Federal Register Vol. 80, No.35,

Background

In a notice published in the Federal Register of January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5409) (hereafter “the Federal Register notice”), FSIS described how it conducts ongoing equivalence verifications of the food regulatory systems of countries that export meat, poultry, or processed egg products to the United States. FSIS uses a three-part approach that includes (1) document reviews, (2) on-site system audits, and (3) POE reinspections. FSIS determines the scope and frequency of on-site systems audits based on its analysis of the results of its document reviews and ongoing assessment of a country's performance. This performance-based approach allows FSIS to direct its audit resources to foreign food regulatory systems that appear to pose a greater risk to public health than other foreign systems.

FSIS invited interested persons to submit comments on its new methodology by March 26, 2013. FSIS received approximately 31 comments from foreign countries, trade consulting groups, consumer groups, private citizens, a trade association representing the meat industry, and a member of the U.S. Congress. Twelve of those comments concerned the Agency's document review process. In this notice, FSIS is responding only to the comments that it received on its document review process. A summary of comments on the Agency's document review process and the Agency's responses are below. The Agency will address the other comments in a future Federal Register document.

On the basis of information provided by commenters, FSIS's experience in conducting document reviews, and the Agency's analysis of available SRT data, FSIS has decided to make two changes to its document review process. The changes are explained below and are discussed in more detail in the Agency's responses to comments.

A foreign country interested in exporting to the United States is required to submit information concerning its food regulatory system to FSIS (see 9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(iii), 381.196(a)(2)(iii), and 590.910). As explained in the January 2013 Federal Register notice, FSIS uses the equivalence questionnaire, called the SRT, to collect this information for the Agency's document review of the food regulatory system of foreign countries that are listed in the regulations as eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States and for countries interested in becoming eligible (78 FR 5411). The SRT is a repository for key documents about a foreign food safety inspection system (e.g., inspection system laws, regulations, and policy issuances) that FSIS uses, in addition to on-site audits, to verify whether the laws, regulations, and implementing policies of a foreign country establish an inspection system that is equivalent to the U.S. system. It also allows FSIS to evaluate whether a country maintains system effectiveness and to assess any impacts that an administrative or legislative change has had on a foreign food regulatory system. FSIS conducts a document review at least annually.

The information in the SRT allows FSIS to conduct a comprehensive assessment of a foreign country's food safety regulatory system. These comprehensive assessments inform the Agency's determination of whether a country's system should be found equivalent and the country eligible to export product into the United States. FSIS also assesses information in the SRT on an ongoing basis to verify whether a country maintains equivalence.

In the past, the SRT was available in a Microsoft Word format, and once completed by the country, it was submitted to FSIS along with corresponding supporting documentation either by mail or email communication. A PDF copy of the Microsoft Word version of the SRT is available on FSIS's Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/7893547e-d0d2-4fa9-a984-fdc17228bfcd/SRT.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. On February 17, 2015, FSIS will launch a Web-based version of the SRT within its Public Health Information System (PHIS) to more efficiently capture up-to-date information about foreign food regulatory systems. PHIS is a comprehensive Web-based data-analytics and inspection system that automates and replaces many of FSIS's paper-based processes.

The Web-based SRT will be beneficial for countries exporting meat, poultry, and egg products to the United States; countries interested in exporting product to the United States and applying for equivalence; and FSIS personnel. With the Web-based SRT, countries can link supporting documentation to each question. With the Microsoft Word version, the supporting documentation is provided as a supplement to the SRT. As a result, during the review process, FSIS must sift through documents to match up information with the corresponding questions in the SRT. FSIS anticipates that use of the Web-based SRT will decrease the time it takes the Agency to review an SRT submission and thereby allow for a quicker response to an equivalence request.

Using PHIS as a platform for the SRT allows for a more secure exchange of information between FSIS and foreign countries because countries will be accessing the SRT through a secure USDA Web site that requires a unique ID and password acquired through an authentication process. To guarantee that the security of the Web-based SRT in PHIS is maintained and to gain access to the system, each potential user will have to register for a USDA eAuthentication (eAuth) Level 2 account and complete the authentication process. FSIS will send a letter to foreign countries with instructions on obtaining an eAuth account and using the Web-based version of the SRT. FSIS strongly encourages countries to use the Web-based SRT. However, the use of the Web-based SRT is voluntary, and FSIS will continue to accept the current Microsoft Word version of the SRT. To ensure that the transition to the Web-based SRT is as seamless as possible, FSIS pre-entered into PHIS the SRT responses and supporting documentation that countries actively exporting meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States have provided to FSIS. FSIS requests that countries review the pre-entered responses for completeness and accuracy.

In addition to a Web-based version of the SRT, foreign countries will note that the revised SRT asks fewer and more targeted questions necessary for FSIS to verify system equivalence. FSIS expects countries to answer all the targeted questions in the SRT to facilitate the review process. FSIS may not be able to make an equivalence determination without answers to all of these questions.

The SRT also includes questions for FSIS to use in assessing how frequently to conduct on-site audits of the country. FSIS refers to these questions as level of advancement (LOA) questions. As explained in the Federal Register notice, the sum of the LOA responses is one of the factors that FSIS considers as part of an annual analysis of country performance to determine the frequency and scope of on-site audits (78 FR 5412). FSIS uses the results from the analysis to place exporting countries into one of three categories, based on food safety performance, with corresponding audit frequencies: Well-performing countries are to be audited every three years.

Average-performing countries are to be audited every two years. Adequately-performing countries are to be audited every year. Thus, the completeness of a country's SRT contributes to FSIS's assessment of that country's performance and to FSIS's determination of the appropriate audit frequency for that country. Countries with incomplete SRTs will not be considered “well-performing” because they will not have provided the Agency enough information to give the Agency confidence in their food safety systems. FSIS will provide more information on LOAs in a subsequent Federal Register notice that addresses all comments received in the January 2013 Federal Register notice and provides additional updates on the FSIS equivalence determination process.

To ensure that a complete and up-to-date SRT is being considered as part of FSIS's annual assessment of country performance, countries must submit their completed SRTs to FSIS before May 18, 2015, and on an annual basis moving forward. If a country submits partial or inaccurate information, FSIS personnel will follow up with additional questions until all outstanding issues are resolved. FSIS must have complete and accurate information to verify that the foreign country's food regulatory system is robust, transparent, and science-based. If a country does not provide FSIS with documentation showing its system is equivalent, or if it continues to submit inadequate documentation, FSIS will not have sufficient information to determine the viability of the food safety system and may have to pursue a series of actions directed at product presented for reinspection (e.g., intensified testing for microbial adulterants, indicator organisms, chemical residues, or species) to address the absence of a government-supplied explanation of inspection system controls. In addition, FSIS likely would begin refusing to list establishments newly certified by the foreign government, or to relist certified establishments, because of a lack of confidence in the government-supplied explanation of its inspection system. FSIS may conduct specially designed in-country audits to obtain information. FSIS may, within a reasonable period of time, refuse entry to products exported from that country. Finally, if it becomes necessary, FSIS will take steps to remove the country from the list of countries eligible to export meat, poultry, or processed egg products.

Any country can apply for eligibility to export meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States. The application process begins with a letter to FSIS from a foreign country asking for consideration to export its products for sale in the United States. FSIS responds to these letters with a standard package that contains information on the SRT and information on gaining eAuthentication. More information on how to apply for initial equivalence is available on FSIS's Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-apply-for-initial-equivalence.

FSIS asks that a foreign country applying for initial equivalence submit a complete SRT to FSIS in PHIS within one year of receiving the questionnaire. If FSIS needs additional information, or if FSIS's regulations change, the Agency will request that the country update its SRT to provide additional information to demonstrate that the country has an equivalent food regulatory system to the United States' system. If FSIS's document review supports that the foreign country's food regulatory system may be equivalent to the United States' system, the Agency will conduct an on-site audit.

However, if a foreign government applying for initial equivalence does not submit a complete SRT or fails to respond to additional requests for information within one year of receiving the SRT, FSIS will not be able to determine that the country maintains an inspection system equivalent to FSIS's system and will discontinue its analysis.

FSIS will accept information submitted in any one of the three official languages of the World Trade Organization (WTO)—English, French, or Spanish. Please note that it may take the Agency a longer period of time to review documents submitted in French or Spanish because the information will have to be translated.

Comment: Several commenters were pleased to see improvements in the document review process; however, they asked FSIS to provide more guidance on how the SRT will be used. They also asked the Agency to share the content of the SRT with the public. A few commenters asked FSIS to clarify whether the document review process is limited to the information collected in the SRT, or if it also includes information from other sources. The commenters asked FSIS to explain how data outside the SRT would be used in the document review process, how the Agency would validate the quality of data, and how often FSIS would collect and use the data. One commenter stated that both the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection's (NACMPI's) recommendations and the Codex document cited in the Federal Register notice (78 FR 5409) support third-party audits as a means of informing importing countries about the knowledge, experience, and confidence of an exporting country's food regulatory system.

Response: The SRT is used to inform a determination that a country has or has not met the United States' level of protection and is eligible to export product into the United States. It is reviewed on an ongoing basis to verify whether the country maintains equivalence. FSIS requires countries to update the SRT at least annually and as changes are made in the foreign country's food regulatory system.

FSIS personnel may review outside information, such as third-party audit reports, in preparation for an on-site audit (see FSIS Notice 35-14, Ongoing Foreign Equivalence Verification Audits). The outside information could affect the scope of an on-site audit.

Comment: Two commenters were concerned about the amount of time it takes to complete the SRT. One commenter asked FSIS to reduce the number of questions in the SRT. Another commenter requested that FSIS limit the level of detail required for responses. The commenter stated that the SRT focuses too much on individual components of the foreign inspection system, rather than taking a more holistic approach to assessing whether defined food safety outcomes are met. The commenter recommended that FSIS focus more on an evaluation of whether food safety and suitability outcomes have been achieved rather than whether various activities and processes have been replicated. The commenter suggested that FSIS change the design of the SRT so that it is more like the “outcome-focused” design of the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) International Comparability Tool.

Response: FSIS reduced the number of questions in the SRT to focus on those most necessary to determine or to verify whether a country's food regulatory system is equivalent and those necessary to help inform the necessary on-site audit frequency. In the past, the SRT included approximately 500 questions. The new, streamlined version has approximately 200 questions. Foreign countries may receive fewer questions depending on the number of classes of products produced.

In addition, the Web-based version of the SRT is more accessible. Foreign countries will be able to log onto PHIS at any time to view and update their responses and supporting documentation. Countries will also be able to view the status of their individual SRT, as well as a date and time stamp for each status update.

FDA's International Comparability Tool does not provide the information that FSIS needs to verify that a foreign country's food regulatory system is equivalent to FSIS's system. The SRT focuses on individual components of a foreign food regulatory system and compares them to components within FSIS's regulations because the Acts and regulations (9 CFR 372.2, 381.196, and 590.910) require that foreign countries maintain equivalent requirements to those that apply to United States domestic meat, poultry, and egg products.

Comment: A few commenters stated that FSIS's review of information in the SRT should not be a substitute for on-site audits by FSIS because countries may not always report information fully or accurately. The commenters argued that FSIS will be forced to rely more heavily on self-reported data from countries, as well as POE reinspections, and that these data sources are not an adequate substitute for in-person inspection.

Response: The SRT is not a substitute for on-site audits. The SRT is one of three components to FSIS's equivalence process. As mentioned above and in the January 2013 Federal Register notice, the SRT provides FSIS with initial information that is verified through periodic on-site audits and POE reinspections (78 FR 5411). FSIS will get more accurate information through the SRT that will better inform FSIS's audit scheduling. In addition, information from the SRT may be used to inform reinspection assignments. For example, based on information from the SRT, FSIS may perform targeted testing for residues or pathogens in product from certain countries.

It should also be noted that every country now eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States has a food inspection system that FSIS has determined to be equivalent to the FSIS domestic inspection system. FSIS is committed to protecting the health of U.S. consumers, and it will continue to make every effort to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products imported into the United States are as safe as products produced in this country.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

Snow Trail Grooming Program: For over 30 years, the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, in cooperation with the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division has enhanced winter recreation, and more specifically snowmobiling recreation, by maintaining NFS trails (snow trails) by grooming snow for snowmobile use. Most groomed snow trails are co-located on underlying NFS roads. Some grooming occurs on county roads and closed snow-covered highways. Most grooming activities are currently funded by the state off-highway vehicle trust fund.

The Forest Service manages OSV use on the Tahoe National Forest consistent with management direction contained in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The following summarizes current management of OSV use on approximately 829,510 acres of NFS lands in the Tahoe National Forest:

1. Approximately 236 miles of designated NFS OSV trails;

2. Of the approximately 236 miles of designated NFS OSV trails, approximately 188 miles are OSV trails available for grooming;

3. Approximately 105 miles of NFS trail (Pacific Crest Trail) is closed to OSV use;

4. Approximately 48,756 acres of NFS land is restricted to designated routes only;

5. Approximately 1,408 acres of NFS land is closed to OSV use from September 15 through December 31.

6. Approximately 669,537 acres of NFS land is open to off-trail cross-country OSV use; and

7. Approximately 109,808 acres of NFS land is closed to OSV use.

The final amended Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule was issued on January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4500, Jan. 28, 2015), and becomes effective on February 27, 2015. The final rule states: “Over-snow vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands shall be designated by the Responsible Official on administrative units or Ranger Districts, or parts of administrative units or Ranger Districts, of the NFS where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur, and, if appropriate, shall be designated by class of vehicle and time of year . . .” (36 CFR 212.81 (a)). Further, under 36 CFR 261.14, it is prohibited to possess or operate an OSV on NFS lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations. OSV designations made as a result of the analysis in this Environmental Impact Statement would conform to the final Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule.

One purpose of this project is to effectively manage OSV use on the Tahoe National Forest to provide access, ensure that OSV use occurs when there is adequate snow, promote the safety of all users, enhance public enjoyment, minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, and minimize conflicts among the various uses.

There is a need to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and areas within the Tahoe National Forest that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212. This action responds to direction provided by the Forest Service's Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212 and Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule.

The existing system of OSV trails and areas open for OSV use on the Tahoe National Forest results from implementation of Forest Plan management direction for OSV use. Public OSV use of the majority of this existing system continues to be manageable and consistent with current travel management regulations. Exceptions have been identified, based on internal and informal public input and the criteria listed at 36 CFR 212.55. These include needs to protect natural resources, provide improved access for OSV users, provide improved quiet winter recreation opportunities and ensure consistency with overall management area direction contained in the Forest Plan. These exceptions represent additional needs for change, and in these cases, changes are proposed to meet the overall objectives.

The snow trail grooming analysis would also address the need to provide a high quality snowmobile trail system on the Tahoe National Forest that is smooth and stable for the rider. Groomed trails are designed so the novice rider can use them without difficulty.

The Forest Service proposes the following:

1. To designate OSV use on NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands within the Tahoe National Forest where snow depth is adequate for that use to occur. The Tahoe National Forest is proposing off-trail cross-country OSV use covering 665,717 acres. Trails where OSV use would be allowed would total 236 miles.

2. To identify approximately 188 miles of the Tahoe National Forest's approximately 236 miles of designated OSV trails as available for snow grooming.

3. To implement a standard of 12 inches of snow depth or more for snow trail grooming when funds and equipment are used from sources other than the OHMVR Division. When using OHMVR Division funds, their snow depth standards will be used.

4. To implement a Forest-wide snow depth requirement for OSV use that would provide for public safety and natural and cultural resource protection by (1) allowing OSV use in designated areas when there is a minimum of 12 inches of snow covering the landscape, and (2) allowing OSV use on designated NFS roads and designated NFS trails when there is a minimum of 6 inches of snow covering the road or trail. When the snow-depth requirement is not met, OSV use would be prohibited. Most snow trails would be located on existing dirt, gravel, or paved trails or roads. These trails and roads are used in the summer for highway vehicle and off highway vehicle uses.

5. To establish OSV use prohibitions in three areas. OSV use is currently prohibited on 109,808 acres of the Tahoe National Forest in accordance with the existing Forest Plan management direction. These current OSV prohibitions would continue. The Tahoe National Forest has identified three additional areas in which OSV use would be prohibited. Adopting these prohibitions would require an amendment to the Forest Plan. These areas are:

a. High Loch Leven (approximately 3,117 acres)—To provide increased non-motorized winter recreation opportunities in the Loch Leven Management Area.

b. Robinson Flat Cultural (approximately 1 acre)—To protect fragile historic building structures from damage by snowmobile use. Snowmobile riders are known to use the snow covered roofs of the historic structures as ramps at Robinson Flat.

c. Independence Lake Donated Parcels (approximately 703 acres)—To protect watershed values on steep terrain within the Independence Lake watershed which provides habitat for the Lahontan cutthroat trout, a species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

6. To designate OSV crossings for the Pacific Crest Trail. There would be two designated crossings, as well as two sections in which an OSV trail and the Pacific Crest Trail share the same route where the Pacific Crest Trail is located on roads.

OSV use inconsistent with these designations would be prohibited under 36 CFR part 261 once the decision is issued and OSV use maps are made available to the public.

The use designations resulting from this analysis would only apply to the use of OSVs. An OSV is defined in the Forest Service's Travel Management Regulations as “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow” (36 CFR 212.1).

Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and OSV use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations would be exempt from these designations (36 CFR 212.81(a)).

These actions would begin immediately upon the issuance of the record of decision, which is expected in December of 2016. The Forest Service would produce an OSV use map that would resemble the existing motor vehicle use map for the Tahoe National Forest. Such a map would allow the public to identify the routes and areas where OSV use would be allowed on the Tahoe National Forest.

The Tahoe National Forest Supervisor will issue the decision.

This decision will designate OSV use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands in the Tahoe National Forest where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur. It will also identify the NFS trails available for snow grooming. The decision would only apply to the use of OSVs as defined in the Forest Service's Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR 212.1). The Forest Supervisor will consider all reasonable alternatives and decide whether to continue current management of OSV uses on the Tahoe National Forest, implement the proposed action, or select an alternative for the management of OSV use.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

Scoping meetings will be held between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Pacific Time at the following locations:

March 2: Nevada City, Supervisor's Office, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, CA 95959.

March 3: Truckee, Truckee Ranger Station, 10811 Stockrest Springs Road, Truckee, CA 96161.

March 4: Sierraville, Sierraville Ranger District, 317 South Lincoln Street, Sierraville, CA 96126.

March 5: Sierra City, Sierra City Community Hall, 13 Castagna Alley, Sierra City, CA 96125.

Foresthill—Date and location to be determined.

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

The Tahoe National Forest OSV Use Designation Project is an activity implementing a land management plan. It is not an activity authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148). Therefore, this activity is subject to pre-decisional administrative review consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74) as implemented by Subparts A and B of 36 CFR part 218. Certain portions of the proposed action would amend the Forest Plan. These actions are subject to pre-decisional administrative review, pursuant to Subpart B of the Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219).

The purpose of the meeting is to:

(1) Review Panel Bylaws, Charter, and what it means to be a Federal Advisory Committee,

(2) Evaluate and score the 2015 CFRP grant applicsiotns to determine which ones best meet the program objectives,

(3) Develop prioritized 2015 CFRP project funding recommendations for the Secretary,

(4) Develop an agenda and identify members for the 2015 CFRP Sub-Committee for the review of multi-party monitoring reports from completed projects, and

(5) Discuss the proposal review process used by the Panel to identify what went well and what could be imporved.

The meeting is open to the public. Panel discussion is limited to Panel members and Forest Service staff. Project proponents may make brief presentations to the Panel summarizing their grant application and respond to questions of clarification from Panel members or Forest Service staff. However, the agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by March 23, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring CFRP grant application review related matters to the attention of the Panel may file written statements with the Panel staff before or after each day of the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 45 days after the 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.

On February 19, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register notice of an antidumping duty order on innerspring units from the PRC (“the Order”).1 On February 28, 2014, Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted a request for the Department to conduct an administrative review of the Order that examines Comfort Coil's and Creative Furniture's exports of subject merchandise made during the POR.2 On April 1, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this administrative review of the Order concerning Comfort Coil's and Creative Furniture's POR exports of subject merchandise.3 4

The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. The product is currently classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and has also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.5

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). With respect to Creative Furniture, we relied on facts available and, because Creative Furniture did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.6

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).7 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Comfort Coil timely submitted a certification indicating that it had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.8 To corroborate Comfort Coil's no shipments claim, the Department submitted a formal query to U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”), the results of which did not provide any evidence that contradicts Comfort Coil's claim of no shipments. Moreover, no party commented on Comfort Coil's no shipments claim or the results of the CBP query. Based on the certification of Comfort Coil and our analysis of the CBP information, the Department preliminarily determines that Comfort Coil did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, consistent with the Department's practice in nonmarket economy (“NME”) cases, the Department finds that it is appropriate not to rescind the review, in part, in these circumstances, but rather to complete the review with respect to Comfort Coil and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.9

The Department preliminarily determines that a dumping margin of 234.51 percent exists for Creative Furniture for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.10 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.11 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.13 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.14 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad valorem margin rate published above. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Additionally, pursuant to its assessment practice in NME cases, if the Department continues to determine that Comfort Coil had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.15 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department will assess duties only on entries of Comfort Coil's and Creative Furniture's PRC-origin merchandise.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Comfort Coil, which claimed no shipments, the Department has not established a cash deposit rate in this administrative review, for Creative Furniture, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required) and the Department will collect cash deposits only on Comfort Coil's and Creative Furniture's PRC-origin merchandise; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Amendment 82 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) established a framework for the management of the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) directed pollock fishery. The Aleutian Islands pollock fishery was allocated to the Aleut Corporation, Adak, Alaska, for the purpose of economic development in Adak, Alaska. The Aleut Corporation is identified in Public Law 108-199 as a business incorporated pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.

Participants are identified and approved through a letter from the Aleut Corporation which is approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This letter includes a list of approved participants. A copy of the letter must be on each participating vessel.

Mail and retention of document on participating vessels.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0513.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time per Response: Annual AI Pollock Fishery Participant Letter, 16 hours; process, 4 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 36.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $3 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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.

On November 13, 2014, NMFS published a temporary rule to enhance protections for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod (79 FR 67362) in response to an updated GOM cod stock assessment that indicated the health of the stock is worsening. The GOM cod interim rule implemented a GOM cod trip limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg) for sector and common pool groundfish vessels fishing within the GOM broad stock area (BSA) and restricted commercial limited access groundfish vessels that fish in the GOM BSA to fishing only in that BSA for the duration of the declared trip. Additional information on the GOM cod interim rule can be found online at www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/GOM_cod_interim_management_measures.html.

On February 9, 2015, we received an exemption request from several sectors. These sectors worked together to assemble 30 mt of GOM cod annual catch entitlement (ACE), which was traded to Northeast Fishery Sector IV, a lease-only sector with no active fishing effort. That sector has proposed to withhold and render unusable that GOM cod ACE, including preventing its use for potential carryover to the next fishing year, if sectors are granted regulatory exemptions from the GOM cod trip limit and GOM BSA restriction.

The 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit was intended to reduce the incentive to target GOM cod in areas that would remain open under the interim action to ensure that open-area catch would not result in excessive GOM cod fishing mortality. The 2014 GOM Cod Interim Rule environmental assessment (EA) estimated that implementing the 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit would likely reduce GOM cod mortality by 20 mt. The sectors' request would reduce the GOM cod catch limit by 30 mt. Economic modeling and simulations included in the EA suggest that there is a substantial amount of uncertainty regarding the 20-mt estimated mortality reduction. It should also be noted that most of the public comments submitted in response to the GOM cod interim rule opposed the implementation of a trip limit because trip limits can result in high discards of GOM cod and are counter to the sector system, which limits the fishery based on an annual quota. The requesting sectors propose that a definite 30-mt reduction in the catch limit resulting from the sector exemption would provide a greater biological benefit to GOM cod than the probable reduction in mortality from the 200-lb (90.7-kg) trip limit. Removing the trip limit, as requested by the sectors, would provide a clear limit on overall catch of GOM cod and should minimize regulatory discarding.

The requested exemption would also remove the restriction preventing vessels from fishing both inside and outside of the GOM BSA on the same trip. The sectors requesting the exemption have argued that the single BSA restriction has severely impacted fishing operations of vessels that traditionally fish on Georges Bank and in the GOM on the same trip. Although recognizing that the single BSA restriction impedes flexibility to fish in multiple stock areas on a trip, we previously determined that the short-term benefits of this measure were necessary to achieve the interim rule's objective of reducing mortality and ensuring the effectiveness of other measures in the interim rule. Specifically, the single GOM BSA restriction was intended to facilitate more effective shore-side enforcement of the 200-lb (90.7 kg) trip limit. It was also intended to help reduce the opportunity for vessels to misreport their catch to ensure that GOM cod catch would be properly accounted for between stock areas.

Reducing the overall catch limit by 30 mt and removing the trip limit more effectively achieves the interim rule's objective of reducing potential cod mortality and, along with additional reporting measures, outweighs the short-term benefit of retaining the single BSA restriction. If the trip limit is no longer in effect, there is less of a need for the GOM BSA restriction to facilitate dockside enforcement.

In consideration of the sectors' request to be exempt from the BSA restriction, we are proposing to replace this requirement with daily catch reporting requirements should we approve the sectors' request. We would still require that sector vessels that declare their intent to fish inside and outside of the GOM BSA on the same trip submit daily vessel monitoring system (VMS) catch reports. Vessels would also be required to submit a VMS catch report prior to moving fishing operations from one BSA to another. This additional reporting requirement would help ensure that catch is properly accounted for. The removal of any incentive to misreport trip catches in relation to the trip limit along with additional reporting requirements to help ensure proper apportioning of catch between BSAs replaces or mitigates the loss of the short-term benefits expected from the single BSA restriction.

When NMFS implemented the interim rule in November 2014, it did not take any action to reduce the GOM cod ACL or ACE allocated to sectors. During public discussion at the September Council meeting at which the Council requested the agency to develop emergency measures for GOM cod, it was clear that any unilateral action to reduce the ACE available to sectors in the middle of the fishing year could have substantial economic impacts to much of the industry. However, in terms of effecting mortality reductions, a change to the ACE available for harvest by the sectors is generally the most effective and direct means to reduce total potential catch. Instead, NMFS imposed a trip limit to reduce the incentive to target GOM cod within the ACE available, recognizing that if the industry continued to encounter GOM cod, mortality would continue largely through regulatory discarding, potentially up to the full allocated ACE level. Although the analysis supporting the interim measures suggested the trip limit could reduce mortality by approximately 20 mt, there was considerable uncertainty around this estimate, primarily due to uncertainty with the amount of discarding that would occur.

In this request for a sector exemption, the sectors are proposing to implement what NMFS did not: A reduction to the ACE available to those sectors for the remainder of the fishing year. Because the fishing industry will continue to fish through the end of the fishing year, and will continue to encounter GOM cod, the sectors' proposed exemption would establish a firm upper limit on total cod mortality and is more likely to be lower than would otherwise be achieved through the interim measures. In addition to an actual reduction in the total potential cod catch, the sectors' proposed exemption would improve the catch yield and reduce the uncertainty of that cod catch.

This exemption would apply only for the remainder of the 2014 fishing year. It is our intent to continue reviewing sector exemption requests included in annual sector operations plans through a proposed and final rulemaking process. However, future mid-year exemption requests, or modifications to existing exemptions, may be considered, and granted or denied, through a shortened notice and comment process similar to this action.

If we can conclude that the exemption request is at least conversation neutral, and if this request is granted, this exemption will apply to all sectors who request it, and sector operations plans and letters of authorizations will be modified to include these regulatory exemptions. Minor sector exemption modifications may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate these exemptions and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved sector exemption request.

A supplemental information report analyzing the environmental impacts of this exemption request has been developed and is available online for review at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/.

In addition to the agenda items listed here, the SSC and Council will hear recommendations from Council advisory groups. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Main Hawaiian Island Deep 7 Bottomfish

A. Review of the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review reports

B. Current status of stock assessments and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) specification

C. ABC specification for fishing year 2015-16

5. Public Comments

6. Discussion and Recommendations

1. Introductions

2. Approval of Draft Agenda and Assignment of Rapporteurs

3. Status of the 117th SSC Meeting Recommendations

4. Report from the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) Director

5. Insular Fisheries

A. Coral reef ecosystem stock assessments

1. Hawaii kumu

2. Hawaii parrotfish

B. Report on the Main Hawaiian Island (MHI) Deep 7 Bottomfish public scoping meeting

C. Report on PIFSC meeting with the Hawaii bottomfish fishermen

D. 2nd Bottomfish Research Coordination Workshop

E. Report on the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review of the 2014 MHI Deep 7 Bottomfish Stock Assessment

F. NMFS actions on the MHI Bottomfish Annual Catch Limits (ACLs)

G. Public Comment

H. SSC Discussion and Recommendations

6. Program Planning

A. National Standards (NS) Guidelines Proposed Rule

B. NOAA Fisheries Draft Climate Science Strategy

C. Report on the National SSC Workshop V

D. Public Comment

E. SSC Discussion and Recommendations

7. Pelagic Fisheries

A. Hawaii Yellowfin and Bigeye Commercial Minimum Size Limit

1. Public Meetings

2. Socio-economic studies

3. Yield per Recruit Analyses

B. American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area (LVPA) changes (Action Item)

C. Territorial Bigeye Specification (Action Item)

D. American Samoa longline U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) albacore catch limit (Action Item)

E. Social Capital, Ethnic Diversity, and Economic Outcome in Hawaii's Longline Fishery

E. International Fisheries

1. WCPFC 11th Regular Session

F. Public Comment

G. SSC Discussion and Recommendations

8. Protected Species

A. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultations for Coral Species

B. Effectiveness of Management Measures Implemented under the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan

C. Draft 2014 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

D. False Killer Whale Stock Boundary Revision

E. Updates on ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Actions

1. ESA-listed Threatened Corals Post-Listing Activities

2. Green Turtle Status Review

3. North Pacific Humpback Whale Status Review

4. Other Relevant Actions

F. Public Comment

G. SSC Discussion and Recommendations

9. Other Business

A. 119th SSC Meeting

10. Summary of SSC Recommendations to the Council

Pelagic and International Standing Committee

Executive and Budget Standing Committee

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Approval of the 162nd Agenda

3. Approval of the 161st Meeting Minutes

4. Executive Director's Report

5. Agency Reports

A. National Marine Fisheries Service

1. Pacific Islands Regional Office

2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

B. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Pacific Islands Section

C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

D. Enforcement

1. U.S. Coast Guard

2. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement

3. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Enforcement Section

E. Public Comment

F. Council Discussion and Action

6. Program Planning and Research

A. National Standards Guidelines Proposed Rule

B. Report on the National SSC Workshop V

C. Report on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Review by Council Family and Public

D. NOAA Fisheries Draft Climate Science Strategy

E. Fisheries Internship and Student Help Project

F. Regional, National and International Outreach & Education

G. Advisory Group Reports and Recommendations

1. Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee

H. Social Science Reports

1. Report on the Regional Fishery Management Council's Social Science Meeting

I. Advisory Panel Recommendations

J. SSC Recommendations

K. Public Comment

L. Council Discussion and Action

7. American Samoa Archipelago

A. Motu Lipoti

B. Fono Report

C. Enforcement Issues

D. Community Activities and Issues

1. Report on the Governor's Fisheries Committee

2. Fisheries Development

a. Fish Market Dedication

b. Tri Marine/Samoa Tuna Processors Grand Opening of Canning Ops

3. Marine Recreational Improvement Program (MRIP) & Territorial Science Initiative (TSI) updates

E. Education and Outreach Initiatives

1. American Samoa (AS) lunar calendar completion

2. AS summer high school fisheries & marine resource management course

3. TSI Seafood vendors forum

4. MRIP Fishermen Forum

5. Manu'a Outreach Project Summary

F. Advisory Panel Recommendations

G. SSC Recommendations

H. Public Comment

I. Council Discussion and Action

8. Hawaii Archipelago & Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA)

A. Moku Pepa

B. Legislative Report

C. Enforcement

D. Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish

1. PIFSC meeting with MHI Bottomfish Fishermen

2. Report on the CIE review of the 2014 MHI Deep 7 Bottomfish Stock Assessment

3. Report on 2nd Hawaii Bottomfish Research Workshop

4. Report on Public Scoping Meetings

E. Community Projects, Activities and Issues

1. Fish Processing Waste—A Valuable co-product from Hawaii Fisheries

2. Hawaii Community Fish Aggregating Devices (FADS)

3. Outreach and Education Report

4. Lahaina Marine Planning Project

5. Report on West Hawai`i Habitat Blueprint Focus Area

F. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

G. Advisory Panel Recommendations

H. SSC Recommendations

I. Public Comment

J. Council Discussion and Action

9. Protected Species

A. ESA Listed Corals

1. Section 7 Consultations for Coral Species

2. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 4(d) Take Prohibition for Corals

3. Other Relevant Actions

B. Effectiveness of Management Measures Implemented under the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan

C. Draft 2014 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

D. Updates on ESA and MMPA Actions

1. Green Turtle Status Review

2. North Pacific Humpback Whale Status Review

3. Other Relevant Actions

E. ESA Section 7 Integration Policy Directive

F. Managing Green Turtles under the Council's Archipelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plans

G. Advisory Panel Recommendations

H. SSC Recommendations

I. Public Comment

J. Council Discussion and Action

10. Public Comment on Non-agenda Items

Fishers Forum, Stock Assessment

11. Mariana Archipelago

A. Guam

1. Isla Informe

2. Legislative Report

3. Enforcement Issues

4. Community Activities and Issues

a. Update on Malesso Community-Based Management Plan (CBMP) implementation

b. Report on Village of Yigo CBMP meeting

c. Report on Manell-Geus Habitat Blueprint Focus Area

d. Report on Indigenous Fishing Rights Initiatives

e. Report on the Guam fishing conflict

B. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

1. Arongol Falú

2. Legislative Report

3. Enforcement Issues

4. Community Activities and Issues

a. Report on Northern Islands CBMP meeting

b. Report on CNMI Joint Military Training Environmental Impact Study (EIS)

5. Education and Outreach

a. Radio Talk Show

C. Marianas Trench Marine National Monument: Islands, Volcanic, and Trench Units

D. Advisory Panel Recommendations

E. SSC Recommendations

F. Public Comment

G. Council Discussion and Action

12. Pelagic & International Fisheries

A. Hawaii Yellowfin and Bigeye Commercial Minimum Size Limit

1. Public Meetings

2. Socio-economic Considerations

B. American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area Temporary Exemption (Action Item)

C. American Samoa longline EEZ albacore catch limit (Action Item)

D. Territory Longline Bigeye Specification (Action Item)

E. Report on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) and Seafood Labeling

F. International Fisheries

1. WCPFC 11th Regular Session

G. Advisory Panel Recommendations

H. SSC Recommendations

I. Standing Committee Recommendations

J. Public Hearing

K. Council Discussion and Recommendations

13. Administrative Matters

A. Financial Reports

B. Administrative Reports

C. Council Family Changes

1. Advisory Panel Changes

2. Plan Team Changes

D. Meetings and Workshops

E. Other Business

F. Standing Committee Recommendations

G. Public Comment

H. Council Discussion and Action

14. Other Business

Non-Emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 162nd meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

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

On December 24, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published revised draft guidance in the Federal Register (79 FR 77802, Dec. 24, 2014) with comments due on or before February 23, 2015. The revised draft guidance discusses how National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, analysis and documentation should address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the impacts of climate change.

CEQ has received inquiries from state-based and national industry organizations regarding the 60-day time period to submit comments. The organizations stated that they needed additional time to respond to the rule due to the complex nature of the proposed revisions. Because of the scope of the proposed guidance, and because CEQ has specifically requested the public's comments on various aspects of the guidance in an attempt to benefit from the experiences of all interested parties, CEQ has decided to extend the comment period for an additional 30 days. This notice announces the extension of the public comment period to March 25, 2015.

CEQ posts all comments received electronically on a weekly basis at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/comments. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App 2, Section 1), the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice on scientific, technical, intelligence, and policy-related issues to the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, during the development of the Nation's strategic war plans.

Agenda: Topics include: Policy Issues, Space Operations, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Assessment, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Intelligence Operations, Cyber Operations, Global Strike, Command and Control, Science and Technology, Missile Defense.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. Per delegated authority by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral C.D. Haney, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, in consultation with his legal advisor, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Strategic Advisory Group at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Strategic Advisory Group's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

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

The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. Four new members will be introduced and sworn in on the first day of the meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will give a status update on the Committee's requests for information. The Committee will receive briefings on increasing female accessions and an update on enlisted women in submarines. Additionally, the Committee will receive briefings on DoD childcare programs and initiatives, and the impacts of state and federal laws on military families. There will also be a public comment period.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the point of contact listed at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, March 9, 2015. If a written statement is not received by Monday, March 9, 2015, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted. After reviewing the written comments, the Chair and the Designated Federal Officer will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Two minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Thursday, March 12, 2015 from 11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. in front of the full Committee. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.

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

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Business Systems-Definition and Administration; DFARS 234, Earned Value Management System, OMB Control Number 0704-0479.

Needs and Uses: DFARS clause 252.242-7005 requires contractors to respond to written determinations of significant deficiencies in the contractor's business systems as defined in the clause. The information contractors are required to submit in response to findings of significant deficiencies in their accounting system, estimating system, material management and accounting system and purchasing system has previously been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. This request specifically addresses information required by DFARS clause 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System, for contractors to respond to determinations of significant deficiencies in a contractor's Earned Value Management System (EVMS). The requirements apply to entities that are contractually required to maintain an EVMS. DoD needs this information to document actions to correct significant deficiencies in contractor business systems. DoD contracting officers use the information to mitigate the risk of unallowable and unreasonable costs being charged on government contracts.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 12.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 12.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 676 hours.

Annual Response Burden Hours: 8,112.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

DFARS clause 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System, requires contractors to respond in writing to initial and final determinations of significant deficiencies in the contractor's business systems as defined in the clause.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide additional firm annual yield to NTMWD's member cities and direct customers to address anticipated water demands associated with projected growth in the cities and suburbs in the NTMWD service area northeast of Dallas.

The purpose of the Draft EIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Proposed Action and alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. NTMWD proposes to build the LBCR with a total storage capacity of approximately 367,609 AF. A dam approximately 10,400 feet (about two miles) long and up to 90 feet high would be constructed, and much of the reservoir footprint would be cleared of trees and built structures. NTMWD also proposes to construct several related facilities or connected actions. These include a raw water intake pump station and electrical substation at the reservoir site, as well as a 90-96 inch diameter buried pipeline to carry raw water from the new reservoir approximately 35 miles in a southwesterly direction to a new water treatment plant and terminal storage reservoir that would be located west of the City of Leonard, also in Fannin County. A number of rural roads within the footprint and in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir would have to be closed or relocated; the most significant of these is FM 1396, which would be relocated to cross the reservoir in a different alignment on an entirely new bridge that would need to be constructed.

An aquatic resources mitigation plan has been prepared by the applicant to comply with the federal policy of “no overall net loss of wetlands” and to provide compensatory mitigation, to the extent practicable, for impacts to other waters of the U.S. that would be impacted by construction of the proposed reservoir. NTMWD has purchased a 14,960-acre parcel of land known as the Riverby Ranch, which borders the Red River. This working ranch is located downstream of the proposed project within both the same watershed (Bois d'Arc Creek) and the same county (Fannin). NTMWD acquired the Riverby Ranch specifically because its biophysical features have the potential to provide appropriate mitigation for the proposed project. Additional mitigation would be provided within the proposed reservoir itself and on Bois d'Arc Creek downstream of the reservoir as a result of an operations plan and flow regime established in consultation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and stipulated in the Draft Water Right Permit issued by TCEQ to NTMWD.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) participated as cooperating agencies in the formulation of the Draft EIS.

Copies of the Draft EIS will be available for review at:

1. Bonham Public Library, 305 East 5th Street, Bonham, TX 75418; (903) 583-3128.

2. Sam Rayburn Library, 800 West Sam Rayburn Drive, Bonham, TX 75418; (903) 583-2455.

3. Bertha Voyer Memorial Library, 500 6th Street, Honey Grove, TX 75446; (903)-378-2206.

4. Leonard Public Library, 102 South Main Street, Leonard, TX 75452; (903) 587-2391.

5. North Texas Municipal Water District headquarters, 505 East Brown Street, Wylie, TX 75098.

6. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Regulatory Office, 1645 S 101 E Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74128-4609.

Electronic copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from the Corps' Tulsa District Regulatory Office or its Web site at http://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices/tabid/4955/Year/2015/Default.aspx.

The meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Board on Coastal Engineering Research provides broad policy guidance and reviews plans for the conduct of research and the development of research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal engineering field and the objectives of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.

Purpose of the Meeting: The meeting is an Executive Session to review past action items, status reports, research and development strategic directions, and coastal engineering research in the United States.

Agenda: On Tuesday morning, March 3, 2015, meeting logistics, review and status of action items, CHL coastal research and development strategic direction, existing coastal engineering statements of need, and a status report on the Coastal Working Group will be discussed.

On Tuesday afternoon, there will be technology demonstrations of the Ship-Tow Simulator and the CHL Sediment Lab and presentations and discussions on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Resilience and Harmonization, next steps for Civil Works and Military initiatives, and USACE resilience research and development plans.

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the Board will reconvene to discuss a Regional Sediment Management Regional Technical Center of Expertise and coastal engineering research in the United States. A discussion on the September meeting will also be hosted by the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Southwestern.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public. Because seating capacity is limited, advance registration is required. Registration can be accomplished as set forth below. Because the meeting of the Board will be held in a Federal Government facility, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter the facility. The name of each person seeking entry will be checked against the list of names of those persons who have registered to attend the meeting. Individuals will be directed to the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. Please note that the guards have a right to inspect vehicles seeking to enter the facility. The Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory is fully handicap accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, please contact Colonel Eckstein, the Board's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Registration: Individuals who wish to attend the meeting of the Board must register with the DFO by email, the preferred method of contact, no later than February 27, using the electronic mail contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, and daytime phone number. If applicable, include written comments or statements with the registration email.

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.015(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Board's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein, DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, as the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The DFO will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the Board for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Board. The DFO will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Board Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Board before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting.

Verbal Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Board is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Board during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least five business days in advance to the Board's DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The DFO will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Board Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment, and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than five minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

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

Title of Collection: Personal Authentication Service (PAS) for FSA ID.

OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 14,440.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,155.

Abstract: The HEA provides for a maximum amount that a borrower can receive per year and in total. If a borrower receives more than one of these maximum amounts, the borrower is rendered ineligible for further Title IV aid (including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Federal Work-Study, and Teacher Education Assistance for Higher Education (TEACH) Grants) unless the borrower repays the excess amount or agreed to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed. Agreeing to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed is called “reaffirmation”, which is the subject of this collection.

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

Abstract: In 1995, EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 273 that govern the collection and management of widely-generated hazardous wastes known as “Universal Wastes.” Part 273 regulations are designed to ensure facilities collect and properly manage these wastes. EPA needs to collect notifications of Universal Waste management to obtain general information on handlers and to facilitate enforcement of the part 273 regulations, to ensure that Universal Waste is being accumulated responsibly, to collect information on illegal Universal Waste shipments, and lastly to help ensure that Universal Waste is being properly treated, recycled, and/or disposed. In 2001, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 266 that provide increased flexibility to facilities managing wastes commonly known as “Mixed Waste.” Section 266.345(a) requires that generators or treaters notify EPA or the Authorized State that they are claiming the Transportation and Disposal Conditional Exemption prior to the initial shipment of a waste to a LLRW disposal facility. Finally, the regulations at 40 CFR part 279 establish streamlined procedures for notification, testing, labeling, and recordkeeping including an approach for tracking off-site shipments that allow used oil handlers to use standard business practices (e.g., invoices, bill of lading). Used oil transporters must comply with all applicable packaging, labeling, and placarding requirements of 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179. In addition, used oil transporters must report discharges of used oil according to existing 49 CFR part 171 and 33 CFR part 153 requirements.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Private Sector and State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 273), required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR parts 266 and 279).

Estimated number of respondents: 134,280.

Frequency of response: Occasionally.

Total estimated burden: 679,354 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

Total estimated cost: $44,737,952 (per year), includes $10,015,823 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 28,189 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to updating the current Universe and Mixed Waste estimates.

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

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

Abstract: Transportation conformity is required under Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally supported transportation activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). Transportation activities include transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and federally funded or approved highway or transit projects. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) or interim milestones.

Transportation conformity applies under EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after 1990 (“maintenance areas” with plans developed under Clean Air Act section 175A) for the following transportation-related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The EPA published the original transportation conformity rule on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and subsequently published several revisions. EPA develops the conformity regulations in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Transportation conformity determinations are required before federal approval or funding is given to certain types of transportation planning documents as well as non-exempt highway and transit projects.1

EPA considered the following in renewing the existing ICR:

• Burden estimates for transportation conformity determinations (including both regional and project-level) in current nonattainment and maintenance areas for the ozone, PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NO2 NAAQS;

• Federal burden associated with EPA's adequacy review process for submitted SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets that are to be used in conformity determinations;

• Efficiencies in areas making conformity determinations for multiple NAAQS;

• Differences in conformity resource needs in large and small metropolitan areas and isolated rural areas;

• Burden estimates for the transition from MOVES2010 to MOVES2014:

• Reduced burden as a result of areas no longer determining conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS due to revocation 2 anticipated in early 2015; and,

• Reduced burden as a result of areas completing 20 years of maintenance for the PM10 and CO NAAQS, at which time transportation conformity is no longer required.

This ICR does not include burden associated with the general development of transportation planning and air quality planning documents for meeting other federal requirements.

Form numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are metropolitan planning organizations, local transit agencies, state departments of transportation, and state and local air quality agencies. Federal agencies potentially affected by this action include FHWA, FTA, and EPA.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory pursuant to Clean Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and 40 CFR part 51 and 93.

Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that 126 MPOs will be subject to conformity requirements during the period covered by this ICR and that EPA Regional Offices, the FHWA, and FTA will be involved in interagency consultation, and review of transportation-related conformity determinations performed by MPOs during this process. EPA also estimates that similar consultation will occur for projects in isolated rural areas.

Frequency of response: The information collections described in this ICR must be completed before a transportation plan, TIP, or project conformity determination is made. The Clean Air Act requires conformity to be determined for transportation plans and TIPs every four years. Conformity determinations on projects in metropolitan and isolated rural areas are required on as as-needed bases.

Total estimated burden: 63,237 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $3,768,668 (per year), includes zero annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: There is a decrease of 136,200 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to less burden associated with decreased conformity analysis for PM10, CO and 1997 ozone NAAQS, the transition from MOVES2010 to MOVES2014, decreased project-level conformity analyses, and decreased EPA adequacy findings.

The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V operating permit if the EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

The EPA received three petitions from the Petitioners, one dated February 26, 2014 for the Martin Lake permit, and one each dated March 3, 2014 for the Monticello and Big Brown permits, to object to operating permits issued to Luminant Generating Company, LLC relating respectively to facilities located in Rusk, Titus, and Freestone counties, Texas.

The Order issued on January 23, 2015 responds to claim V.A of the Martin Lake Petition (pp. 5-9), the Monticello Petition (pp. 5-11) and the Big Brown Petition (pp. 7-14) raised by EIP, the Sierra Club having withdrawn all of their objections prior to the issuance of the order. The EIP requested that the Administrator object to the proposed operating permits issued by the TCEQ to Luminant on several bases. The three petitions did not raise identical claims; however, three common claims are addressed in the issued order. The remaining issues are to be withdrawn by the petitioner in accordance with a settlement agreement reached on January 22, 2015 between the Petitioner and the EPA.

The claims are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In summary, the issues raised are that: (1) the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) provisions in the Martin Lake, Monticello and Big Brown permits do not assure compliance with the applicable particulate matter (PM) emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunction; (2) the record supporting the CAM opacity indicator ranges for PM for Monticello Units 1, 2 and 3 is deficient and not based on reliable data; and (3) the Big Brown permit must be revised to ensure that any credible evidence may be used to demonstrate noncompliance with applicable requirements.

Due to significant overlap in the issues raised in the Petitions and the similarity of the relevant permit conditions in each of the three permits, the EPA is responding to the identified portion of all three Petitions in this Order on January 23, 2015. The EPA's rationale for denying the addressed claims is described in the Order.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state identify those waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are required to establish TMDLs according to a priority ranking.

EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The lists of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings, identify the pollutants causing the impairment, and identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7).

Consistent with EPA's regulations, New York submitted its listing decisions under Section 303(d)(2) to EPA in correspondence dated November 3, 2014, January 5, 2015 and January 7, 2015. On January 13, 2015, EPA partially approved New York's submittal of the 303(d) list, and disapproved New York's decision to exclude Jones Inlet/Jones Bay from the 2014 list. EPA is soliciting public comment on the addition of this water to the State's list, as required by 40 CFR 130.7(d)(2).

This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 60 and 63, state, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA Regional Offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.

You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents from the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html.

Broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions made by the EPA in 2014 under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63 are identified in this notice (see Table 1). Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods subject to their specific applicability. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods does not change the applicable emission standards.

As explained in a previous Federal Register notice published at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007) and found on the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html, the EPA Administrator has the authority to approve the use of alternative test methods to comply with requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. This authority is found in sections 60.8(b)(3), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), and 63.7(e)(2)(ii). A similar authority is granted in 40 CFR part 65 under section 65.158(a)(2). In the past, we have performed thorough technical reviews of numerous requests for alternatives and modifications to test methods and procedures. Based on these reviews, we have often found that these changes or alternatives would be equally valid and appropriate to apply to other sources within a particular class, category, or subcategory. Consequently, we have concluded that, where a method modification or an alternative method is clearly broadly applicable to a class, category, or subcategory of sources, it is both more equitable and efficient to approve its use for all appropriate sources and situations at the same time.

It is important to clarify that alternative methods are not mandatory but permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate cases. Source owners or operators should review the specific broadly applicable alternative method approval decision on the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html before electing to employ it. As per section 63.7(f)(5), by electing to use an alternative method for 40 CFR part 63 standards, the source owner or operator must continue to use the alternative method until approved otherwise.

The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are outlined at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007). We will continue to announce approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods on the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html and publish a notice annually that summarizes approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods.

This notice comprises a summary of four such approval documents posted to our Technology Transfer Network from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The alternative method decision letter/memo number, the reference method affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and the modification or alternative method allowed are summarized in Table 1 of this notice. Please refer to the complete copies of these approval documents available from the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html as Table 1 serves only as a brief summary of the broadly applicable alternative test methods.

This notice also acknowledges two broadly applicable test method approvals that we retracted in 2014. Broadly applicable alternative test method approvals referred to as ALT-061 and ALT-087 issued on September 22, 2009, and July 27, 2011, respectively, were withdrawn. In the Federal Register notices dated February 22, 2010, and February 15, 2012, we announced the approvals of the use of single-point sampling at the centroid of the exhaust when sampling gaseous emissions and diluent gases from federally regulated engines. However, based on comments that we received (on the proposed rule titled, “Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations,” published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2012) from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation in a letter dated March 9, 2012, we no longer believe that this alternative is appropriate for broad applicability. Therefore, we have withdrawn broadly applicable alternative approvals, ALT-061 and ALT-087. Please refer to the withdrawal memo on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html for details regarding our decision to withdraw ALT-061 and ALT-087.

If you are aware of reasons why a particular alternative test method approval that we issued should not be broadly applicable, we request that you make us aware of the reasons in writing, and we will revisit the broad approval. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection, will be announced on the EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt.html and in the subsequent Federal Register notice. If we decide to retract a broadly applicable test method, we would continue to grant case-by-case approvals, as appropriate, and would (as states, local and tribal agencies and the EPA Regional Offices should) consider the need for an appropriate transition period for users either to request case-by-case approval or to transition to an approved method.

The meeting will be held on February 23, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

The DSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will “identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system.” On December 8, 2014, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, established the charter for the DSTAC.

The meeting on February 23, 2015, will be the first meeting of the DSTAC. The meeting was initially set to be held on February 17, 2015, but was cancelled because of closure of the Federal Government due to snow. At the meeting, the Committee will discuss (i) the scope of the report that it will deliver to the Commission, (ii) the ultimate goals of interested parties with respect to navigation device conditional access and content security, (iii) recommended working groups and the tasks for which they will be responsible, and (iv) any other topics related to the DSTAC's work that may arise.

The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Brendan Murray, DSTAC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or by U.S. Postal Service Mail to 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-A726, Washington, DC 20554.

Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

To inform the public, the FTC publishes in the Federal Register and posts on its Web site a “system of records notice” (SORN) for each system of records about individuals that the FTC currently maintains within the meaning of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. See http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/foia/foia-reading-rooms/privacy-act-systems. Each SORN describes the records maintained in each system, including the categories of individuals that the records in the system are about (e.g., FTC employees or consumers). Each system notice also contains information explaining how individuals can find out from the agency if that system contains any records about them.

On June 12, 2008, the FTC republished and updated all of the FTC's SORNs, describing all of the agency's systems of records covered by the Privacy Act in a single document for ease of use and reference. 73 FR 33592. To ensure the SORNs remain accurate, FTC staff reviews each SORN on a periodic basis. As a result of this systematic review, the FTC made revisions to several of its SORNs on April 17, 2009, 74 FR 17863, and on August 27, 2010, 75 FR 52749. Based on subsequent review, the FTC is making the following technical revisions to several of its SORNs and one of the appendices.1

FTC-I-8 (Stenographic Reporting Services Request System—FTC). This SORN covers the database system that the FTC uses to log and fulfill requests by FTC attorneys for stenographic services in FTC investigations, litigation and other FTC matters. The Commission is including additional types of records under “category of records” and changing the retrievability section to reflect the capabilities of a new internal software program used to track stenographic services. The FTC also is clarifying that the information maintained in this system can include a deponent's home address and that this type of information is destroyed by the FTC when no longer needed.

These SORNs relate to FTC employee records. The Human Resources Management Office (HRMO) is now the Human Capital Management Office (HCMO). We have revised the titles of system managers and other references in these SORNs to reflect this change. For FTC-II-2 (Unofficial Personnel Records—FTC), we also have clarified the retention and disposal section.

FTC-II-7 (Ethics Program Records-FTC). This SORN covers financial disclosure forms, ethics agreements and other records related to conflict of interest determinations. This SORN also pertains to other ethics records about individual FTC employees, including material addressing outside activities, post-employment, and travel reimbursement concerns. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has published two Government-wide SORNs that together cover records in this FTC system. See OGE/GOVT-1 (Public Financial Disclosure Reports and Other Name-Retrieved Ethics Program Records), OGE/GOVT-2 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports). See 68 FR 3098, 24744 (2003). We have revised FTC-II-7 to make it more consistent with the OGE SORNs.

FTC-II-11 (Personnel Security, Identity Management, and Access Control Records System—FTC). This SORN covers security-related records for determining the eligibility of FTC employees or other authorized individuals (e.g., on-site contractors) for access to FTC facilities and resources, as well as records related to granting and controlling such access. The FTC has clarified that those materials obtained from the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Investigative Services (OPM-FIS) remain the property of OPM-FIS and are subject to that agency's SORN.2

FTC-III-1 (Personnel Payroll System—FTC). This SORN covers payroll processing and retirement records for FTC employees. As noted above, the Human Resources Management Office (HRMO) is now the Human Capital Management Office (HCMO), and the FTC has revised the title of the system manager for this system to reflect this change.

FTC-III-3 (Financial Management System—FTC). This SORN covers FTC records of payments or reimbursements for travel by its employees and others and payments for the acquisition of other goods or services. The FTC has revised FTC-III-3 to update the hyperlink to the related SORN published by Department of the Interior (DOI), which processes and manages financial data for the FTC. See DOI-91 (Federal Financial System), 78 FR 55284 (Sept. 10, 2013).

FTC-IV-1 (Consumer Information System—FTC). This SORN covers consumer complaints and information requests received from consumers, as well as identity theft complaints. We have revised the SORN's exemption language to incorporate the pre-existing (k)(2) exemption as set out in 16 CFR 4.13(m)(2) applicable to identity theft records. This merely corrects an inadvertent omission in the 2008 SORN update and republication, rather than establishing any new exemption.3

FTC-VII-2 (Employee Locator (STAFFID) System—FTC). This SORN tracks and locates employees, contractors, volunteers or others (e.g., students) working for or at the FTC. The FTC is updating the system manager entry to Assistant Director for Infrastructure Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

FTC-VII-3 (Computer Systems User Identification and Access Records—FTC). This SORN covers records that the FTC maintains on those who have access to FTC computer systems in order to monitor and control the usage of such systems. The FTC is revising this SORN to delete the Assistant Chief Information Officer, Operations Assurance, Office of Information and Technology Management, as one of the system managers. The FTC is also updating the title of the remaining system manager, who is the Assistant Director for Infrastructure Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

FTC-VII-4 (Call Detail Records—FTC). This SORN covers records that the FTC maintains on telephone system usage by FTC employees, contractors and other individuals who work at the FTC. Due to an internal reorganization of the agency's information and technology resources, the FTC is revising this SORN to delete the Assistant Chief Information Officer, Customer Services, Office of Information and Technology Management as one of the system managers. The FTC is updating the title of the remaining system manager, who is the Assistant Director for Infrastructure Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

FTC-VII-7 (Information Technology Service Ticket System—FTC). This SORN tracks and fulfills requests made by employees or other individuals for building repairs, maintenance or other administrative services. The FTC is clarifying that this system's purpose also includes registering, tracking and controlling usage of FTC desktop and mobile telephones and other FTC telecommunication devices by individual users. Additionally, the categories of records includes individual users of any of these types of devices. Due to an internal reorganization of the agency's information and technology resources, the FTC is revising this SORN to delete the Assistant Chief Information Officer, Customer Services, Office of Information and Technology Management as one of the system managers. The FTC is updating the title for the existing system manager, who is the Assistant Director for Applications, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Appendix III (FTC System Locations). This Appendix includes the addresses of all FTC facilities, including its satellite building in Washington, DC, and regional offices. It also explains that the FTC may maintain records in other leased facilities or, in certain cases, may have contractors operate or maintain Privacy Act record systems off-site. The FTC is updating the list of these facilities to include changes to satellite locations in the Washington, DC, area. The entire appendix as revised is set out below.

Accordingly, the FTC revises and updates its Privacy Act systems of records below as follows:

Under Section 301 of Public Law 101-445 (7 U.S.C. 5341, the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, Title III) the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) are directed to issue at least every five years a report titled Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The law instructs that this publication shall contain nutritional and dietary information and guidelines for the general public, shall be based on the preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge current at the time of publication, and shall be promoted by each federal agency in carrying out any federal food, nutrition, or health program. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans was issued voluntarily by HHS and USDA in 1980, 1985, and 1990; the 1995 edition was the first statutorily mandated report, followed by subsequent editions at appropriate intervals. To assist with satisfying the mandate, a discretionary federal advisory committee is established every five years to provide independent, science-based advice and recommendations. The Committee consists of a panel of experts who were selected from the public/private sector. Individuals who were selected to serve on the Committee have current scientific knowledge in the field of human nutrition and chronic disease.

Appointed Committee Members: Fourteen members served on the 2015 Committee. They were appointed by the Secretaries of HHS and USDA in May 2013. Information on the DGAC membership is available at www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. As stipulated in the charter, the Committee terminated because it has completed its mission.

Meeting Agenda: The meeting agenda will include opportunity for the public to give oral testimony to HHS and USDA officials on the Advisory Report.

Meeting Registration: The meeting will be publicly accessible in-person and by webcast on the Internet. Registration is required and is expected to open on March 9, 2015. To register, please go to www.DietaryGuidelines.gov and click on the link for meeting registration. To register by phone, please call National Capitol Contracting, Andrea Popp at (703) 243-9696. Registration must include name, affiliation, and phone number or email address.

Webcast Public Participation: After registering, individuals participating by webcast will receive webcast access information via email. Webcast registrants can observe the oral testimony; however, testimony can only be given in-person.

In-Person Public Participation and Building Access: For in-person participants, the meetings will be held in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center (Building 10), as noted above in the Addresses section. Directions will be posted on www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. For in-person participants, check-in at the registration desk onsite at the meeting is required and will begin at 8:00 a.m. E.S.T.

Oral Testimony: HHS and USDA invite requests from the public to present three minutes of oral testimony to HHS and USDA officials on the Advisory Report at the March 24, 2015 public meeting.

Registration capacity is limited to 70 individuals confirmed to speak and an additional 10 who are not confirmed to speak but are on stand-by (if time remains) to provide oral testimony. Capacity will be filled in the order received. Confirmation by email will include further instructions for participation. Requests to present oral testimony can be made by going to www.DietaryGuidelines.gov and clicking on the link for meeting registration and must include a written outline of the intended testimony not exceeding one page in length. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide written comments (separate from oral testimony) submitted electronically through the public comments database at www.DietaryGuidelines.gov.

Written Public Comments: Written comments on the Advisory Report are encouraged from the public and will be accepted through April 8, 2015. Written public comments can be submitted and/or viewed at www.DietaryGuidelines.gov using the “Submit Comments” and “Read Comments” links, respectively. HHS and USDA requests that commenters provide a brief (250 words or less) summary of the points or issues in the comment text box. If commenters are providing literature or other resources, complete citations or abstracts and electronic links to full articles or reports are preferred instead of attaching these documents to the comment. All comments must be received by midnight (E.S.T.) on April 8, 2015, after which the time period for submitting written comments to the federal government expires. The ability to view public comments will continue to be available. Please allow until April 22, 2015, for comment submissions to be processed and posted for viewing.

Meeting Documents: Documents pertaining to the meeting, including a meeting agenda and webcast recording will be available on www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. Meeting information will continue to be accessible online, at the NIH Library (see the Addresses section), and upon request at the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, OASH/HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100 Tower Building; Rockville, MD 20852: Telephone (240) 453-8280; Fax: (240) 453-8281.

A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as a psychiatric hospital provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(f) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes criteria for facilities seeking participation as a psychiatric hospital. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements in general are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 482 subpart E, set forth the specific conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as a psychiatric hospital.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, a psychiatric hospital must first be certified by a State Survey Agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 482 subpart E of our regulations. Thereafter, the psychiatric hospital is subject to regular surveys by a State Survey Agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. However, there is an alternative to certification surveys by state agencies. Accreditation by a national Medicare accreditation program approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may substitute for both initial and ongoing state agency review.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accrediting organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions, we may treat the provider entity as having met those conditions, that is, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

Part 488 subpart A implements the provisions of section 1865 of the Act and requires that a national accrediting organization applying for approval of its Medicare accreditation program must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that its accredited provider entities meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.4 and § 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS. The Joint Commission's current term of approval as a Medicare accreditation program for psychiatric hospitals expires February 25, 2015.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

On September 23, 2014, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 56806) entitled “Continued Approval of the Joint Commission's Psychiatric Hospital Accreditation Program” announcing the Joint Commission's request for continued approval of its Medicare psychiatric hospital accreditation program. In the proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.4 and § 488.8, we conducted a review of the Joint Commission's Medicare psychiatric hospital accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• An onsite administrative review of the Joint Commission's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its psychiatric hospital surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited psychiatric hospitals; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

• A comparison of the Joint Commission's Medicare accreditation program standards to our current Medicare psychiatric hospital conditions of participations (CoPs).

• A documentation review of the Joint Commission's survey process to—

++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the Joint Commission's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ Compare the Joint Commission's processes to those we require of state survey agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited psychiatric hospitals.

++ Evaluate the Joint Commission's procedures for monitoring psychiatric hospitals it has found to be out of compliance with the Joint Commission's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when the Joint Commission identifies non-compliance. If non-compliance is identified by a State Survey Agency through a validation survey, the State Survey Agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).)

++ Assess the Joint Commission's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed psychiatric hospital and respond to the psychiatric hospital's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ Establish the Joint Commission's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ Determine the adequacy of the Joint Commission's staff and other resources.

++ Confirm the Joint Commission's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

++ Confirm the Joint Commission's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

++ Obtain the Joint Commission's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the September 23, 2014 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether the Joint Commission's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for psychiatric hospitals. We received one comment in response to our proposed notice. The commenter supported our approval of the Joint Commission for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for psychiatric hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

We compared the Joint Commission's psychiatric hospital accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs in part 482, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of the Joint Commission's psychiatric hospital accreditation program application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, identified a number of areas in which, as of the date of this notice, the Joint Commission is in the process of, or has completed, revising its standards in order to ensure that its accredited psychiatric hospitals meet the following regulatory requirements:

• Section 482.61(a)(2), requiring that the medical record include the diagnosis of intercurrent diseases as well as the psychiatric diagnoses.

• Section 482.61(a)(4), requiring that social service records include a social history and reports of interviews with patients, family members, and others.

• Section 482.61(a)(5), requiring that a complete neurological examination be recorded at the time of the admission physical examination.

• Section 482.61(b)(4), requiring that the psychiatric evaluation includes the onset of illness and the circumstances leading to admission.

• Section 482.61(b)(7), requiring that the psychiatric evaluation include an inventory of the patient's assets.

• Section 482.61(c)(1), requiring that the individual comprehensive treatment plan be based on the patient's strengths and disabilities.

• Section 482.61(c)(1)(i), requiring that the treatment plan contain a substantiated diagnosis.

• Section 482.61(c)(1)(v), requiring that the treatment plan contain adequate documentation to justify the diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation activities carried out.

• Section 482.61(c)(2), requiring that the treatment plan contain documentation of the treatment received by the patient, in a way that assures all active therapeutic efforts are included.

• Section 482.61(d), requiring that progress notes contain recommendations for revisions in the treatment plan, as indicated, as well as a precise assessment of the patient's progress in accordance with the original or revised treatment plan.

• Section 482.61(e), requiring that each patient who has been discharged has a documented discharge summary.

• Section 482.62(c), requiring that, if medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment services are not available within the institution, the institution have an agreement with an outside source of these services to ensure that they are immediately available or a satisfactory agreement must be established for transferring patients to a general hospital that participates in the Medicare program.

• Section 482.62(g)(1), requiring that therapeutic activities be appropriate to the needs and interests of patients and be directed toward restoring and maintaining optimal levels of physical and psychosocial functioning.

In addition, we determined that the Joint Commission is in the process of, or has completed, revising its accreditation survey processes in order to ensure that they meet the following regulatory requirements:

• Section 488.4(a)(3), regarding the sample sizes required for medical record reviews and the minimum number of medical records to be reviewed during the survey process.

• Section 488.8(a)(2)(v), requiring that complaint data submitted to CMS be accurate.

• Section 488.8(a)(2)(ii), requiring that a process be in place to conduct routine second level survey documentation review to assure that deficiency citations are made at the appropriate level when no “flags” have been placed on the survey report through the automated process of the electronic scoring system or the surveyor; that surveyors are adequately equipped and trained to appropriately identify circumstances posing an immediate threat to life and safety; that medical records and credentialing records are sampled appropriately, based on services provided and types of staff employed; and that medical records and credentialing records are reviewed thoroughly, in a uniform and complete manner by surveyors.

• Section 488.9, requiring the Joint Commission to consistently provide CMS access to observe its entire survey process, including surveyors' use of resources provided outside of the accreditation standards manual (for example, discussions with its Standards Interpretation Group, as outlined in the application).

• Section 488.26(b), regarding surveyors' abilities to—

—Accurately and completely document instances of non-compliance at the appropriate level of citation [condition versus standard level citations];

—Ensure that all instances of observed non-compliance are documented in the survey report; and,

—Ensure that surveyors do not minimize the importance of compliance with regulations.

Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we approve the Joint Commission as a national accrediting organization for psychiatric hospitals that request participation in the Medicare program, effective February 25, 2015 through February 25, 2019.

To verify the Joint Commission's continued compliance with the provisions of this final notice, CMS will conduct a follow-up corporate on-site visit and survey observation within 18 months of the publication date of this notice.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix). The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Advisory Committee is an advisory committee authorized in Section 19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991, (Public Law 102-241), as amended by section 621(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, (Public Law 111-281) and chartered under the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to communications, surveillance, traffic management, anchorages, development and operation of the New Orleans Vessel Traffic Service, and other related topics dealing with navigation safety on the Lower Mississippi River as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.

The agenda for the March 11, 2015, Committee meeting is as follows:

(1) Opening Remarks.

(2) Introduction;

(3) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum;

(4) Approval of the April 2014 minutes.

(5) Old Business:

(a) Status of Action Items from April 2014 Meeting.

(6) Agency Updates:

(a) Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East and West

i. Procedures used by Flood Protection Authority—West for Bayou Segnette and Western Closure Complex Gate Closures including Routine Exercises and Response to Tropical Events.

(b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association

i. Move to Electronic Navigation Charts.

ii. Digital Accessibility of National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association Chart Data for Navigation, Restoration and Coastal Planning, and Spill and Incident Response.

iii. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System.

iv. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association Northern Gulf Operational Forecast System Grid Model Improvements.

v. Surveying and Chart Updates to Navigation Hazards in and around the Southern Bird-foot Delta.

vi. Recognition of Electronic Displays on Tow Boats and Cruise Ships.

vii. Support to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Alternate Route Establishment.

(c) Army Corps of Engineers

i. Water Resources Reform and Development Act impacts to Flood Control Structures and Dredging Operations.

(d) Coast Guard

i. Establishment of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Alternate Route.

ii. Status of Sensors at 81 Mile Point.

iii. Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals and Waterway Impacts.

(7) New Business, to include discussion of:

(a) Mile Marker 73 Memorandum of Understanding.

(b) Anchorage Establishment and Amendments.

(c) Systematic Port Planning.

(d) Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee Vacancy Notice.

(8) Public comment period.

(9) Adjournment.

There will be a comment period for the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee and comment period for the public after each deliberation and voting, but before each recommendation is formulated. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented, and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Please note that the public oral comment period may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Colin Marquis listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register as a speaker. This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2015-0023, at http://www.regulations.gov.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps; and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination; and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update flood insurance rate maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

The TMAC must also develop recommendations on how to ensure that flood insurance rate maps incorporate the best available climate science to assess flood risks and ensure that FEMA uses the best available methodology to consider the impact of the rise in sea level and future development on flood risk. The TMAC must collect these recommendations and present them to the FEMA Administrator in a future conditions risk assessment and modeling report.

Finally, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Agenda: On March 10, 2015, the TMAC members will discuss (1) the proposed TMAC vision statement. In addition, invited subject matter experts will brief TMAC members on (1) floodplain management (David Stearrett, FEMA), (2) flood risk to insurance rating (Andy Neal, FEMA), and (3) the FEMA Cooperating Technical Partnership program (speakers to be determined). On March 11, 2015, the TMAC members will discuss (1) the adoption of a TMAC vision statement, (2) a report out from the TMAC subcommittees (a. Future Conditions; b. Flood Hazard Risk Generation and Dissemination; and c. Operations, Coordination, and Leveraging), and (3) next steps for TMAC discussions and report development. The full agenda and related briefing materials will be available at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

We have issued the following permits in response to recovery permit applications we received under the authority of section 10 of the Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We provide this notice under section 10(d) of the Act. Each permit listed below was issued only after we determined that it was applied for in good faith, that granting the permit would not be to the disadvantage of the listed species, and that the terms and conditions of the permit were consistent with purposes and policy set forth in the Act.