Hightower Church Road, and interior to Land Lot 1008, witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S. 74°08′17″ E. 24.99 feet; thence along and with the meanders of the center of Hightower Church Road the following 14 calls, as shown on the attached plat: S. 32°27′28″ W. 51.69 feet to a point; thence S. 34°30′28″ W. 67.86 feet to a point; thence S. 33°48′29″ W. 66.47 feet to a point; thence S. 32°14′01″ W. 63.81 feet to a point; thence S. 27°59′39″ W. 61.95 feet to a point; thence S. 21°47′03″ W. 63.21 feet to a point; thence S. 15°12′00″ W. 66.96 feet to a point; thence S. 12°01′22″ W. 70.88 feet to a point; thence S. 10°45′50″ W. 72.00 feet to a point; thence S. 10°13′53″ W. 65.57 feet to a point; thence S. 10°32′03″ W. 64.67 feet to a point; thence S. 11°58′44″ W. 63.85 feet to a point; thence S. 12°42′26″ W. 43.48 feet to a point; thence S. 13°58′11″ W. 8.67 feet to Corner 6, a point in Land Lot 310 and the center of Hightower Church Road, witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S 78°58′43″ W. 26.31 feet; thence leaving said Hightower Church Road, S 78°58'43″ E. 208.95 feet to Corner 7, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1009; thence S. 14°09′32″ E. 804.72 feet to Corner 8, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1080; thence S 69°15′21″ W. 455.17 feet to Corner 9, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 310; thence S 62°47′26″ W. 828.38 feet to Corner 10, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence N. 14°08′21″ W. 5,367.35 feet to Corner 11, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 312; thence N. 75°52′33″ E. 1,634.85 feet to Corner 12, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S. 14°07′40″ E. 698.63 feet to Corner 13, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S 29°40′28″ E. 1,806.27 feet to Corner 14, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 937; thence N. 67°13′37″ E. 27.86 feet to Corner 15, a nail and washer set in the center of Coopers Gap Road; thence along and with the meanders of the center of Coopers Gap Road the following 28 calls, as shown on the attached plat: N. 19°57′36″ E 51.01 feet to a point; thence N. 39°03′30″ E. 27.54 feet to a point; thence N. 24°43′35″ E 39.60 feet to a point; thence N. 04°00′08″ E. 51.23 feet to a point; thence N. 02°16′55″ E 63.59 feet to a point; thence N. 02°18′19″ E. 67.12 feet to a point; thence N. 05°26′56″ E 56.45 feet to a point; thence N. 17°50′40″ E. 46.12 feet to a point; thence N. 46°03′49″ E 35.38 feet to a point; thence N. 84°08′40″ E. 30.28 feet to a point; thence S. 61°29′42″ E 27.02 feet to a point; thence S. 38°55′06″ E. 49.53 feet to a point; thence S. 47°14′37″ E 64.30 feet to a point; thence S. 50°31′54″ E. 30.94 feet to a point; thence S. 66°57′34″ E 39.25 feet to a point; thence N. 89°49′03″ E. 29.67 feet to a point; thence N. 53°38′19″ E 34.60 feet to a point; thence N. 26°27′55″ E. 38.55 feet to a point; thence N. 12°21′38″ E 34.43 feet to a point; thence N. 00°26′18″ E. 22.52 feet to a point; thence N. 04°56′23″ W. 45.65 feet to a point; thence N. 07°11′01″ W. 81.94 feet to a point; thence N. 06°18′04″ W. 79.77 feet to a point; thence N. 06°02′44″ W. 74.49 feet to a point; thence N. 06°10′43″ W. 22.92 feet to a point; thence N. 05°12′12″ W. 72.09 feet to a point; thence N. 04°48′48″ W. 96.88 feet to a point; thence N. 03°22′36″ W. 23.48 feet to a Corner 16, a point in the center of Coopers Gap Road; witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S. 89°15′22″ E. 21.00 feet; thence leaving said Coopers Gap Road S. 89°15′22″ E. 993.53 feet to Corner 17, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 938; thence S. 04°28′28″ E. 1021.46 feet to the Point of Beginning; containing 282.21 acres, more or less; less and except 0.95 acres shown as “Mount Zion #1” and 0.26 acres for a cemetery as shown on said plat incorporated herewith; and any easements for existing or established public roads, highways, and utilities, if any.

A Map of Camp Merrill is at Figure 1.

Being formerly a part of USACE Tract N-1410, which said tract was acquired by the United States of America by means of condemnation proceedings entitled United States of America vs. 1,114.46 acres of land, more or less, situated in Dawson and Hall Counties, State of Georgia, and Fred O. Rowe, et al., Civil Action No. 701, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, Buford Dam and Reservoir Project.

All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lots 122 & 123 of the 10th District, City of Gainesville, Hall County, depicted as USA Tract C-2367 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: United States Forest Service” dated July 30, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyor Mark E. Chastain, of Chastain & Associates, P.C. (Job #215F42), and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Hall County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated as “123-C6”, said monument having state plane coordinates (NAD83, Georgia West Zone) of Northing 1582107.49, Easting 2392494.60; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 264.98 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 263.72 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1”; thence North 52 Degrees 17 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 571.14 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated as “123-D2”; passing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1-A, at a distance of 285.61 feet from the origin of said course; thence South 54 Degrees 58 Minutes 07 Seconds East a distance of 385.00 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D3”, passing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D2-A”, at a distance of 185.63 feet from the origin of said course; thence South 44 Degrees 28 Minutes 21 Seconds West a distance of 100.77 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D4”; thence South 05 Degrees 49 Minutes 03 Seconds West a distance of 351.98 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D5”; thence with a curve turning to the right with an arc length of 149.69', with a radius of 233.85', with a chord bearing of South 48 Degrees 05 Minutes 12 Seconds West, with a chord length of 147.15', to a point; thence South 66 Degrees 25 Minutes 26 Seconds West a distance of 239.26 feet to a point; thence with a curve turning to the right with an arc length of 171.55′, with a radius of 569.78′, with a chord bearing of South 75 Degrees 02 Minutes 57 Seconds West, with a chord length of 170.90′, to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D6”; thence North 50 Degrees 50 Minutes 59 Seconds West a distance of 14.08 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated “123-C5”; thence North 88 Degrees 11 Minutes 43 Seconds West a distance of 65.64 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated “123-C6” and the point of beginning; containing 10.00 acres, more or less.

Together with a single point of access from the subject tract to and across an existing 50-year public road easement, between the Department of the Army, acting by and through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the City of Gainesville, dated April 26, 1994, to that adjoining public right-of-way known as Dunlap Landing Road, and in accordance with USACE Contract No. DACW01-2-95-0092, including any extensions or renewals of said aforementioned public road easement.

This statement is being made for the purpose of assuring a legal means of ingress and egress to and from Dunlap Landing Road in accordance with the Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction of subject tract from the Department of Army to the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to Public Law 113-291, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 3979) and those authorities under 16 U.S.C 505a-505b. This transfer is subject to existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, pipelines as well as any and all oil, gas, and mineral rights outstanding in third parties.

A Map of Lake Lanier Parcel is at Figure 2.

The DoN's proposed action is to establish live-fire Range Training Areas (RTAs) within the CNMI to address the U.S. Pacific Command Service Components' unfilled unit level and combined level training requirements in the Western Pacific. The DoN recognizes that public comments are an essential part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Accordingly, the DoN initially established a 60-day public comment period in lieu of the minimum 45-day period required by NEPA implementing regulations. Notices extending the public comment period by 60 days and 14 days were published on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27678) and July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45647), respectively. Due to Typhoon Soudelor recovery efforts, the DoN is further extending the Draft EIS public comment period by 45 days to October 1, 2015, EDT [October 2, 2015, ChST] for a total of 179 days.

Competition Details

(1) Subject of Competition: The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking a new design to be used as the official logo of EV Everywhere. EV Everywhere is the umbrella activity for DOE efforts to increase the use of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). Its mission is to raise awareness of the benefits of PEVs, help individuals realize that PEVs are a viable option for them, and position DOE as the definitive resource for unbiased, objective information about PEVs.

EV Everywhere supports DOE's larger goal of reducing the use of petroleum in transportation to increase energy and environmental security. In addition to public outreach and education, it also includes efforts to reduce the cost and improve the convenience of PEVs through research and development as well as increase community readiness for the use of PEVs.

(2) Dates: The submission period for entries must be submitted in accordance with the deadline identified in the DATES section.

(3) Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition: To be eligible to win a prize under this Logo Design Competition, you—

(a) Must register to participate in the competition under the link designated for that purpose by DOE on https://www.challenge.gov;

(b) Must comply with all the requirements under this notice and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358);

(c) In the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, must be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States before the submission period ends;

(d) In the case of a private entity shall be incorporated in and maintain a principal place of business in the United States;

(e) May not be a Federal employee acting within the scope of your employment;

(f) May not be an entity with an outstanding, unresolved financial obligation to, or that is currently suspended or debarred by, the federal government; and

(g) If chosen as the winner of the prize, provide to DOE the necessary personal or business information to allow DOE to award the cash prize.

If you are under 18 years of age, you must have the permission of a parent or legal guardian to participate. If you are a Federal grantee, you may not use Federal funds to develop applications for this competition unless such use is consistent with the purpose of your grant award. If you are a Federal contractor, you may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop or fund efforts in support of applications for this competition. You may use Federal facilities or consult with Federal employees during the competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all contestants participating in the competition on an equitable basis.

(4) Registration Process for Contestants: Design competition contestants must submit their “EV Everywhere” Logo designs online as a vector-based image in an .ai, .eps, or PDF file using the link designated for that purpose on https://www.challenge.gov. Contestants can find the link on https://challenge.gov, either by filtering search criteria to “Department of Energy” or going to https://www.vehicles.energy.gov, where the link will be posted. DOE will accept logo design competition submissions only through https://www.challenge.gov.

Things to keep in mind as you design your “EV Everywhere” Logo:

(a) The logo should translate the core elements of the EV Everywhere brand, including the benefits of PEVs, the viability of PEVs for the average driver, and EV Everywhere as the source for objective, data-driven, reliable information on PEVs. DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center describes the basic technology of PEVs and PEVs' major benefits;

(b) In addition, the logo can evoke through imagery ideas of: Electricity, the “fun” factor of PEVs, PEVs' cost savings, environmental sustainability, and energy security;

(c) The use of the words “EV Everywhere” is recommended, but not required;

(d) The use of the words “U.S. Department of Energy” is required;

(e) The logo should use the following colors alone or in combination:

a. As primary, dark blue (Pantone 7484; CMYK C45 M27 Y17 K51; RGB R94 G106 B113; HEX 5E6A71) and/or dark green (Pantone 356; CMYK C95 M8 Y93 K27; RGB R0 G121 B52; HEX 007934)

b. As highlights, light blue (Pantone 2995; CMYK C87 M1 Y0 K0; RGB R0 G169 B224; HEX 1F82BB), light green (Pantone 368; CMYK C63 M0 Y97 K0; RGB R105 G190 B40; HEX 69BE28), yellow (Pantone 116; CMYK C0 M12 Y100 K0; RGB R254 G203 B0; HEX FECB00), red (Pantone 158; CMYK C0 M64 Y95 K0; RGB R227 G114 B34; HEX E37222), and light gray (Pantone 428; CMYK C12 M6 Y5 K12; RGB R195 G200 B200; HEX C3C8C8);

(f) If the logo includes text, the text should be in Gotham font, or if not available, Calibri;

(g) The logo should be unique enough that it could be easily recognized by the general public in the future;

(h) Because it will be used on a vehicle magnetic logo the size of a small bumper sticker, the logo needs to be readable and/or understandable from the back of a moving vehicle.

(i) The logo should not focus solely on light-duty PEVs; and

(j) The logo should not conflict or be too similar to existing DOE/EERE logos (available on the EERE Communications Standards Web site) or use elements of the DOE or any other federal agency's logo.

When uploading your “EV Everywhere” Logo design, in the “Submission Text” field, please include a brief description about your logo entry and thought process behind the design, including any personal experience the designer has with PEVs.

(5) Prize for Winner: The winning contestant will be awarded a $5,000 prize and the design will become the official logo for the EV Everywhere activities, the magnetic decals, the program's Web site and any official DOE purpose.

(6) Selection of Winner: DOE will select a judging panel that will consist of DOE officials, EV industry leaders, and other communications experts. Judges will be fair and impartial. A judge may not have personal or financial interests in, or be an employee, officer, director, or agent of any contestant or have a familial or financial relationship with a contestant.

Judges will use the following weighted criteria to judge the submitted designs:

(a) Effectiveness of communicating the EV Everywhere mission and brand (500/1000 points). This includes the idea of plug-in electric vehicles, their benefits, their viability for the average driver, and the DOE as a source of unbiased, data-driven information. This may be done through a realistic or abstract design;

(b) Creativity and originality (300/1000 points). Is the visual quality of the design at once informative and representative of imagery connected to EV Everywhere; and

(c) Design can be easily replicated, especially as a magnetic decal (200/1000 points). Can this design be replicated successfully, without excessive cost, for many media formats.

The judging panel will evaluate the submissions and choose the final winning design from all submissions. In the event that no entries fully meet the above criteria to the panel's satisfaction, the Department of Energy is under no obligation to select a winner. All decisions by DOE are final and binding with respect to the contest. For questions or further information, please see the contact information listed in the DATES section above.

(7) Applicable Law: This design competition is being conducted by DOE pursuant to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act requirements at 15 U.S.C. 3719 and is subject to all applicable federal laws and regulations. By participating in this design competition, each contestant gives its full and unconditional agreement to these Official Rules. A contestant's eligibility for a prize award is contingent upon their fulfilling all requirements identified in this notice. Publication of this notice is not an obligation of funds on the part of DOE. DOE reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify this contest, in whole or in part, at any time prior to the award of prizes.

(8) Resolution of Disputes: The Department of Energy is solely responsible for administrative decisions, which are final and binding in all matters related to the contest. In the event of a dispute as to any registration, the authorized account holder of the email address used to register will be deemed to be the contestant. The “authorized account holder” is the natural person or legal entity assigned an email address by an Internet access provider, online service provider or other organization responsible for assigning email addresses for the domain associated with the submitted address. Contestants and potential winner may be required to show proof of being the authorized account holder.

(9) Intellectual Property Rights:

(a) By submitting a design to this competition, you represent and warrant that you are the sole author and copyright owner of the submitted design; that the submission is your original work, and as the contestant, you have sufficient rights to use and authorize others, including DOE, to use the submission, as specified throughout the Official Rules, that the submission does not violate or infringe upon the copyright or upon any other third party rights of other parties, including but not limited to privacy, publicity, or intellectual property rights, or material that constitutes copyright or license infringement. Your design may not contain any material that is inappropriate, indecent, obscene, hateful, defamatory, or in any way disparaging. Your design cannot have been submitted previously in another promotion or contest of any kind.

(b) You understand and agree that if your entry is selected as the winning design, it may be modified or altered by DOE, in its sole discretion, as deemed appropriate or necessary to execute, produce, or distribute the winning design in its final logo format.

(c) The winning contestant will, in consideration of the prize to be awarded, grant to DOE an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, copy, display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, and share, the winning design or parts thereof, for the purpose of the design competition and for any official EV Everywhere or DOE purpose.

(10) Publicity Rights: Upon registration, each contestant consents to DOE's and its agents' use, in perpetuity, of its name, likeness, photograph, voice, opinions, and/or hometown and state information for promotional or informational purposes through any form of media, worldwide, without payment or consideration.

(11) Liability and Insurance Requirements:

(a) Any and all information provided by or obtained from the Federal Government is without any warranty or representation whatsoever, including but not limited to its suitability for any particular purpose.

(b) Upon registration, each contestant agrees to assume any and all risks of injury or loss in connection with or in any way arising from participation in this contest. Upon registration, except in the case of willful misconduct, all contestants agree to and, thereby, do waive and release any and all claims or causes of action against the Federal Government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from their participation in the contest, whether the claim or cause of action arises under contract or tort.

(c) Upon registration, you agree to and, thereby, shall indemnify and hold harmless the Federal government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from or related to competition activities.

(d) Contestants are required to demonstrate financial responsibility by certifying that they have $500 to cover claims in the amount of $500 or less, made by: (A) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in the Logo competition; and (B) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.

(12) Record Retention and FOIA: All materials submitted to DOE as part of a submission become DOE records and cannot be returned. Any confidential commercial information contained in a submission should be designated at the time of submission. Submitters will be notified of any Freedom of Information Act requests for their submissions in accordance with 29 CFR 70.26.

Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Report title: The Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.

Agency form number: FR Y-15

OMB control number: 7100-0352.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Reporters: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets and any U.S.-based organizations designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

Estimated annual reporting hours: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—54,536 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—401 hours.

Number of respondents: 34

General description of report: This information collection is mandatory and is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act (sections 163, 165, and 604), the International Banking Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and the Home Owners' Loan Act (19 U.S.C. 1462, 1467, and 3106).

Abstract: The FR Y-15 report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs and SLHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organization identified as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) 1 based on data from the previous calendar year that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The Federal Reserve uses the FR Y-15 data primarily to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of the institutions which are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA).2

Current Actions: On July 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 39433) requesting public comment for 60 days to revise and extend the FR Y-15 (July 9 proposal). The July 9 proposal would, among other revisions, collect information on short-term wholesale funding on proposed Schedule G. The proposed definition of “short-term wholesale funding” and weightings in the FR Y-15 proposal were based on the definition and weighting of “short-term wholesale funding” included in the Board's proposal to establish a capital surcharge for U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIBs), which was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2014 (December proposal).3 On July 20, 2015, the Board adopted a final rule to establish a capital surcharge for GSIBs. Like the December proposal, the GSIB final rule incorporates a measure of short-term wholesale funding, but modifies that measure in response to comments.

In connection with the GSIB final rule, the Board is amending the July proposal to align the definition of proposed short-term wholesale funding with the definition in the final GSIB surcharge rule. The amendments to proposed Schedule G include (1) moving three line items to different tiers, (2) adding an item to capture firm short positions, (3) adding two automatically-calculated items, (4) adding one item derived from the FR Y-9C, (5) deleting two items, and (6) collecting customer short positions as part of the secured funding totals. The Board also extended the comment period on the proposed revisions to the FR Y-15 until October 19, 2015 to allow interested persons to comment on the entire notice, including the July 20, 2015, amendments to the proposed short-term wholesale funding collection.

The Board estimates that these minimal differences will not affect the burden estimates provided in the July 9 proposal. The comment period for the proposed changes to the FR Y-15 proposal would also be extended to October 19, 2015, to allow commenters the opportunity to comment on the full proposal, including changes to the short-term wholesale funding measure adopted in this final rule. The Federal Reserve proposes the following revisions to the FR Y-15, which would be effective December 31, 2015:

Consistent with the calculation of short-term wholesale funding in the final rule, the Federal Reserve proposes to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained outside of the financial sector (item 2(b)) and retail brokered deposits and sweeps (item 2(c)) so that they are subcomponents of item 1, and to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained within the financial sector (item 4(a)) so that it is subcomponent of item 3.

The final rule excludes firm short positions involving Level 1 and Level 2A securities from the short-term wholesale funding definition, and assigns a maximum weight of 25 percent to firm short positions involving Level 2B securities or securities that do not qualify as high quality liquid assets. To be consistent with this treatment, the Federal Reserve proposes adding firm short positions involving Level 2B liquid assets or non-high quality liquid assets (new item 1(d)). To simplify the reporting requirement, the Federal Reserve further proposes deleting short positions involving a Level 1 or Level 2A liquid asset (item 2(e)), removing shorts from other covered asset exchanges and short positions (item 3(b)), and collecting customer short positions as part of the secured funding totals.

As a consequence of the aforementioned changes, the Federal Reserve also proposes adding total first tier short-term wholesale funding (new item 1(e)) to capture the total of items 1(a) through 1(d), and deleting total other short-term wholesale funding (item 4(c)) which is no longer needed.

The final rule measures short-term wholesale funding as a percent of risk weighted assets. To capture this value, the Federal Reserve proposes adding average risk-weighted assets (new item 7) and short-term wholesale funding metric (new item 8) to the schedule.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/inboxgroupconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Inbox Group, LLC (“Inbox Group”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Inbox Group made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

Inbox Group is a marketing agency that provides email, social media, and mobile marketing programs and services. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Inbox Group set forth on its Web site, http://www.inboxgroup.com/company/privacy/, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Inbox Group falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Inbox Group was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Inbox Group from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Inbox Group to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Inbox Group submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which * * * is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/golfconnectconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Golf Connect, LLC (“Golf Connect”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Golf Connect made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy frameworks agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) and the U.S. and Switzerland (collectively, “Safe Harbor Frameworks”). The Safe Harbor Frameworks allow U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU and Switzerland consistent with EU and Swiss law. To join the Safe Harbor Frameworks, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission and Switzerland as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Frameworks.

Golf Connect provides a communication platform and software and technology services to the golf industry. According to the Commission's complaint, Golf Connect has set forth on its Web site, http://www.golfhub.com/CustomerService/PrivacyPolicy?lang+en, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the Safe Harbor Frameworks.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Golf Connect falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks when, in fact, from April 2014 until April 2015, Golf Connect was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The company's predecessor in interest had submitted its self-certification to the Safe Harbor Frameworks, but that self-certification had lapsed. Commerce subsequently updated the company's status to “not current” on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Golf Connect from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Golf Connect to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Golf Connect submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR § 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dalejarrettracingconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (“Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure is a race car driving school that offers consumers an opportunity to ride in and drive genuine stock cars with professional drivers, and was founded by NASCAR champion Dale Jarrett. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure set forth on its Web site, http://www.racingadventure.com/privacy.html, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairwoman.

The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission's

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/caliskatelineconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line (“California Skate-Line”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that California Skate-Line made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

California Skate-Line sells skating-related lessons and clothing, hosts events, and sponsors live performances. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, California Skate-Line set forth on its Web site, http://caliskateline.com/index.php?col=3&page=privacy, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that California Skate-Line falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, California Skate-Line was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits California Skate-Line from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires California Skate-Line to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that California Skate-Line submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Background: The proposed FBI facility would consolidate the FBI's records currently housed within the Washington DC area, in addition to field offices and information technology centers nationwide. The project requirements are for an overall square footage of 256,425 gross square feet, and will include the records storage building, support area, visitor's screening facility, service center, and guard booth. Parking is proposed at 427 spaces. A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8311 on February 17, 2015. A public scoping comment period was held for 30 days following publication of the Notice of Intent.

The alternatives fully evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS include the No Action Alternative, the Arcadia Route 50 property, and Whitehall Commerce Center.

The Supplemental Draft EIS incorporates by reference and builds upon the analyses presented in the 2007 Final EIS, and documents the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR part 800). The Supplemental Draft EIS addresses changes to the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns and assesses any new circumstances or information relevant to potential environmental impacts.

The Supplemental Draft EIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies. The Supplemental Draft EIS is available for review on the project Web site http://www.fbicrc-seis.com. A printed copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS is available for viewing at the following libraries:

• Handley Library, 100 West Piccadilly Street, P.O. Box 58, Winchester, VA 22604

• Bowman Library, 871 Tasker Road, P.O. Box 1300, Stephens City, VA 22655

• Smith Library, Shenandoah University, 718 Wade Miller Drive, Winchester, VA 22601

Federal, state, and local agencies, and other interested parties, are invited and encouraged to be present or represented at the public meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2015. All formal comments will become part of the public record and substantive comments will be responded to in the Final Supplemental EIS.

Public Comments: Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS can be submitted three ways: (1) Submit comments via the project email address: [email protected], (2) provide written comments during the public meeting, or (3) mail a comment form or letter to: Ms. Courtenay Hoernemann, Project Environmental Planner, 20 N. 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Written comments postmarked by October 5, 2015 will become part of the official public record.

Public Meeting: The format will be open house with informational posters on display, and representatives from GSA and FBI will be available to explain the proposed project, answer questions, and receive comments from the public. Comment forms will be available for the public to provide formal written comments.

Proposed Project Online Application Order Form for Products From the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP is a vital resource helping the Agency achieve its mission to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable. HCUP is a family of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. The HCUP databases are annual files that contain anonymous information from hospital discharge records for inpatient care and certain components of outpatient care, such as emergency care and ambulatory surgeries. The project currently releases seven types of databases created for research use on a broad range of health issues, including cost and quality of health services, medical practice patterns, access to health care programs, and outcomes of treatments at the national, State, and local market levels. HCUP also produces a large number of software tools to enhance the use of administrative health care data for research and public health use. Software tools use information available from a variety of sources to create new data elements, often through sophisticated algorithms, for use with the HCUP databases.

HCUP's objectives are to:

• Create and enhance a powerful source of national, state, and all-payer health care data.

• Produce a broad set of software tools and products to facilitate the use of HCUP and other administrative data.

• Enrich a collaborative partnership with statewide data organizations (that voluntarily participate in the project) aimed at increasing the quality and use of health care data.

• Conduct and translate research to inform decision making and improve health care delivery.

This project is being conducted by AHRQ through its primary contractor and subcontractor, Truven Health Analytics and Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of health care services and access to such services. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3).

The HCUP releases seven types of databases for public research use:

(1) The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States, yielding national estimates of hospital inpatient stays. The NIS approximates 20 percent of the discharges from all U.S. community hospitals and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays each year. NIS data releases are available for purchase from the HCUP Central Distributor for data years beginning in 1988.

(2) The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) is the only all-payer inpatient care database for children in the United States. The KID was specifically designed to permit researchers to study a broad range of conditions and procedures related to child health issues. The KID contains a sample of 2 to 3 million discharges for children age 20 and younger from more than 3,500 U.S. community hospitals. KID data releases are available every third year starting in 1997.

(3) The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) is the largest all-payer Emergency Department (ED) database in the United States. It is constructed to capture information both on ED visits that do not result in an admission and on ED visits that result in an admission to the same hospital. The NEDS contains more than 25 million unweighted records for ED visits at about 1,000 U.S. community hospitals and approximates a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. hospital-based EDs. NEDS data releases are available beginning with data year 2006.

(4) The State Inpatient Databases (SID) contain the universe of inpatient discharge abstracts from data organizations in 46 States and the District of Columbia that currently participate in the SID. Together, the SID encompasse approximately 96 percent of all U.S. community hospital discharges. Most States that participate in the SID make their data available for purchase through the HCUP Central Distributor. Files are available beginning with data year 1990.

(5) The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) contain encounter-level data from ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide data for ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. Currently, 34 States participate in the SASD. Files are available beginning with data year 1997.

(6) The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain data from hospital-owned EDs for visits that do not result in a hospitalization. Currently, 32 States participate in the SEDD. Files are available beginning with data year 1999.

(7) A new database called the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is planned for release in late 2015. The NRD is designed to support various types of analyses of national readmission rates. This database addresses a large gap in health care data—the lack of nationally representative information on hospital readmissions. The NRD is a calendar-year, discharge-level database constructed from the HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID).

To support AHRQ's mission to improve health care through health services research, HCUP databases and software tools are disseminated to users outside of the Agency through the HCUP Central Distributor at https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp. The HCUP Central Distributor assists qualified researchers to access uniform research data across multiple states with the use of one application process. The HCUP databases disseminated through the Central distributor are referred to as “restricted access public release files”; that is, they are publicly available, but only under restricted conditions.

This information collection request is for the activities associated with the HCUP database application process not the collection of health care data for HCUP databases. The activities associated with this application include:

(1) HCUP Application. All persons requesting access to the HCUP databases must complete an application at https://distributor.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/. Applications for HCUP State databases require a brief description of the planned research use to ensure that the intended use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the HCUP Data Use Agreement. Paper versions of all application packages are also available for downloading at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp.

(2) HCUP Data Use Agreement Training. All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must complete an online training course. The purpose of the training is to emphasize the importance of data protection, reduce the risk of inadvertent violations, and describe the individual's responsibility when using HCUP data. The training course can be accessed and completed online at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/dua.jsp.

(3) HCUP Data Use Agreement (DUA). All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must sign a data use agreement. An example DUA for the Nationwide databases is available at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp.

HCUP databases are released to researchers outside of AHRQ after the completion of required training and submission of an application that includes a signed HCUP DUA. In addition, before restricted access public release state-level databases are released, AHRQ must review and approve the applicant's statement of intended use to ensure that the planned use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the HCUP Data Use Agreement. Fees are set for databases released through the HCUP Central Distributor depending on the type of database. The fee for sale of state-level data is determined by each participating Statewide Data Organization and reimbursed to those organizations. Information collected in the HCUP Application process will be used for two purposes only:

1. Business Transaction: In order to deliver the HCUP databases and software, contact information is necessary for shipping the data on disk (or any other media used in the future).

2. Enforcement of the HCUP DUA: The HCUP DUA contains several restrictions on use of the data. Most of these restrictions have been put in place to safeguard the privacy of individuals and establishments represented in the data. For example, data users can only use the data for research, analysis, and aggregate statistical reporting and are prohibited from attempting to identify any persons in the data. Contact information on HCUP DUAsis retained in the event that a violation of the DUA takes place.

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden associated with the applicants' time to order any of the HCUP databases. An estimated 1,300 persons will order HCUP data annually. Each of these persons will complete an application (10 minutes), the DUA training (15 minutes) and a DUA (5 minutes). The total burden is estimated to be 650 hours annually.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the applicants' time to order HCUP data. The total cost burden is estimated to be $24,772 annually.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

AHRQ has accepted a notification from Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc., a component entity of The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc., PSO, PSO number P0115, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 7, 2015.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

AHRQ has accepted a notification from Close Care Gap, PSO, a component entity of iCareQuality, Inc., PSO number P0145, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Close Care Gap, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 2, 2015.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

In FR Doc. 2015-19729, appearing on page 48325, in the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 12, 2015, the following correction is made:

On page 48326, in the first column, the numbered list is corrected to read as follows:

1. DUREZOL (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05%,

2. Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution,

3. ZYLET (loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin ophthalmic suspension),

4. BETHKIS (tobramycin Inhalation Solution),

5. INTELENCE (etravirine),

6. PREZISTA (darunavir),

7. VIRAMUNE XR (nevirapine),

8. EPIDUO (adapalene and benzoyl peroxide),

9. EXJADE (deferasirox),

10. DOTAREM (gadoterate meglumine),

11. FYCOMPA (perampanel),

12. RECOTHROM (thrombin, topical [recombinant]),

13. PREVNAR 13 (Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine [Diphtheria CRM197 Protein]),

14. PLEXIMMUNE,

15. ELANA SURGICAL KIT (HUD),

16. BERLIN HEART EXCOR PEDIATRIC VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (VAD),

17. ENTERRA THERAPY SYSTEM, and

18. CONTEGRA Pulmonary Valved Conduit.

I. Background

The IID provides information on inactive ingredients in FDA-approved drug products. An inactive ingredient, or excipient, is any component of a drug product other than an active ingredient (21 CFR 210.3(b)(8)). Generally, the IID identifies excipients that appear in approved drug products for a particular dosage form and route of administration.

In September 2011, FDA created the IID Working Group to develop a set of questions and answers to facilitate use of the IID. During the development of questions and answers, FDA has worked with the International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC Americas).1 FDA is opening a public docket to solicit comments from additional stakeholders on enhancing the utility and usability of the IID. FDA will then develop a comprehensive technical guide or draft guidance for industry and reviewers.

To help FDA identify and ultimately establish best practices and issue a technical guide or draft guidance, FDA is requesting public comments regarding the enhancement of the IID.

FDA is requesting comments and supporting information, including proposed questions and proposed answers, on the following topics related to the IID:

1. How can we improve nomenclature in the IID (e.g., use of preferred ingredient names and synonyms in the database)?

2. How should we identify excipient amounts listed in the IID?

3. How should we reflect updates to the current IID to ensure completeness and accuracy?

4. Should we restructure the IID, and if so, how?

5. Are there additional suggestions or comments for IID improvement?

FDA will consider all comments submitted. FDA generally will not respond directly to the person or organization submitting the comment.

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.

I. Background

Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)) requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act.

On April 8, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment against Ms. Coroniti for one count of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)).

FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Coroniti was a sales representative for Gallant Pharma International Inc. (Gallant Pharma) between June 2011 and August 2013, and was responsible for selling injectable cosmetic drugs and devices, and intravenous chemotherapy drugs, to doctors and hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Some of the drugs Ms. Coroniti facilitated the sale of were misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act.

Ms. Coroniti admitted that she sold drugs which were not approved by the FDA for use on patients in the United States. She further admitted that the drugs she sold on behalf of Gallant Pharma were misbranded in that they did not bear adequate directions for use and were not subject to an exemption from that requirement, and they were accompanied by non-FDA approved packaging and inserts.

Between June 2011 and August 2013, Ms. Coroniti admitted to selling misbranded drugs to 15 distinct doctors and medical practices in Pennsylvania and generated more than $1.1 million in illegal proceeds from these sales. She admitted that, as of April 26, 2013, she became willfully blind to the illegality of Gallant Pharma's business. Nonetheless, she continued her sales activity with Gallant Pharma until her arrest in August 2013.

Between April 26, 2013, and August 7, 2013, Ms. Coroniti personally sold more than $367,000 in misbranded drugs and devices to doctors and medical practices in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. On or about July 30, 2013, Ms. Coroniti sold five vials of misbranded BOTOX to a doctor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in exchange for $1,900.00, thereby causing a misbranded drug to be introduced into interstate commerce. She further admitted that the loss amount attributable to her personal sales was between $200,000 and $400,000.

As a result of her conviction, on March 25, 2015, FDA sent Ms. Coroniti a notice by certified mail proposing to permanently debar her from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Coroniti was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct related to the regulation of a drug product. FDA determined that Ms. Coroniti's felony conviction was related to the regulation of drug products because the conduct underlying her conviction, including intentionally introducing into interstate commerce misbranded drug products, undermined FDA's regulatory oversight over drug products marketed in the United States. The proposal also offered Ms. Coroniti an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on May 1, 2015. Ms. Coroniti failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).

Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Lisa Marie Coroniti has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Section 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)) requires that Ms.Coroniti's debarment be permanent.

As a result of the foregoing findings, Lisa Marie Coroniti is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES) (see section 201(dd), 306(c)(1)(B), and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, (21 U.S.C. 321(dd), 335a(c)(1)(B), and 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Lisa Marie Coroniti, in any capacity during her debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Coroniti provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application during her period of debarment she will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(7))). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Lisa Marie Coroniti during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(A))).

Any application by Ms. Coroniti for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2099 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.

Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Antimicrobial drugs have been widely used in human and veterinary medicine for more than 50 years, with tremendous benefits to both human and animal health. The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious threat to public and animal health. Because antimicrobial drug use can contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant organisms, these important drugs must be used judiciously in both animal and human medicine to slow the development of resistance.

In December 2013, FDA published Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf), which calls on animal drug sponsors of approved medically important antimicrobials administered through medicated feed or water to voluntarily remove production (growth promotion and feed efficiency) uses from their product labels, and bring the remaining therapeutic uses of these products (to treat, control, or prevent disease) under the oversight of a veterinarian by the end of December 2016. All 25 affected drug sponsors have committed to implementing the changes described in GFI #213 by the December 2016 target date. Once the changes are fully implemented, it will be illegal to use these medically important antibiotics for production purposes, and animal producers will need to obtain authorization from a licensed veterinarian to use them for prevention, control, or treatment of a specifically identified disease.

On March 27, 2015, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria (“National Action Plan”) (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf). Developed in response to Executive Order 13676, which was issued by President Barack Obama on September 18, 2014, the National Action Plan is intended to guide the activities of the U.S. Government as well as the actions of public health, health care, and veterinary partners in a common effort to address the urgent and serious public health threat of drug-resistant bacterial infections. Objective 2.4 of the National Action Plan is to enhance monitoring of antibiotic resistance patterns, as well as antibiotic sales, usage, and management practices, at multiple points in the production chain for food animals and retail meat. The public meeting being announced in this Federal Register notice is consistent with Sub-Objective 2.4.3 of the National Action Plan, which calls for the USDA and FDA to seek public input on a plan for collecting drug use and resistance data on farms.

In April 2015, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published an Info Sheet entitled “Proposed Initiatives From the USDA Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan” (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/amr/downloads/ProposedInitiatives.pdf). The Info Sheet provides a brief synopsis of initiatives proposed in the USDA Action plan, including a number of initiatives related to collecting on-farm antibiotic use and resistance data.

Gathering information on the way medically important antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals is essential to measuring the impact of the FDA's GFI #213. FDA is collaborating with USDA and CDC to develop a plan for collecting additional on-farm data on antimicrobial use and resistance. Such data are intended to supplement existing information, including data on the quantity of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals (reported under section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008) and data on antimicrobial resistance (e.g., collected under the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and the National Animal Health Monitoring System). Data from multiple sources are needed to provide a comprehensive and science-based picture of antimicrobial drug use and resistance in animal agriculture.

A data collection plan is needed to obtain additional information necessary to: (1) Assess the rate of adoption of changes outlined in the FDA's GFI #213; (2) help gauge the success of antibiotic stewardship efforts and guide their continued evolution and optimization; and (3) assess associations between antibiotic use practices and resistance. FDA is continuing to work with the USDA and CDC in developing this plan, and is holding this public meeting in order to obtain input from the public. This meeting is the first opportunity for public input as part of our ongoing effort to develop and implement plans for collecting additional on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data.

The public meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment on possible approaches for collecting additional antimicrobial drug use data. The final agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the Agency's Web site at

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferencesMeetings/ucm456380.htm no later than 2 weeks prior to the meeting.

FDA will prepare a meeting transcript and make it available on the Agency's Web site (see section II) after the meeting. FDA anticipates that the transcript will be available approximately 60 business days after the meeting. A copy of the transcript will be available for public examination at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, copies of the transcript will be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM after submission of a Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov.

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 FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and 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.

Under 42 U.S.C. 243, we are required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities in the enforcement of their health regulations and are authorized to assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases. Under this authority, we participate with State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038, “Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.” We use this information to publish the “Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List,” a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish processors certified under the cooperative program. If we did not collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations. Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and its effectiveness would be nullified.

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

We estimate that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228 hours (2,280 submissions × 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is based on our experience with this information collection and the number of certificates received in the past 3 years, which has remained constant.

The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established in Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, Dec. 8, 1993) (Customs Modernization Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411-14). Through NCAP, the initial thrust of customs modernization was on trade compliance and the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions. CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace a specific legacy ACS or paper function. Each release begins with a test and ends with mandatory use of the new ACE feature, thus retiring the legacy ACS or paper function. Each release builds on previous releases and sets the foundation for subsequent releases.

The Customs Modernization Act provides the Commissioner of CBP with the authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. The test described in this notice is authorized pursuant to the Customs Modernization Act and section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. As provided in 19 CFR 101.9(b), for purposes of conducting an NCAP test, the Commissioner of CBP may impose requirements different from those specified in the CBP regulations.

This test is also in furtherance of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) key initiatives, set forth in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, Oct. 13, 2006) (SAFE Port Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411(d)) and Executive Order 13659 of February 19, 2014, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses. The purpose of ITDS, as stated in section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, is to eliminate redundant information requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade, by establishing a single portal system, operated by CBP, for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by all participating Federal agencies. CBP is developing ACE as the “single window” for the trade community to comply with the ITDS requirement established by the SAFE Port Act.

Executive Order 13659 requires that by December 2016, ACE, as the ITDS single window, have the operational capabilities to serve as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export, and to transition from paper-based requirements and procedures to faster and more cost-effective electronic submissions to, and communications with, U.S. government agencies.

Under the CBP regulations (title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)), certain information must be submitted to CBP for vessels with export cargo leaving the United States for any foreign area, whether directly or by way of other domestic ports. Section 4.61 (19 CFR 4.61) requires the vessel master or other proper officer to execute a Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement on CBP Form 1300 filed with CBP pertaining to the outbound vessel. Section 4.63 (19 CFR 4.63) requires the vessel master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, to file a vessel cargo manifest on paper CBP Form 1302-A, Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, with CBP at each port from which clearance is being sought.1 Section 4.75 (19 CFR 4.75), requires the vessel master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, to file the complete vessel cargo manifest generally within 4 business days after clearance from each port in the vessel's itinerary. Section 4.76 (19 CFR 4.76) sets forth procedures and responsibilities of carriers filing outbound vessel manifest information via the Automated Export System (AES) in lieu of paper CBP Form 1302-A. Carriers that are approved to submit outbound vessel manifest information electronically in AES under 19 CFR 4.76 must, with limited exceptions, submit the complete manifest data within 10 calendar days after departure. Finally, section 192.14 (19 CFR 192.14) requires the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) to file any required Electronic Export Information (EEI) for the cargo on the vessel.2 More details regarding the manifest requirements, the subject of this test, are provided in the next section.

As indicated in the previous section, the vessel commander or agent must file copies of the vessel cargo manifest on CBP Form 1302-A. CBP Form 1302-A consists of the following data elements:

The vessel cargo manifest may be filed in complete form or incomplete form (pro forma). The complete manifest must be filed with CBP before the vessel will be cleared to depart to a foreign country listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c). Otherwise, for shipments to a foreign country, an incomplete manifest may be filed with CBP at the departure port when accompanied by the proper bond. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(2), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to Puerto Rico, a complete manifest or proper bond shall be filed with CBP within one business day of arrival in Puerto Rico. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(1), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to noncontiguous territories of the United States other than Puerto Rico, or from Puerto Rico to any State or the District of Columbia to any other noncontiguous territory, a complete manifest or proper bond must be filed with CBP before departure.

Under the terms of the bond, the complete manifest must be filed with CBP by the master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, within the appropriate time period. For shipments to foreign countries, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 4 business days post-departure. For shipments from the United States to Puerto Rico, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after arrival in Puerto Rico. For shipments between the United States or Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after departure.

As mentioned in the previous section, under 19 CFR 4.76, certain carriers are approved to submit outbound vessel manifest information electronically in AES in lieu of submitting a paper CBP Form 1302-A. In most cases, these carriers must submit the complete manifest data within 10 calendar days after departure of the vessel from each port. However, if the destination of the vessel is a foreign port listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c), the carrier must transmit complete manifest information before vessel departure. Also, the time requirements for electronic transmission of complete manifest information for carriers destined to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions are the same as the requirements found in 19 CFR 4.84 and described above.

Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), requires CBP to promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail, or truck). The required cargo information is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. Section 192.14 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 192.14) implements the requirements of the Trade Act with regard to cargo departing the United States.

While the vessel cargo manifest described in the previous section must be submitted by the vessel commander or agent, that is, by the vessel carrier, 19 CFR 192.14 specifies that any required EEI must be filed by the USPPI. The USPPI or its authorized agent must transmit any required EEI using a CBP-approved EDI system, and verify system acceptance of this EEI no later than 24 hours prior to departure from the U.S. port where the vessel cargo is to be laden. The vessel carrier may not load cargo without first receiving from the USPPI or its authorized agent either the related EEI filing citation, covering all cargo for which the EEI is required, or exemption legends, covering cargo for which EEI need not be filed. The outbound vessel carrier then must annotate the vessel cargo manifest, waybill, or other export documentation with the applicable AES proof of filing, post departure, downtime, exclusion or exemption citations, conforming to the approved data formats found in the Bureau of the Census Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) (15 CFR part 30).

The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifest data for vessel cargo electronically to ACE in furtherance of the ITDS initiatives described above. CBP has re-engineered AES to move it to an ACE system platform. The re-engineering and incorporation of AES into ACE will result in the creation of a single automated export processing platform for certain export manifest, commodity, licensing, export control, and export targeting transactions. This will reduce costs for CBP, partner government agencies, and the trade community and improve facilitation of export shipments through the supply chain.

The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will also test the feasibility of requiring the manifest information to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the vessel. (Under the current regulatory requirements, in most cases the complete manifest is not required to be submitted until after the departure of the vessel). As described in the paragraph below, in the test, participants will submit export manifest data electronically to ACE at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the vessel. This will enable CBP to link the EEI submitted by the USPPI with the export manifest information earlier in the process. This capability will better enable CBP to assess risk and effectively target and inspect shipments prior to the loading of cargo to ensure compliance with all U.S. export laws.

Participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test agree to provide export manifest data to CBP electronically at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. If the vessel carrier files this ACE Export Manifest data, the filing is in lieu of the paper filing of CBP Form 1302-A and copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest. If a freight forwarder or non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) files the ACE Export Manifest data, the carrier is still required to file one of the following: the paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the vessel carrier is approved for this procedure; or the ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant.

The ACE Export Manifest data submission will be used to target high-risk vessel cargo. The data should be available to test participants early in the planning stages of an export vessel cargo transaction. It is anticipated that data provided no later than 24 hours prior to loading will permit adequate time for proper risk assessment and identification of shipments to be inspected early enough in the supply chain to enhance security while minimizing disruption to the flow of goods.

Any vessel cargo identified as potentially high-risk will receive a hold until required additional information related to the shipment is submitted to clarify non-descriptive, inaccurate, or insufficient information, a physical inspection is performed, or some other appropriate action is taken, as specified by CBP. Once the cargo is cleared for loading, a release message will be generated and transmitted to the filer.

The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test data elements are similar, but not identical to the data elements required on CBP Form 1302-A. The data elements are mandatory unless otherwise indicated. Data elements that are indicated as “conditional” must be transmitted to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements are to be submitted at the lowest bill level. The data elements consist of:

There are currently no additional data elements identified for other participating U.S. Government Agencies (PGAs) for the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. However, CBP may enhance the test in the future with additional data or processing capabilities to assist with facilitation of vessel shipment movements and to be consistent with Executive Order 13659. Any such enhancement will be announced in the Federal Register.

CBP is limiting this test to nine stakeholders in the vessel cargo environment. Specifically, CBP is seeking participation from:

• At least three, but no more than six, vessel carriers; and

• At least three, but no more than six, freight forwarders or NVOCCs.

There are no restrictions with regard to organization size, location, or commodity type. However, participation is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit export manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Cargo-IMP, AIR CAMIR, XML, or Unified XML, and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. (Unified XML may not be immediately available at the start of the test. However, parties wishing to utilize Unified XML may be accepted, pending its development and implementation). Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.

Test participants agree to submit export manifest data electronically to CBP via an approved EDI at least 24 hours prior to the loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. In addition, test participants agree to establish operational security protocols that correspond to CBP hold messages that mandate the participant to take responsive action and respond to CBP confirming that the requested action was taken to mitigate any threat identified, respond promptly with complete and accurate information when contacted by CBP with questions regarding the data submitted, and comply with any “Do Not Load” instructions.

Finally, test participants agree to participate in any teleconferences or meetings established by CBP, when necessary, to ensure any challenges, or operational or technical issues regarding the test are properly communicated and addressed.

Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test does not impose any legally binding obligations on either CBP or the participant, and CBP generally does not intend to enforce or levy punitive measures if test participants are non-compliant with these conditions of participation during the test.

Those interested in participating in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test should submit an email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected], stating their interest and their qualifications based on the above eligibility requirements. The email will serve as an electronic signature of intent to participate and must also include a point of contact name and telephone number. Applications will be accepted until CBP has received applications from nine parties that meet all test participant requirements. CBP will notify applicants whether they have been selected to participate in the test. Applicants will also be notified once they have successfully completed certification testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. Test participants will receive technical, operational, and policy guidance through all stages of test participation, from planning to implementation, on the necessary steps for the transmission of electronic export manifest data.

ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants are responsible for all costs incurred as a result of their participation in the test and such costs will vary, depending on their pre-existing infrastructures. Costs may be offset by a significant reduction in expenses associated with copying, storing, and courier services for presenting the paper manifest to CBP.

While the benefits to ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants will vary, several advantages of joining may include:

• Reduction in costs associated with generating copies, transportation, and storage of paper manifest documentation;

• Increases in security by leveraging CBP threat model and other data to employ a risk-based approach to improve vessel cargo security and to ensure compliance with U.S. export laws, rules and regulations through targeted screening;

• Gains in efficiencies by automating the identification of high-risk cargo for enhanced screening and earlier identification of low-risk shipments;

• The ability to provide input into CBP efforts to establish, test, and refine the interface between government and industry communication systems for the implementation of the electronic export manifest; and

• Facilitation of corporate preparedness for future mandatory implementation of electronic export manifest submission requirements.

For purposes of this test, the requirement to file a paper CBP Form 1302-A, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, will be waived for vessel carrier test participants that submit the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements electronically as described above. For purposes of this test, the requirement to file copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63(a)(1), will also be waived for vessel carrier test participants. If a freight forwarder or NVOCC submits the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, the vessel carrier is still required to file one of the following: The paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the carrier is approved for the electronic filing; or the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant. The vessel carrier maintains responsibility for submitting the manifest data to CBP to cover all cargo on the vessel, even if the freight forwarder or NVOCC has also submitted manifest data.

Participation in the test does not alter the participant's obligations to comply with any other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, and participants will still be subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance. In addition, submission of data under the test does not exempt the participant from any CBP or other U.S. Government agency program requirements or any statutory sanctions in the event that a violation of U.S. export laws or prohibited articles are discovered within a shipment/container presented for export destined from the United States on a vessel owned and/or operated by the participant.

The test will be activated on a case-by-case basis with each participant and may be limited to a single or small number of ports until any operational, training, or technical issues on either the trade or government side are established and/or resolved. The test will run for approximately two years from September 21, 2015. While the test is ongoing, CBP will evaluate the results and determine whether the test will be extended, expanded to include additional participants, or otherwise modified. CBP will announce any such modifications by notice in the Federal Register. When sufficient test analysis and evaluation has been conducted, CBP intends to begin rulemaking to require the submission of electronic export manifest data before the cargo is loaded onto the vessel for all international shipments destined from the United States. The results of the test will help determine the relevant data elements, the time frame within which data should be submitted to permit CBP to effectively target, identify, and mitigate any risk with the least impact practicable on trade operations, and any other related procedures and policies.

All data submitted and entered into ACE is subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) and is considered confidential, except to the extent as otherwise provided by law. However, participation in this or any ACE test is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.

If a test participant fails to abide by the rules, procedures, or terms and conditions of this and all other applicable Federal Register Notices, fails to exercise reasonable care in the execution of participant obligations, or otherwise fails to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, then the participant may be suspended from participation in this test and/or subjected to penalties, liquidated damages, and/or other administrative or judicial sanction. Additionally, CBP has the right to suspend a test participant based on a determination that an unacceptable compliance risk exists.

If CBP determines that a suspension is warranted, CBP will notify the participant of this decision, the facts or conduct warranting suspension, and the date when the suspension will be effective. In the case of willful misconduct, or where public health interests or safety are concerned, the suspension may be effective immediately. This decision may be appealed in writing to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, within 15 days of notification. The appeal should address the facts or conduct charges contained in the notice and state how the participant has or will achieve compliance. CBP will notify the participant within 30 days of receipt of an appeal whether the appeal is granted. If the participant has already been suspended, CBP will notify the participant when their participation in the test will be reinstated.

As noted above, CBP will be accepting no more than nine participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. This means that fewer than ten persons will be subject to any information collections under this test. Accordingly, collections of information within this notice are exempted from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502 and 3507).

The Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless form will be provided to participants of OBP trainings. The participants will be emergency response personnel training with DHS OBP personnel. The collection of this information is necessary in the case that an individual who acts as a volunteer role player in support of official OBP training sustains an injury or death during the performance of his or her supporting role. If legal action is taken, this information can serve as a “hold harmless” statement/agreement by the Government. The purpose of the Gratuitous Services Agreement is to establish that no monies, favors or other compensation will be given or received by either parties involved.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Protective Security Coordination Division, Office for Bombing Prevention.

Title: Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless form.

OMB Number: 1670-NEW.

Frequency: Varies.

Affected Public: Participants in OBP training, to include, but not limited to emergency response personnel, firefighters, police officers, emergency medical teams, and emergency management personnel.

Number of Respondents: 1500 respondents (estimate).

Estimated Time per Respondent: .2 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 150 annual burden hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $6,831.00.

The 10-member Albuquerque District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico's Albuquerque District.

Planned agenda items include updates on: Council term length, membership, and designation; the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan; the Socorro Resource Management Plan five year evaluation; Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument; Datil Well Recreation Area; the Arizona Interconnection Project access roads permitting; and wilderness study areas. There will also be a discussion on the RAC's goals, field trip priorities, training, and future organizational preferences.

A half-hour comment period during which the public may address the RAC will begin at 11 a.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.