Federal Register Vol. 80, No.67,

The Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York Advisory Committees are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the advisory committees, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. Advisory committees also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.

Each advisory committee consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a four-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are reimbursed for travel and expenses. To be eligible to be on an advisory committee, applicants must be residents of the respective state or district, and have demonstrated expertise or interest in civil rights issues.

The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:

• Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,

• study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,

• appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,

• serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,

• submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and

• issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.

The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, or New York Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.

The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is brass sheet and strip, other than leaded brass and tin brass sheet and strip, from Italy, which is currently classified under subheading 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90, 7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2 The written description is dispositive.

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).3 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties 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/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to KME Italy SpA (KME Italy), the only company for which a review was requested. Thus, we preliminarily assign a rate of 22.00 percent as the dumping margin for KME Italy. In making these findings, we relied on facts available because KME Italy failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and thus withheld requested information, failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines, and significantly impeded this proceeding. See sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Furthermore, because we preliminarily determine that KME Italy failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See section 776(b) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin on BSS from Italy exists for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 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. 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.4 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.5 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.6

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 in ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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 intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the preliminary results are unchanged for the final results we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 22.00 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by KME Italy.

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of BSS from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 5.44 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice 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 Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

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

The merchandise covered by this order is frontseating service valves, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof of any size, configuration, material composition or connection type.1 Frontseating service valves are classified under subheading 8481.80.1095, and also have been classified under subheading 8415.90.80.85, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). It is possible for frontseating service valves to be manufactured out of primary materials other than copper and brass, in which case they would be classified under HTSUS subheadings 8481.80.3040, 8481.80.3090, or 8481.80.5090. In addition, if unassembled or incomplete frontseating service valves are imported, the various parts or components would be classified under HTSUS subheadings 8481.90.1000, 8481.90.3000, or 8481.90.5000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Constructed export prices are calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, 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”).2 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://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR April 1, 2013, through April 28, 2014:

The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.3 Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed.4

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.5 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.6

Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.7 The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).8 For duty assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise.

The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review 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.9

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.

Because the antidumping duty order on frontseating service valves from the PRC was revoked,10 the Department will not issue cash deposit instructions at the conclusion of this administrative review.

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 notice of these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD order on hand trucks from the PRC.2 On December 9, 2014, in accordance with sections 751(b) and 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216(b), and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), Positec USA, Inc. and RW Direct, Inc. (collectively, Positec), importers, requested revocation, in part, of the Order with respect to its WORX Aerocart (Aerocart) as part of a changed circumstances review. Positec requested that the Department conduct the changed circumstances review on an expedited basis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). On March 3, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Initiation and Preliminary Results. As noted above, we gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Initiation and Preliminary Results. We received no comments from interested parties. Therefore, we are now revoking the Order, in part, with respect to certain multifunction carts meeting the specifications described below.

The merchandise covered by this changed circumstances review is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame that can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the “Aerocart.”

The scope of the Order will be modified to read as stated below.

The merchandise subject to this Order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.

A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.

That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.

Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.5090. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.5060 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Excluded from the scope is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame that can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the “Aerocart.”

At the request of Positec, and in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), the Department initiated a changed circumstances review of the Order on hand trucks from the PRC to determine whether partial revocation of the Order is warranted with respect to certain multifunction carts.3 In addition, we determined that expedited action is warranted and, consistent with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), we combined the notices of initiation and preliminary results.4 Based on the expression of no interest by Petitioners, which stated that they are producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product in support of the Order,5 and absent any objections by other domestic interested parties, we preliminarily determined that substantially all of the domestic producers of the like product have no interest in the continued application of the AD Order on hand trucks from the PRC to the merchandise that is subject to Positec's request. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that partial revocation of the Order is appropriate. Accordingly, we notified the public of our intent to revoke, in part, the AD Order with respect to certain multifunction carts. We did not receive any comments from parties objecting to the partial revocation. Because all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review, we are issuing these final results of changed circumstances review within 45 days of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e).

Therefore, in accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i), the Department is partially revoking the AD Order on hand trucks from the PRC with respect to certain multifunction carts meeting the specifications described above. This partial revocation will be applied to entries of the certain multifunction cart entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 1, 2012, which corresponds to the day following the last day of the most recently completed administrative review under the order.6

As we stated in our Initiation and Preliminary Results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to end the suspension of liquidation for the merchandise covered by the revocation on the effective date of this notice of revocation, in part, and to release any cash deposit or bond, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4).

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b)(5), and 351.222(g).

Background

On April 30, 2014, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty Order 1 on glycine from the PRC.2

The product covered by the antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.3 The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.49.4020. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.4

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an Appendix to the notice. This memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As discussed in Evonik's Bona Fide Memorandum, the Department preliminarily finds that the sales by Evonik are not bona fide, and that these sales, and absence of factors-of-production (FOP) data, do not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin.5 The Department reached this conclusion based on the totality of circumstances, namely: (a) The atypical nature of Evonik's price; and (b) the atypical circumstances surrounding its supplier's inability to provide FOP data. Because these non-bona fide sales were the only sales of subject merchandise that Evonik made during the POR, the Department is preliminarily rescinding its review of Evonik.

The Department has preliminarily determined that the following dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014:

The Department published the Preliminary Results on September 30, 2014.2 On February 9, 2015, we released the sales and factors of production (“FOP”) verification reports for Stanley.3 Between February 12 and February 24, 2015, interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs. On January 20, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to March 30, 2015.4

The merchandise covered by the order includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, 7317.00.75, and 7907.00.6000.5 While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we revised the margin calculation for Stanley. Accordingly, for the final results, the Department has updated the margin to be assigned to companies eligible for a separate rate as the weighted average of the revised calculated margins of the mandatory respondents.8 The Surrogate Values Memo contains further explanation of our changes to the surrogate values selected for Stanley's and Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. Ltd.'s (“Xi'an Metals”) factors of production.9

In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., Certified Products International Inc. (“CPI”), Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (“New Century”), Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.10 Consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, we completed the review with respect to the above-named companies.11 With respect to New Century, we obtained information from CBP indicating that it had reviewable transactions during the POR, which contradicts its no-shipment certification. Consequently, the Department is now treating New Century as part of the PRC-wide entity for the final results. For a full discussion of our findings and determination with respect to New Century, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. Based on the certifications submitted by the remaining aforementioned companies, and our analysis of CBP information, we continue to determine that these companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As noted in the “Assessment Rates” section below, the Department intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP for the above-named companies based on the final results of the review.

The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results of this administrative review are as follows: 12 13

The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. We will continue to direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram (kg)) rates by the weight in kgs of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Specifically, we calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit rate basis by dividing the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price, or constructed export price) for each importer by the total sales quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR.14 If an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.15

The Department determines that Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., Certified Products International Inc. (“CPI”), Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Oriental Cherry”), Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As a result, any suspended entries that entered under these exporters' case numbers (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 118.04 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 exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these administrative reviews and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i) of the Act.

Twenty years of research and development work in QIS is producing the first niche applications, and there is an increasing level of international activity in the field. The Interagency Working Group in QIS was chartered in October 2014 to develop and coordinate policies, programs, and budgets for QIS research and development to create the scientific basis, infrastructure, future technical workforce, and intellectual property that will be required to address agency missions and secure future U.S. competitiveness in quantum information science. The Interagency Working Group includes participants from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and the National Science Foundation.

NIST seeks input from stakeholders regarding opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. The information received in response to this RFI will inform and be considered by the Interagency Working Group making recommendations for the development and coordination of U.S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.

Written comments may be submitted only by email to Dr. Claire Cramer at [email protected] in any of the following formats: ASCII; Word; RTF; or PDF. Please include your name, organization's name (if any), and cite “Quantum Information Science Industry RFI” in the subject line of all correspondence.

Request for Information: The objective of this request for information is to inform the Interagency Working Group making recommendations for the development and coordination of U. S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS. The questions below are intended to assist in the formulation of comments and should not be construed as a limitation on the number of comments that interested persons may submit or as a limitation on the issues that may be addressed in such comments. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Again, note that all comments will be made publicly available as submitted; therefore proprietary or confidential information should not be included. NIST is specifically interested in receiving input pertaining to one or more of the following questions:

Quantum information science includes, for example, quantum computing and processing, quantum algorithms and programming languages, quantum communications, quantum sensors, quantum devices, single photon sources, and detectors. What areas of pre-competitive QIS research and development appear most promising? What areas should be the highest priorities for Federal investment? What are the emerging frontiers? What methods of monitoring new developments are most effective?

The 2009 “Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science” 1 identified exciting new possibilities for QIS impact, including mineral exploration, medical imaging, and quantum computing. Now, six years later, what market areas do you think would most benefit from quantum information science?

Funding levels and mechanisms, technology, dissemination of information, and technology transfer are some of the potential barriers to adoption of QIS technology. What do you see as the greatest barriers to advancing important near-term and future applications of QIS? What should be done to address these barriers?

Addressing opportunities in QIS and barriers to applications requires a workforce spanning many disciplines, ranging from computer science and information theory to atomic scale manipulation of materials, and possessing a range of knowledge and skills. What knowledge and skills are most important for a workforce capable of addressing the opportunities and barriers? In what areas is the current workforce strong, and in what areas is it weak? What are the best mechanisms for equipping workers with the needed knowledge and skills?

Species Covered in This Notice

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): threatened Snake River spring/summer-run (SR spr/sum); threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened California Coastal (CC); threatened Central Valley spring-run (CVSR), endangered Sacramento River winter-run (SRWR).

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC); endangered Central California Coast (CCC).

Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened Northern California (NC); threatened Central California Coast (CCC), threatened California Central Valley (CCV).

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

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

The NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), Fisheries Ecology Division (FED) is requesting a permit to annually take sub-adult and juvenile listed salmon and steelhead for a period of five years. The permit would authorize research designed to (1) determine the inter-annual and seasonal variability in growth, feeding, and energy status among juvenile salmonids in the coastal ocean off northern and central California; (2) determine migration paths and spatial distribution among genetically distinct salmonid stocks during their early ocean residence; (3) characterize the biological and physical oceanographic features associated with juvenile salmon ocean habitat from the shore to the continental shelf break; (4) identify potential links between coastal geography, oceanographic features, and salmon distribution patterns; and (5) identify and test ecological indices for salmon survival. This research would benefit listed fish by informing comprehensive lifecycle models that incorporate both freshwater and marine conditions and recognize the relationship between the two habitats; it would also identify and predict sources of salmon mortality at sea and thereby help managers develop indices of salmonid survival in the marine environment.

Listed fish would be captured primarily via surface trawling, however midwater trawling and beach seining would be used occasionally. Sub-adult salmonids (i.e., fish larger than 250 mm) that survive capture would have fin tissue and scale samples taken, and then be released. Any subadult salmonids that do not survive capture, and all juvenile salmonids (i.e., fish larger than 80 mm but less than 250 mm) would be lethally sampled (i.e., intentional directed mortality) in order to collect (1) otoliths for age and growth studies; (2) coded wire tags for origin and age of hatchery fish; (3) muscle tissue for stable isotopes and/or lipid assays; (4) stomachs and contents for diet studies; and (5) other tissues including the heart, liver, intestines, pyloric caeca, and kidney for special studies upon request.

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

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands with the concurrence of, and in consultation with, the Governor of the Pacific Insular Area to which the PIAFA applies. Before entering into a PIAFA, the appropriate Governor, with the concurrence of the Council, must develop a 3-year MCP providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA to be deposited into the United States Treasury and then conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for which funds were collected. In the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels in the EEZ around any Pacific Insular Area, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, shall be deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the EEZ in which the violation occurred, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. The government may use funds deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for fisheries enforcement and for implementation of an MCP.

An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives are met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing is being considered at this time, at its 160th meeting held June 24-27, 2014, in Honolulu, the Council reviewed and approved the MCP for American Samoa and recommended its submission to the Secretary for approval. On March 16, 2015, the Governor of American Samoa submitted the MCP to NMFS, the designee of the Secretary, for review and approval.

The American Samoa MCP contains six conservation and management objectives, listed below. Please refer to the MCP for planned projects and activities designed to meet each objective, the evaluative criteria, and priority rankings.

1. Maximize social and economic benefits through sustainable fisheries development.

2. Support quality scientific research to assess and manage fisheries.

3. Promote an ecosystem approach in fisheries management, reduce waste in fisheries and minimize interactions between fisheries and protected species.

4. Recognize the importance of island culture and traditional fishing in managing fishery resources and foster opportunities for participation.

5. Promote education and outreach activities and regional collaboration regarding fisheries conservation.

6. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of enforcement and to ensure safety at sea.

This notice announces that NMFS has determined that the American Samoa MCP satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and approves the MCP for the 3-year period from April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2018. This MCP supersedes the one approved for the period August 11, 2012, through August 10, 2015 (77 FR 58813, September 24, 2012).

In a 2014 proposed rule for Northeast Multispecies Sectors that would have allowed vessels using selective trawl gear into portions of year-round Georges Bank (GB) groundfish closed areas (CAs) I and II, we announced interest in gathering catch data from these areas through exempted fishing permits (EFPs) (79 FR 14639, March 17, 2014). Because many of these areas have been closed to groundfish bottom trawling for nearly 20 years, fisheries dependent data collected through an EFP would help inform whether to allow conditional access to CAs I and II to sector vessels through the sector exemption process. Data from vessels operating under an EFP may be used to characterize catch rates of target and non-target species in the CAs, as well as help inform industry on the economic feasibility of industry-funded monitoring for trips into CAs I and II.

In April 2014, we announced our intention to issue an EFP to Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc. (79 FR 23940, April 29, 2014). In May 2014, an EFP was issued that authorized vessels to fish inside portions of groundfish CA I and CA II during specified times of the fishing year. For more details on the original application and objectives of this EFP, reference last year's notice or visit http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2014/EFPsgroundfish_closed_areas.html. Additionally, for preliminary catch information from Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., visit http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/nemultispecies.html.

Due to several factors, including catch rates, time and area access to CAs I and II, and weather, only 12 trips were taken under the EFP in fishing year 2014. Because there were a limited amount of trips and, therefore, not enough information to make a determination on whether or not to approve access to CAs I and II through the sector exemption process, we did not approve access for sectors in fishing year 2014. Additionally, we did not propose to allow sector vessels access to CAs I and II for fishing year 2015 (80 FR 12380, March 19, 2015), however, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested an EFP renewal for fishing year 2015 to continue collecting data under the same exemptions as their previous EFP.

Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., seeks to address five objectives as follows: (1) Generate data on the composition of catch, including presence and absence of target (e.g., GB haddock) and non-target species; (2) test the effectiveness of utilizing gear comparable to the Canadian haddock fishery on GB (e.g., haddock separator trawl with 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend) to improve haddock selectivity, catch ratios, and improved annual catch limit (ACL) utilization rates; (3) collect data to examine the economic feasibility of an industry funded monitoring program for CA trips; (4) test the effectiveness of providing access to portions of the existing CAs for improving utilization rates of GB haddock; and (5) collect information from CAs I and II so that we may conduct analyses to determine whether fishing can be allowed at a level of observer coverage of less than 100 percent, should an exemption be considered and approved.

To fulfill these objectives, three vessels would be allowed to use nets with either a haddock separator trawl or a Ruhle trawl, fitted with either a 6-inch (15.2-cm) diamond mesh codend (currently allowed in the fishery) or a 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend (not currently allowed in the fishery). The applicant claims that the 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend will improve their ability to target legal-size haddock while maintaining the ability to filter out small non-target catch, including sub-legal haddock. Preliminary results indicate that the two codends have similar selectivity characteristics, but additional replicates are needed. In addition, for sampling purposes, vessels would be authorized to temporarily retain sub-legal fish, and fish in excess of possession limits. All undersized fish and fish in excess of possession limits would be discarded as soon as practicable following data collection. All three vessels would be accompanied by a technician with an at-sea monitor certification and equipped with echo sounders that operate on multiple frequencies, which provide the capability of revealing fish size distribution and bottom hardness.

For CA I, vessels would have access from May 1, 2015, through February 15, 2016, but would not be given access to areas within CA I that are existing Habitat Management Areas. Additionally, vessels would not be given access to areas that are Habitat Management Area alternatives contained in the Council's draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment as of April 30, 2015. We have raised concerns about spawning of groundfish in CA I from January 1 to February 15, but Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested access for this period to collect information to address questions about spawning fish.

For CA II, vessels would have access from May 1, 2015, through June 15, 2015, and then from November 1, 2015, through February 15, 2016, but would not be given access to areas within CA II that are existing Habitat Management Areas. Additionally, vessels would not be given access to areas that are Habitat Management Area alternatives contained in the Council's draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment as of April 30, 2015. Similar to CA I, we have raised concerns about spawning of groundfish in CA II from January 1 to February 15, but Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested access for this period to collect information to address questions about spawning fish. The dates for CA II access reflect an agreement between sector trawl fishermen and the lobster industry to avoid gear conflicts. Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., would not access portions of CA II from June 15 through November 1, the time period that the lobster industry is allowed access.

Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., requests issuance of the EFP for the entire fishing year in order to use a smaller mesh codend throughout the year, but access to the closed areas would be for only portions of the year. Fishing effort under the EFP would be heavily dependent upon operational decisions dictating whether to fish within CAs I and II, as compared to outside the areas. As previously described, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has stated that the directed haddock fishery is highly dynamic and requires a high degree of mobility. If approved, the three participating vessels would focus on the directed haddock fishery throughout the study period, and make tows both inside and outside the CAs on the same trip. Vessel tow duration would vary from 30 minutes to 3 hours, and tow time and speed would be at the discretion of the vessel operator. However, in order to conduct statistical comparisons between meshes or areas, the vessels would be required to conduct some tows in a specific sequence and for a specified amount of time. While this may be disruptive to the commercial enterprise, it would ensure that codend comparison data are representative of the fishery and can be used to inform any potential future management decisions. Trawling would occur up to 18 hours per fishing day, an average trip would last seven days (five days fishing and two days steaming), and there would be an average of three trips total, per month. Under the EFP in fishing year 2014, this would have resulted in approximately 72 trips, however, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., only took the 12 trips. Under the renewed EFP, vessels would be limited to the remaining amount of trips (i.e., 60), but anticipate taking far fewer than that amount.

All legal sized fish will be landed and sold with all proceeds retained by the vessel owner. All three vessels are members of the Sustainable Harvest Sector (SHS) and all catch of allocated stocks (e.g., haddock, cod) would be accounted for under the annual catch entitlements (ACEs) of the SHS. If the SHS exceeds its ACE for an allocated stock, it would need to lease in additional ACE in order to continue fishing.

If approved, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

In 1983, the Council and NMFS established a procedure under the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region for designation of SMZs to protect artificial reef habitats. The procedure includes the development of recommendations to establish an SMZ by a monitoring team, a review of the recommendations by the Council, and submittal of the recommendations to the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator (RA). The RA reviews the Council's recommendations and may propose regulations in accordance with the recommendations or take no action. The Council and NMFS have used the procedure to establish artificial reef SMZs in the South Atlantic region. The SMZs protect artificial reef habitat by prohibiting the use of gear types such as fish traps and bottom longlines.

Through Amendment 36, the Council is considering modifications to the SMZ process and framework procedures to include the consideration of SMZs that would protect locations where snapper-grouper fish species are likely to spawn and natural habitats that support spawning fish. Protecting locations where fish spawn and protecting natural habitats that support spawning fish will likely enhance stock productivity and may act as an effective strategy when managing a sustainable fish population.

In the amendment, the Council is also considering the implementation of SMZs to protect spawning snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic region. The measures in Amendment 36 would prohibit fishing for, harvest, and/or possession of species in the snapper-grouper fishery management unit year-round in the proposed SMZs; fishing for other species would be allowed in accordance with the current regulations. Some of the sites being considered in Amendment 36 were recommended for protection by a Marine Protected Area (MPA) Expert Workgroup that was formed by the Council in 2012. The MPA Expert Workgroup is comprised of scientists and fishermen with experience studying snapper-grouper fish species and observing fish in spawning condition.

NMFS previously published NOIs to notify the public that the Council and NMFS are considering the establishment of spatial management areas. NMFS published an NOI to prepare a DEIS for the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3) on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30506). One proposed action in CE-BA 3 was to modify existing MPAs or to establish new ones; however, that action was moved to Regulatory Amendment 17. An NOI for Regulatory Amendment 17 was published on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 72867). Through Regulatory Amendment 17, the Council intended to further reduce bycatch mortality of speckled hind and warsaw grouper and increase protection to their habitat. However, at their June 2014 meeting, the Council decided not to proceed further with the development of Regulatory Amendment 17.

NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, will develop a DEIS to describe and analyze alternatives to address the management needs described above including the “no-action” alternative. In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6, Section 5.02(c), Scoping Process, NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, has identified preliminary environmental issues as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. The public is invited to attend scoping meetings (dates and addresses below) and provide written comments on the preliminary issues, which are identified as actions and alternatives in the Amendment 36 scoping document. These preliminary issues may not represent the full range of issues that will eventually be evaluated in the DEIS. A copy of the Amendment 36 scoping document is available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/sg/index.html.

After the DEIS associated with Amendment 36 is completed, it will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After filing, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS for public comment in the Federal Register. The DEIS will have a 45-day comment period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and before voting to submit the final amendment to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will announce in the Federal Register the availability of the final amendment and FEIS for public review during the Magnuson-Stevens Act Secretarial review period, and will consider all public comments prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final amendment.

NMFS will announce, through a document published in the Federal Register, all public comment periods on the final amendment, its proposed implementing regulations, and the availability of its associated FEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final amendment, the proposed regulations, or the FEIS, prior to final agency action.

The scoping meetings will be held via webinar April 20, 2015, through April 23, 2015. A scoping meeting for Snapper-Grouper Amendment 36 will also be held in Key West, Florida, in conjunction with the Council meeting on June 10, 2015, beginning at 5:30 p.m. With the exception of the scoping meeting in Key West, Florida, all scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net. Scoping meetings held via webinar will begin at 6 p.m. Registration for each webinar is required. Registration information will be posted on the SAFMC Web site at www.safmc.net as it becomes available. Any graphics, including maps, drawings, or images to be shown during public comment should be emailed to Mike Collins at [email protected] prior to the public hearing. Webinar registrants may test or confirm their computer setup for the webinar one hour prior to each hearing and contact Mike Collins at 843-763-1050 to address any questions regarding webinar setup. Local comment stations will also be provided at the following locations:

1. April 20, 2015—Local Comment Stations: SC Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute Auditorium, 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29422-2559; phone 843-953-9300 and Holiday Inn Express, 722 Highway 17, Little River, SC 29566; phone: 843-281-9400.

2. April 21, 2015—Local Comment Station: NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557; phone 252-726-7021.

3. April 22, 2015: Local Comment Station: Coastal Resources Division, GA Department of Natural Resources, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31528-8687; phone 912-264-7218 and Richmond Hill Fish Hatchery, 110 Hatercry Drive, Richmond Hill, GA 31324; phone 912-756-3691.

4. April 23, 2015: Local Comment Station: Hampton Inn Daytona Speedway, 1715 W. International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114; phone 386-257-4030.

5. June 10, 2015: A scoping meeting will be held in conjunction with the SAFMC meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m.; Doubletree Grand Key Resort, 3990 S. Roosevelt Blvd., Key West, FL 33040; phone 305-293-1818.

Species Covered in This Notice

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SR) fall-run; threatened SR spring/summer-run (spr/sum); endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR).

Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened UCR; threatened SR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened LCR; threatened PS; threatened UWR.

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): endangered SR.

Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened Columbia River (CR); threatened Hood Canal summer (HCS).

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened LCR; threatened Oregon Coast (OC).

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): Threatened southern distinct population segment (DPS) (S. eulachon).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

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

The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP) is seeking to modify a five-year permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be in four Puget Sound sub-basins (Snoqualmie, Lake Washington, Duwamish, and Puyallup) located in King County, Washington. The purpose of the study is to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions through biological monitoring, (2) understand the importance of off-channel habitats in providing habitat for listed species, (3) assess salmonid habitat status and trends in small streams with varying degrees of land use, and (4) assess containment levels in various freshwater fish eaten by humans. The research would benefit the affected species by determining if restoration and recovery actions are contributing to listed species recovery, providing information on use of off-channel areas by juvenile salmonids, guiding future projects based upon monitoring results, and providing habitat use information for yearling fall Chinook. The KCDNRP proposes to capture fish using beach seines, fyke nets, gill nets, hook and line, minnow traps, and both backpack and boat-operated electrofishing. Fish would be anaesthetized, identified by species, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) are seeking to renew a five-year permit that currently allows them to capture, handle, and release juvenile MCR steelhead in the John Day River, Oregon. The primary purpose of the research is to monitor anadromous fish response to habitat restoration projects throughout the John Day Basin, however the permit was modified in 2012 to allow the CTWSRO are to expand upon that research by adding juvenile mark/recapture studies and adult spawning surveys in various drainages in the John Day River Basin for the purpose of determining adult return success and making juvenile abundance estimates. This project would establish baseline estimates at 10 sampling locations and then resample those sites to evaluate the impact restoration projects have on juvenile Chinook and steelhead abundance. The research would continue to benefit the fish by helping managers determine the most effective ways to restore habitat.

Under the permit, the researchers would set up survey reaches at each site and use block nets at the upstream and downstream boundaries to temporarily curtail fish movement. In those reaches, fish would be collected using backpack electrofishing equipment or seine nets. Once the fish are collected, they would be placed in an aerated bucket and anesthetized. They would then be counted, measured, weighed, marked with a caudal fin clip, allowed to recover, and released back into the sampling reach. A second fish sampling event (using the same collection methods) would be conducted within 24 hours of each initial survey. The researchers would use these two samples to estimate fish abundance and density. The surveys would be conducted at the same locations on an annual basis in order to assess population trends. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) are seeking to renew for five years a permit that has been in place since 2011. Under the renewed permit, they would annually take juvenile and adult SR spr/sum Chinook and SR steelhead in Bear Valley Creek, Idaho. The purpose of the research is to estimate fish abundance, smolt-to-adult return rates, and adult productivity in Bear Valley Creek with a high degree of accuracy. The researchers are seeking to generate information that may be used widely throughout the Salmon River subbasin. This monitoring project was recommended as part of a larger monitoring effort that developed through the Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Workshop. The work would benefit fish by giving managers key information about population status in the Salmon River subbasin which, in turn, would be used to inform recovery plans and land-management activities. The SBT would count and monitor adult spr/sum Chinook at a video station, and they would handle, measure, tag, and tissue sample juvenile SR spr/sum Chinook and steelhead at a screw trap. They would also do some harvest monitoring (creel surveys) and spawning ground surveys. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. In addition to this permit, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) would issue a special use permit for the SBT to conduct the work.

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking to modify a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, and PS steelhead. The WFC research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The sampling would take place in locations throughout Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The purpose of the study is to determine the relative abundance, distribution, and emigration timing of juvenile HCS chum salmon throughout their range. The research would benefit the affected species by determining juvenile salmonid out-migrant timing, use of nearshore rearing habitats, and key habitat associations (i.e. eelgrass and kelp beds, gravel beaches, mudflats, and modified vs. unmodified shorelines). The WFC proposes to capture fish using fyke nets and beach seines with twice-monthly sampling from December through May. Captured salmonids would be identified by species, measured, and have a tissue sample taken (chum and Chinook salmon only). Juvenile coded-wire tagged (CWT) coho and Chinook salmon would be sacrificed to determine their natal hatchery and provide stock-specific information about their use of nearshore habitats. All other fish would be released after handling. The researchers do not propose to kill any other listed species being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Samish Indian Nation Department of Natural Resources (SINDNR) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The SINDNR research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The sampling would take place adjacent to Cypress Island (of the San Juan Island archipelago) in Secret Harbor. The restoration of Secret Harbor began in 2008 with the restoration of an agricultural field to its historical state by breaching an existing tidal dike and restoring tidal exchange and freshwater stream connectivity to the area. The restored estuary and salt marsh habitats are expected to enhance and improve structural habitat complexity and potentially support a greater diversity of species. The purpose of the study is to determine fish presence both within and around the Secret Harbor estuary restoration site to determine the effectiveness of restoration efforts. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The SINDAR proposes to capture fish using beach seines with year-round monthly sampling. Fish would be captured, identified by species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has requested a one-year permit to take LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, CR chum, UWR Chinook, UWR steelhead, PS Chinook, and PS steelhead while conducting the National Water Quality Monitoring Program. The purpose of the USGS study is to characterize contaminants, nutrients, suspended and fine sediment, and ecological communities at perennial-stream sites in the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound Lowlands. The ecological community surveys would consist of double pass backpack electrofishing of approximately 100 sites in June and July. The majority of the listed salmonids that may be captured would be measured, examined for external abnormalities, and released. A secondary survey would be conducted to collect and sacrifice up to 15 salmonids per site from a total of 15 sites. Depending on availability, fish collections would focus on unlisted juvenile coho salmon or cutthroat trout in the Puget Sound and Upper Willamette basins and cutthroat trout or listed juvenile coho in the Lower Willamette and Lower Columbia basins. The research may benefit the listed species by helping managers to better understand the stressors—such as contaminant loads—affecting ecological stream communities in urban areas.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is seeking a five-year permit to take juvenile SR steelhead, sockeye, and spr/sum Chinook during the course of three research tasks in the upper Salmon River of Idaho State. They would (a) conduct a general fish population inventory, (b) monitor fish population responses to habitat improvement and restoration activities, and (c) document juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and winter habitat use in the Salmon River. The researchers would use drift boat and raft-mounted electrofishing gear to capture fish and estimate trout abundances in up to five monitoring reaches of the Salmon River during the fall. Captured fish would be identified by species, measured (total length & fork length), and weighed to the nearest gram. During marking runs, captured target species (rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, and mountain whitefish) would be marked with a hole punch in the caudal fin. Any juvenile Chinook salmon they encounter would be identified, measured (fork length), weighed, and examined for tags/marks. Unmarked juvenile Chinook salmon would be implanted with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Some captured fish may be anesthetized to minimize stress. In all cases, adult salmonids would be avoided and none would be captured. To help with this, the researchers would operate at times and in locations where no adults are likely to be present. The research activities would benefit the fish by providing information on a suite of factors—population abundance and response to restoration actions, predator and competitor abundance and interactions, and life history and behavior characteristics—all of which would be used to inform management, restoration, and recovery decisions in the Salmon River. The researchers do not intend to kill any fish, but a small number may die as a consequence of the planned activities.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has requested a five-year permit to take LCR Chinook salmon, LCR Coho salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, and UWR steelhead while conducting research and monitoring in the Tryon Creek watershed of Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the project is to assess fish use of Tryon Creek above and below the Oregon Highway 43 culvert. Culvert modification and habitat enhancement projects have been implemented to improve fish passage and the research and monitoring would be used to gauge effectiveness of the restoration activities. The FWS would capture fish using backpack electrofishing equipment and beach seines. Captured fish would be measured, weighed, PIT-tagged, and tissue sampled for genetic analysis. The FWS does not intend to kill any of the salmonids being captured but a small number of juvenile fish may die as an unintended result of the activities. The research may benefit the listed species by helping managers better understand the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities.

The AMEC Foster Wheel (AMECFW) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the Lower Duwamish River waterway. Under a Consent Decree settled through U.S. District Court (Western District of Washington), The Boeing Company agreed to construct two habitat restoration projects near Boeing Plant 2 in the Lower Duwamish Waterway to restore and create off-channel and riparian habitats in an area where they have been largely eliminated due to channelization and industrialization. The purpose of this study is to determine if fish, including ESA listed juvenile salmonids, are using the newly created/restored habitat. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The researchers propose to capture fish using fyke nets during the spring salmonid outmigration (March through June). Fish would be anaesthetized, identified by species, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The SBT are seeking a five-year permit to annually take adult and juvenile SR steelhead and spr/sum Chinook while operating a screw trap and adult weir in Panther Creek, Idaho. They would also conduct some electrofishing and spawning ground surveys in the area. Most of the juvenile Chinook salmon would be captured, handled, and released. Some of them would be implanted with PIT-tags, and some would be sampled for genetic analysis. All would be allowed to recover and released to continue their downstream migration. Although the researchers are targeting Chinook, some juvenile and adult steelhead may be taken as well. In both instances, the information to be gathered would help with monitoring and recovery efforts in the area. In addition, the information may eventually be used to help guide a proposed supplementation program in the area. The research would in no way pre-dispose the approval of such a program, but if it were to be instituted, a good deal of the proposed work would be analyzed again in the context of that larger program. In the interim, the research would benefit the fish by helping managers guide current and future restoration efforts and generating information on species status that would augment a number of regional efforts. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the animals being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended consequence of the activities.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) is seeking a three-year permit to collect environmental samples in rivers and streams in the state of Washington while conducting Washington's Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery—a statewide habitat and biological monitoring program. The permit would authorize the WDOE to take juvenile and adult UCR Chinook salmon and steelhead, SR spr/sum and fall-run Chinook salmon, SR steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, and MCR steelhead. The goal of status and trends monitoring is to provide quantitative, statistically valid estimates of habitat and water quality that are important for policy and management decisions. The WDOE would monitor seven status and trends regions statewide on a four-year cycle. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts and monitor aquatic species status and trends. The researchers would capture fish using boat electrofishing equipment; the listed fish would be enumerated, measured, and released immediately. At no time would adults be electrofished. If any adults are seen during the electrofishing operation, the equipment would immediately be turned off and the fish would be allowed to escape. If another adult is seen, the researchers would move the operation. And in no case would the electrofishing take place where fish are actively spawning. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Island County Department of Natural Resources (ICDNR) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The sampling would take place in the Fidalgo Island and northern Whidbey Island shoreline area near Deception Pass at Cornet Bay and Ala Spit. The purpose of the study is to assess salmonid and forage fish use of habitat restored by removal of armoring and fill. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The ICDNR proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Fish would be removed from the net and placed in buckets. All fish would be enumerated by species and the first 20 of each species would be measured for length. All fish would be released in the same location they were caught. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

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

Background: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5) by adding or removing items when the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party; or when the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber currently on the list is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act authorizes the President to make such modifications to the list in Annex 3.25. See Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) and (E) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act.

The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamation 7987, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to this authority, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA-DR (Modifications to Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, 73 FR 53200 (September 15, 2008)) (“CITA's procedures”).

On February 27, 2015, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Sorini Samet & Associates, on behalf of Gildan USA, Inc. (“Gildan”) for a Commercial Availability determination to remove or restrict (“Request to Remove”) certain three-thread circular knit fleece fabrics, currently listed in Annex 3.25. Gildan offered to supply the specified fabrics and provided information demonstrating its ability to supply commercial quantities in a timely manner. On March 3, 2015, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request to Remove, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response to the Request to Remove must be submitted by March 13, 2015, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by March 19, 2015, in accordance with Sections 6, 7 and 9 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response advising CITA of its objection to the Request to Remove. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, Section 8(a) and (b), and Section 9(c)(3) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request to Remove, CITA has determined to approve the Request to Remove the subject product from the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to Section 9(c)(3)(iii)(A), textile and apparel articles containing the subject product are not to be treated as originating in a CAFTA-DR country if the subject product is obtained from non-CAFTA-DR sources, effective for goods entered into the United States on or after 180 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice. A revised list in Annex 3.25, noting the effective date of the removal of the subject product, has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings.

Title of Collection: Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (Regulation G) 12 CFR 1007.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0005.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 243,227.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 267,494.

Abstract: Regulation G implements the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act's (S.A.F.E. Act) federal registration requirement with respect to any covered financial institutions, and their employees who act as residential mortgage loan originators (MLOs), to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, obtain a unique identifier, maintain this registration, and disclose to consumers the unique identifier. The rule also requires the covered financial institutions employing these MLOs to adopt and follow written policies and procedures to ensure their employees comply with these requirements and to disclose the unique identifiers of their MLOs.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: CFPB's Consumer Response Intake Form.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0011.

Type of Review: Extension with change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 387,500.

Abstract: The Intake Form is designed to aid consumers in the submission of complaints, questions, and comments and to help the CFPB fulfill the CFPB's statutory requirements. Consumers (hereinafter “respondents”) will be able to complete and submit information through the Intake Form electronically on the CFPB's Web site. Alternatively, respondents may request that the CFPB email a fillable PDF version or, by telephone, request a “paper” copy of the Intake Form, and then email, mail, or fax it to the CFPB. The questions within the Intake Form prompt respondents for a description of, and key facts about, the complaint at issue, the desired resolution, contact and account information, information about the institution they are filing a complaint against, and any previous action taken to attempt to resolve the complaint.

Request For Comments: The CFPB issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on December 29, 2014 (79 FR 78068). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of CFPB's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0042.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 710,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 118,334.

Abstract: Over the past several years, the CFPB has undertaken a variety of service delivery-focused activities contemplated by the Dodd-Frank and Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-2013. These activities, which include consumer complaint and inquiry processing, referral, and monitoring, involve several interrelated systems. The streamlined process of the generic clearance will continue to allow the CFPB to implement these systems efficiently, in line with the CFPB's commitment to continuous improvement of its delivery of services through iterative testing and feedback collection.

Request for Comments: The CFPB issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on December 29, 2014 (79 FR 78069). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of CFPB's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The agenda is as follows: April 20, 2015, speakers and discussions on the Department of the Navy Culture of Innovation Initiatives.

Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the SECNAV Advisory Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a schedule meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address detailed below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice, it must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the SECNAV Advisory Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. For further information write to: Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy, (Policy), Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Designated Federal Officer, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.

Background: The DPAC provides advice and recommendations to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs on the stewardship and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee is to discuss topics and provide advice and guidance with respect to the National Nuclear Security Administration stockpile stewardship and stockpile maintenance programs.

Type of Meeting: In the interest of national security, the meeting will be closed to the public. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, section 10(d), and the Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulation, 41 CFR 102-3.155, incorporate by reference the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, which, at 552b(c)(1) and (c)(3) permits closure of meetings where restricted data or other classified matters will be discussed. Such data and matters will be discussed at this meeting.

Tentative Agenda: Day 1—Welcome, Topic 1-Session 1, Facility tour, Topic 1-Session 2. Day 2—Topic 1-Session 3, Facility tour, Topic 1-Session 4; Day 3—Welcome, Topic 1-Closeout Session, Executive Session, Conclusion.

Public Participation: There will be no public participation in this closed meeting. Those wishing to provide written comments or statements to the Committee are invited to send them to Loretta Martin at the address listed above.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will not be available.

EPA Region 1, acting in accordance with provisions of the Deepwater Port Act and the CAA, issued a final CAA permit modification decision on December 30, 2014 to Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC for the operation of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, located in federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts. Prior to the permit being finalized, a draft permit was issued, and the permit underwent a public comment period, which included a public hearing. EPA Region 1 received no comments during the public comment period. All conditions of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port modified permit (Permit number RG1-DPA-CAA-01M) became final and effective on December 30, 2014.

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

Abstract: EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation with regard to environmental emergencies involving the release or threatened release of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment. The Agency may request contractors responding to any of these types of incidents to conduct background checks and apply government-established suitability criteria in Title 5 of the CFR (Administrative Personnel), Sections 731.104 (Appointments Subject to Investigation), 732.201 (Sensitivity Level Designations and Investigative Requirements), and 736.102 (Notice to Investigative Sources), when determining whether employees are acceptable to perform on given sites or on specific projects. In addition to emergency response contractors, EPA may require background checks for contractor personnel working in sensitive sites or sensitive projects. The background checks and application of the government's suitability criteria must be completed prior to contract employee performance. The contractor shall maintain records associated with all background checks. Background checks cover citizenship or valid visa status, criminal convictions, weapons offenses, felony convictions, and parties prohibited from receiving federal contracts.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Private Contractors.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit under 5 CFR 731.104, 732.201 and 736.102.

Estimated number of respondents: 1,000.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $190,900 (per year), which includes no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 450 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is an adjustment to correct an error made when the current ICR was approved. While the currently approved supporting statement included 1,000 burden hours, this number was incorrectly entered into OMB's system as 450 hours. The correct hour burden, 1,000 hours, has not changed.

The Agency included in the February 25, 2015 notice, a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0888, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FR Doc. 2015-03926, published in the Federal Register of February 25, 2015, (80 FR 10091) (FRL-9921-65) is corrected as follows:

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

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

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

Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or one acre or more of water.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional and national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:

Submitter: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (100-EUP-RRA).

Pesticide Chemical: Chlorantraniliprole.

Summary of Request: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, has submitted an EUP application for 100-EUP-RRA for the termiticide Altriset containing the active ingredient chlorantraniliprole, to test a defined treatment on or around 100-125 residential and commercial structures infested with subterranean termites. Proposed shipment/use dates are February 1, 2015 through December 1, 2017. The total quantity of product proposed for shipment/use is 510 pounds of formulated product (94 pounds active ingredient). The states involved include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

Background: CECANF was established to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.

Agenda: This meeting will explore key research, policy, and practice in the state of Tennessee related to addressing and preventing child abuse and neglect fatalities. Speakers will address the role of child advocacy centers and methods of developing and implementing a safety-based culture in challenging environments. Commission members will then continue discussing the work plans of the Commission subcommittees, the information that they have obtained to date, and emerging high-level recommendations.

Attendance at the Meeting: Individuals interested in attending the meeting in person or participating by webinar and teleconference must register in advance. To register to attend in person or by webinar/phone, please go to http://meetingtomorrow.com/webcast/CECANF and follow the prompts. Once you register, you will receive a confirmation email with the webinar login and teleconference number. Detailed meeting minutes will be posted within 90 days of the meeting. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions or otherwise participate in the meeting.

However, members of the public wishing to comment should follow the steps detailed under the heading ADDRESSES in this publication or contact us via the CECANF Web site at https://eliminatechildabusefatalities.sites.usa.gov/contact-us/.

A. Purpose

This report complies with Public Law 94-519, which requires annual reports of donations of personal property to public agencies for use in carrying out such purposes as conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health, and public safety.

Respondents: 55.

Responses per Respondent: 4.

Total Responses: 220.

Hours per Response: 1.5.

Total Burden Hours: 330.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0112, GSA Form 3040, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property, in all correspondence.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Enhancing Mine Workers' Abilities to Identify Hazards at Sand, Stone, and Gravel Mines—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

NIOSH, under Pub. L. 91-173 as amended by Pub. L. 95-164 (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977), and Pub. L. 109-236 (Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006) has the responsibility to conduct research to improve working conditions and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases in underground coal and metal/nonmetal mines in the U.S.

Hazard recognition is only the first step to a safe work environment. A miner must be able to identify a hazard, recognize the risk associated with the hazard, and then make a decision of how to mitigate the risk and perform the task safely. Risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood an event will occur and the adverse consequences of that event (Brown & Groeger, 1988). Risk perception, the recognition of the risk inherent in a situation, influences decision making with regards to job safety (Hunter, 2002). Being able to recognize worksite hazards and then accurately perceive the associated risk are critical skills that lead to the work behavior decision-making process that is used to eliminate or reduce mining hazards related to operations and maintenance of machinery, operation of powered haulage, material handling, etc. that can result in injury or death.

Hazard recognition is integral to risk perception, situational awareness, and decision making—that is, if the mine worker is unable to recognize worksite hazards, then steps cannot be taken to eliminate or mitigate them. Thus, the mine worker must first be able to recognize that a hazard is present in the environment and then understand the risk the hazard poses to their safety and health in order to make the best decision possible about how to deal with the hazard. Hazard recognition is a necessary skill for all mine workers; therefore, a better understanding of the hazard recognition process within the mining environment is a critical need that this research will fulfill for the industry.

Given the aforementioned, the objective of the project is to characterize SSG mine workers' ability to recognize worksite hazards, to understand how this ability relates to perceived and measured risk as well as to other factors internal and external to the SSG mine worker.

In order to determine how SSG mine workers' recognize and understand the risk associated with mine site hazards, NIOSH will conduct a laboratory-based experimental research study. Throughout the laboratory study, participants will wear a light weight eye-tracking system. Eye-movements will be collected throughout the task so that search patterns can be mapped during analysis to determine differences based on level of experience. NIOSH will also collect identification accuracy data to determine whether level of experience affects the number of hazards identified.

NIOSH will collect additional measures related to perceived risk and risk tolerance. Researchers will assess perceived risk using a Risk Assessment measure which has three parts: (1) An overall evaluation of risk level; (2) an evaluation of accident severity; and (3) an evaluation of risk probability. This will be done for each hazard included in the study.

Researchers will assess Risk Tolerance in two ways: (1) Through the use of the Risk Propensity Scale (Meertens & Lion, 2008) and (2) through the use of Risk Tolerance Workplace Scenarios (Lehmann, Haight, & Michael, 2009). NIOSH will also collect qualitative data through the use of open-ended interview questions.

NIOSH will collect data from SSG mine workers, SSG safety professionals, and students knowledgeable of safety and health issues at SSG mine sites but who have limited work experience on a mine site. The purposes of collecting data from these three groups of participants are to identify differences in hazard recognition abilities and determine how these abilities change—and whether they change—with level of experience and amount of experience with hazards at SSG mine sites.

The total estimated burden hours are 160. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Examining how Local Health Departments can Leverage Age-Friendly Cities Initiatives to Build Resilience in Elderly Populations—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Despite considerable progress in efforts to define and build community resilience (CR), critical gaps remain in addressing the needs of older adults (age 60+), which is expected to rise to 25% by 2050. Age Friendly Initiatives (AFIs), including Senior Villages (SV) represent a promising strategy for U.S. communities and cities to support older adults aging in place, and could potentially build CR. However, few AFIs have wholly incorporated the critical element of emergency preparedness and resilience. Even when these domains have been included, there is no evaluation of whether these efforts have resulted in improved resilience outcomes among seniors (e.g., greater self-sufficiency).

CDC is requesting a 24-month OMB clearance period to conduct and analyze telephone interview data to identify how current AFIs and CR efforts align; understand AFI and SV relationships with LHDs; clarify the process through which policymakers can incorporate CR into AFIs; survey test sites in a quasi-experimental design of AFIs currently underway; and develop a toolkit to help LHDs identify the need for AFIs, evaluate and monitor AFIs ability to improve resilience, develop effective and efficient partnerships with AFIs to expand AFI-LHD efforts across the U.S to build community resilience.

RAND Corporation research staff will conduct the telephone interviews (average of 30 minutes) over a 3-9 month period beginning approximately one month after OMB approval. The target universe for the interviews with key informants comprises three types of respondents (a) SV executive directors; (b) AFI staff; and (c) local public health department officials. SVs are neighborhood-based and are grassroots organizations usually led by older adult residents. AFIs in the U.S. can be either city-based or county-based and are led by city/county-level administration, health departments, academic centers, and/or volunteer organizations. CDC will recruit no more than 30 SV executive directors, 31 staff from AFIs, and 15 local health department officials.

To assess the variability in AFIs and SVs and identify opportunities for integrating community resilience goals and activities into their development and ongoing activities, CDC will conduct qualitative interviews using semi-structured interview guides (each interview guide for the three groups is different). These interview guides ask about the AFIs' or SVs' structure, stage of implementation, linkage with public health departments, and whether (and what types) of emergency preparedness (EP) activities are provided to older adults in their community.

For the telephone survey of older adults, data collection by a survey firm will take place over a 9-15 month period beginning approximately 9 months after OMB approval. The sample will comprise of 1,550 adults age 65 and older from three types of communities: Communities with SVs that engage in EP activities, communities with SVs that do not engage in EP activities, and control communities without SVs or other AFIs.

The survey firm will conduct a random digit dial (RDD) survey (approximately 20 minutes) of 1,550 older adults to evaluate the effects of being village member versus not living in a SV, and the effects of living in a SV with EP preparedness activities.

SV members will be identified and recruited in two ways: Member lists with contact information will be submitted to the research team by SV executive directors or SV executive directors will send a recruitment letter on our behalf. The survey will begin with a screening question to identify SV member status (1-2 minutes). We anticipate that we will need to screen out approximately 1,431 participants to identify our target sample: SV members who live in an SV that does engage in EP activities; SV members who live in a SV that do not engage in EP activities; and older adults that do not live in a SV. The outcomes and control variables we will measure in the survey of older adults are: Disaster resilience, social connectedness, self-sufficiency, emotional resilience, attention to health needs, exposure to age-friendly initiatives, age, gender, race/ethnicity, length of time living in community, current living situation, income, and presence of chronic health conditions.

There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 580. A summary of annualized burden hours is below.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Conduct an Older Adult Mobility Assessment Tool Impact Evaluation and Develop a Dissemination Plan (OMB Control No. 0920-1005)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) requests approval for 3 years, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement with change for the previously approved OMB No. 0920-1005 (Exp. Date: 12-31-2014) designed to evaluate whether the Mobility Planning Tool is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and assess potential strategies for dissemination of the Mobility Planning Tool. With this reinstatement, NCIPC requests a change of title from “Older Adult Safe Mobility Assessment Tool” to “Conduct an Older Adult Mobility Assessment Tool Impact Evaluation and Develop a Dissemination Plan.”

The population of older adults in the U.S. is growing rapidly. By 2030, this segment of the population will increase to an estimated 72 million (20% of the U.S. population). A critical public health issue for the older adult population is mobility—how well people are able to get to places they need to go. The goals of this study are to evaluate (1) whether the Mobility Planning Tool (MPT) is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and (2) assess potential strategies for dissemination of the MPT.

NCIPC will collect study data using telephone interviews. The study population is community-living older adults ages 60-74 with no known mobility limitations. A total of 1,000 individuals will participate in the study. Prospective respondents will answer a series of screening questions. Individuals who meet the screening criteria and are willing to participate will complete a baseline and follow-up interview each lasting approximately 10 minutes.

NCIPC will analyzed the collected data using descriptive statistics and a series of t-tests, chi-square analyses, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Multivariate analyses will include a series of repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and logistic regressions.

The data collected from this study will help CDC identify what further revisions to the MPT might be necessary before it is disseminated publicly. Selected study findings may eventually be presented in oral and poster presentations and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Without this information collection, CDC will not know whether the MPT is an effective tool for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and will not know whether additional revisions to the tool are necessary before the MPT is disseminated publicly. Without this study, CDC will have limited information about what strategies are most likely to be effective for disseminating the MPT publicly to the target audience.

The total estimated annual burden hours are 734.

CDRH is responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices marketed in the United States. Furthermore, CDRH assures that patients and providers have timely and continued access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices. In support of this mission, the Center launched various training and development initiatives to enhance performance of its staff involved in regulatory review and in the premarket review process. One of these initiatives, the ELP Pilot, was launched in 2012 and fully implemented on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19711). CDRH is committed to advancing regulatory science; providing industry with predictable, consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory pathways; and helping to ensure consumer confidence in medical devices marketed in the United States and throughout the world. The ELP is intended to provide CDRH staff with an opportunity to understand the policies, laboratory practices, and challenges faced in broader disciplines that impact the device development life cycle. This is a collaborative effort to enhance communication and facilitate the premarket review process. Furthermore, CDRH is committed to understanding current industry practices, innovative technologies, regulatory impacts, and regulatory needs.

These formal training visits are not intended for FDA to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function (e.g., compliance inspection), but rather, they are an opportunity to provide CDRH review staff a better understanding of the products they review. Through this notice, CDRH is formally requesting participation from companies, academia, and clinical facilities, including those that have previously participated in the ELP or other FDA site visit programs.

In this training program, groups of CDRH staff will observe operations at research, manufacturing, academia, and health care facilities. The focus areas and specific areas of interest for visits may include the following:

CDRH will be responsible for CDRH staff travel expenses associated with the site visits. CDRH will not provide funds to support the training provided by the site to this ELP. Selection of potential facilities will be based on CDRH's priorities for staff training and resources available to fund this program. In addition to logistical and other resource factors, all sites must have a successful compliance record with FDA or another Agency with which FDA has a memorandum of understanding. If a site visit involves a visit to a separate physical location of another firm under contract with the site, that firm must agree to participate in the ELP and must also have a satisfactory compliance history.

Submit proposals for participation with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. Received requests may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is established under the authority of section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451. Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with and operating under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix).

The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters within the Coast Guard's jurisdiction.

The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meets at least twice per year, typically every six months. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may meet to consider specific problems as required.

The Coast Guard will consider applications for eight positions that become vacant on September 17, 2015. The membership categories are: Marine Handling and Transportation, Marine Environmental Protection, Safety and Security, Vessel Design and Construction, and Chemical Manufacturing.

To be eligible, applicants should have experience in chemical manufacturing, marine handling or transportation of chemicals, vessel design and construction, marine safety or security, or marine environmental protection. Each member serves for a term of three years. Committee members are limited to serving no more than two consecutive three-year terms. A member appointed to fill an unexpired term may serve the remainder of that term. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards and Commissions” (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65, as amended by title II of Pub. L. 110-81).

The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Lieutenant Cristina Nelson, Alternate Federal Officer of Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, by email or mail according to instructions in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.

Note, that during the vetting process, applicants may be asked to provide their date of birth and social security number. All email submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.

To visit our online docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov enter the docket number (for this notice (USCG-2015-0201) in the Search box, and click “Search”. Please do not post your resume on this site.

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0025 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Naturalization.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-400; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the information gathered on Form N-400 to make a determination as to a respondent's eligibility to naturalize and become a United States citizen.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-400 is 805,812 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6.917 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the biometric information collection is 805,812 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 6,516,602 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $98,711,970.

Comments

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0019 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600K; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form provides an organized framework for establishing the authenticity of an applicant's eligibility and is essential for providing prompt, consistent and correct processing of such applications for citizenship under section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-600K is 3,242 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.083 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 6,753 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated annual cost burden is $397,145.

Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2) through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150. The MHCC was established by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569). According to 42 U.S.C. 5403, as amended, the purposes of the MHCC are to:

• Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards;

• Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring; and

• Be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation.

The MHCC is deemed an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.

Public Comment: Citizens wishing to make oral comments on the business of the MHCC are encouraged to register by or before April 24, 2015 using the following email address: [email protected]; or mail to Home Innovation, 400 Prince Georges Blvd., Upper Marlboro, MD 20774; Attention: Kevin Kauffman. Written comments are encouraged. The MHCC strives to accommodate citizen comments to the extent possible within the time constraints of the meeting agenda. Advance registration is strongly encouraged. The MHCC will also provide an opportunity for public comment on specific matters before the General Subcommittee.

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, published November 9, 2000) recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Among other things, it requires that agencies have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in developing policies that have tribal implications. On November 5, 2009, President Obama reaffirmed the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments in a White House memorandum that acknowledges that Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The November 5, 2009, memorandum also acknowledges that the United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, Indian tribal treaty and other rights. Today's notice, which requests public comment, supports these Presidential directives and builds upon and expands the principles expressed in the Department's previous “Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation Policy,” (66 FR 49784, September 28, 2001).

A. The United States Government has a unique relationship with American Indian governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, and Executive orders and memoranda.

B. On April 29, 1994, a Presidential memorandum was issued reaffirming the Federal Government's commitment to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, and to advance self-governance for such tribes.1 The Presidential memorandum directs each executive department and agency, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, to consult with tribal governments prior to taking actions that have substantial direct effects on federally recognized tribal governments. In order to ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal governments are fully respected, all such consultations are to be open and candid so that tribal governments may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals.

On May 14, 1998, Executive Order 13084, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” was issued.2 This executive order was revoked and superseded on November 6, 2000, by Executive Order 13175,3 which is identically titled to Executive Order 13084 and which sets forth guidelines for all federal agencies to: (1) Establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, (2) strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes, and (3) reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes.

On November 5, 2009,4 President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies that reaffirmed that the United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and judicial decisions. The memorandum stated that in recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. The memorandum stated that the Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications, and directed, among other things, as an initial step, complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.

C. In recognition of the importance of consultation and consistent with Executive Order 13175, and the Presidential memorandum of November 5, 2009, HUD requests public comment on this consultation policy statement. In January 2010, HUD held a series of HUD-tribal regional consultations to discuss HUD's existing tribal consultation policy. Each consultation session was hosted by one of the six Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Area Office Administrators. Prior to all meetings, ONAP Area Office sent out invitation letters to all tribes and tribally designated housing entities to inform them of the meetings. The invitation package included the President's memorandum, Executive Order 13175, HUD's current tribal consultation policy, and a list of questions designed to prompt discussion and focus on the issues. HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for ONAP attended a Northwest ONAP and Eastern/Woodlands ONAP session, and HUD's Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing participated in the initial session held in Suquamish, Washington. Participants at each of the consultation sessions were informed that an electronic mailbox had been established to receive their comments and that HUD's CODETALK Web site would be used to display all comments received.

The comments from participants who attended these consultations, as well as all comments received by other means, were consolidated by ONAP. HUD carefully reviewed all comments received from all sources, responded, and made changes to the existing HUD consultation policy based on these comments, as appropriate.

HUD conducted a second round of tribal consultation by sending the revised draft policy to all tribal leaders for their comment. On November 12, 2014, the Department provided all tribal leaders a draft version of HUD's revised tribal government-to-government consultation policy and requested their feedback and opinion on the draft. In response to the Department's November 12, 2014, request for comments, the Department received three comments from Indian tribes and a national organization that represents the housing interests of Native Americans. The Department appreciates and carefully considered the comments submitted. This notice incorporates several of the comments and recommendations provided.

This consultation policy applies to all HUD programs and policies that have substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribal governments. In formulating or implementing such policies, HUD will be guided by the fundamental principles set forth in section 2 of Executive Order 13175, to the extent applicable to HUD programs. Section 2 of the Executive Order provides as follows:

A. “Consultation” means the direct and interactive (i.e., collaborative) involvement of tribes in the development of regulatory policies on matters that have tribal implications.

Consultation is the proactive, affirmative process of (1) identifying and seeking input from appropriate Native American governing bodies, community groups and individuals; and (2) considering their interest as a necessary and integral part of HUD's decision-making process.

This definition adds to statutorily mandated notification procedures. The goal of notification is to provide an opportunity for comment; however, with consultation procedures, the burden is on the federal agency to show that it has made a good faith effort to elicit feedback.

B. “Exigent situation” means an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action in order to preserve tribal resources, rights, interests, or Federal funding.

C. “Indian tribe” means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

D. “Policies that have tribal implications” refers to regulations, legislative proposals, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribe, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. “To the Extent Practicable and Permitted by Law” refers to situations where the opportunity for consultation is limited because of constraints of time, budget, legal authority, etc.

F. “Tribal officials” means elected or duly appointed officials of Indian tribal governments or authorized intertribal organizations.

A. HUD respects tribal sovereignty and acknowledges the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

B. HUD recognizes and commits to a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes.

C. HUD recognizes tribes as the appropriate non-Federal parties for making policy decisions and managing programs for their constituents.

D. HUD shall take appropriate steps to remove existing legal and programmatic impediments to working directly and effectively with tribes on programs administered by HUD.

E. HUD shall encourage states and local governments to work with and cooperate with tribes to resolve problems of mutual concern.

F. HUD shall work with other Federal departments and agencies to enlist their interest and support in cooperative efforts to assist tribes to accomplish their goals within the context of all HUD programs.

G. HUD shall be guided by these policy principles in its planning and management activities, including its budget, operating guidance, legislative initiatives, management accountability system, and ongoing policy and regulation development processes for all programs effecting tribes.

A. Applicability. HUD will apply this tribal consultation policy to all proposed policies that have tribal implications, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Based on a government-to-government relationship and in recognition of the uniqueness of each tribe, the primary focus for consultation activities is with individual tribes. ONAP, within the Office of Public and Indian Housing, may serve, under the direction of the Secretary, as the lead HUD office for the implementation of this policy. Internal HUD policies and procedures are excluded from this policy.

B. Methods of Communication. The methods of communication used will be determined by the significance of the consultation matter, the need to act quickly, and other relevant factors. Consultation can be accomplished through various methods of communication. While modern technology and group events should be utilized whenever possible to conserve funds and respect time constraints of all those involved, generally these methods of communication should not serve in the place of formal, face-to-face discussion.

C. Consultation with Tribes When Drafting Policies That Have Tribal Implications. To the extent practicable and permitted by law, HUD shall make reasonable efforts to consult with tribal officials concerning proposed policies that have tribal implications before such policies are drafted, in order to facilitate greater tribal participation in development of the proposed policies. Such consultation shall include on the HUD Web site a notice of HUD's plans to develop such policies and an invitation for tribal officials to comment on items that should be included in such policies. HUD shall provide a specific deadline for comments, which shall not be less than 30 days from the date of the notice. This timeline may be compressed in exigent situations.

D. Notice of Proposed Policies That Have Tribal Implications. To the extent practicable and permitted by law, after proposed policies that have tribal implications have been drafted, HUD will notify the tribes of such proposed policies, and will include a copy of the proposed policies with the notice. The notice shall designate the lead office in HUD Headquarters. The lead office in HUD Headquarters shall be responsible for such notification, unless it has delegated such responsibility to another office. HUD shall provide a specific deadline for tribal comments, which shall not be less than 60 days from the date of the notice. This timeline may be compressed in exigent situations. Nothing herein shall affect the deadlines established by Federal law or regulation with regard to comments in the course of the formal agency rulemaking process for the promulgation of federal regulations.

E. Tribal Response. Tribal officials may provide recommendations concerning proposed policies that have or that may have tribal implications to the lead office in HUD Headquarters no later than the deadline established in Part IV.D of this consultation policy. Such recommendations may be provided orally during meetings with HUD representatives or by written documents submitted to HUD representatives.

F. Meetings. Tribes may facilitate regional meetings with HUD representatives to identify and address issues relevant to HUD policies that have tribal implications. HUD will convene at least one national tribal consultation meeting each year. To reduce costs and conserve resources to the greatest extent feasible, tribes and HUD will coordinate consultation meetings with other regularly scheduled meetings, such as multiagency and association meetings.

G. Reporting Mechanisms. In all cases when a tribe or tribes have been involved in the consultation process, HUD will maintain an Internet Web site or Web page to address the informational needs of tribes and tribal leaders. Such Web site or Web page will include relevant HUD documents and other relevant documents, including comments submitted by other tribes. HUD shall notify the tribes of the finalization of proposed policies that have tribal implications, and provide such policies to the tribes.

H. Tribal Advisory Organizations, Committees, and Workgroups. HUD will work with tribal organizations, committees, or workgroups, when appropriate, to assist in facilitating involvement of tribes in decisionmaking and policy development. The work with tribal organizations, committees, and workgroups will be in coordination with, and not to the exclusion of, consultation with individual tribes on a government-to-government basis.

I. Joint Federal/Tribal Workgroups.

1. A workgroup may be established by HUD and tribes to address specific issues or to draft specific policies that have tribal implications. Tribal representation should be consistent with the established standard of geographically diverse small, medium, and large tribes, whenever possible.

2. Alternate workgroup members may be appointed by written notification signed by the member. Such alternates shall possess the authority of the workgroup member to make decisions on their behalf if such authority is so delegated to them in writing.

3. The workgroup shall be chaired by at least one tribal workgroup member, selected by the tribal workgroup members, and one HUD representative.

4. The workgroup may conduct its activities through various methods of communication, including in-person meetings, conference calls, and internet-based meeting platforms. Workgroup members may be accompanied by other individuals for advice as the members deem necessary.

5. Whenever possible, workgroup products should be circulated to tribal leaders for review and comment.

6. All final recommendations will be given serious consideration by HUD.

On issues relating to tribal self-governance, tribal trust resources, or treaty and other rights, HUD will explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking. HUD may establish a standing committee, consisting of representatives of tribal governments, to consult on the appropriateness of using negotiated rulemaking procedures on particular matters. The procedures governing such a standing committee would be established through the mutual agreement of HUD and tribal governments.

To the extent practicable and permitted by law, HUD shall not promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has tribal implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on such communities, unless:

A. Funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or

B. HUD, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation:

1. Consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation;

2. In a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)a description of the extent of HUD's prior consultation with representatives of affected Indian tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and

3. Makes available to the Director of OMB any written communications submitted to HUD by such Indian tribal governments.

HUD shall review the processes under which Indian tribal governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.

A. HUD shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by an Indian tribal government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by HUD with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

B. HUD shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 90 days of receipt of such application by HUD. HUD shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and, if the application for a waiver is not granted, the reasons for such denial.

C. This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by HUD. Applicable civil rights statutes and regulations are not subject to waiver.

The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA) do not apply to consultations undertaken pursuant to this policy. In accordance with section 204(b) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, approved March 22, 1995), FACA is not applicable to consultations between the Federal Government and elected officers of Indian tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf). As OMB stated in its guidelines implementing section 204(b):

This document has been adopted for the purpose of enhancing government-to-government relationships, communications, and mutual cooperation between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and tribes and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right or benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other persons. The provisions of the FACA are not applicable to this policy. This document is effective on the date it is signed.

Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on incidental take permit (ITP) applications for take of the federally listed American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) resulting from activities associated with geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permits would be issued to the applicants under the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (ICP). The ICP was made available for comment on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21480), and approved on May 21, 2014 (publication of the FONSI notice was on July 25, 2014; 79 FR 43504). The ICP and the associated environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact are available on the Web site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ABBICP. However, we are no longer taking comments on these documents.

We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., TE-123456), listed below, when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Applicant: American Energy-Woodford, LLC, Oklahoma City, OK.

Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Applicant: Phillips 66 Pipeline Company, Houston, TX.

Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments, including technical amendments, are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Tribal-State Compact for Regulation of Class III Gaming between the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians of Oregon and the State of Oregon, Amendment II, establishes criteria to deny or terminate contracts related to Class III gaming. The perpetual term of the compact remains unchanged.

I. Abstract

This notice is for renewal of an existing information collection.

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

This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of Acquisition and Property Management will submit to OMB for extension or re-approval. Public law 91-646, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, requires each Federal agency acquiring real estate interests to provide relocation benefits to individuals and businesses displaced as a result of the acquisition. Form DI-381, Claim For Relocation Payments—Residential, and DI-382, Claim For Relocation Payments—Nonresidential, permit the applicant to present allowable moving expenses and certify occupancy status, after having been displaced because of Federal acquisition of their real property.

(1) Title: Claim for Relocation Payments—Residential, DI-381 and Claim for Relocation Payments—Nonresidential, DI-382.

OMB Control Number: 1084-0010.

Current Expiration Date: September 30, 2015.

Type of Review: Information Collection: Renewal.

Affected Entities: Individuals and businesses who are displaced because of Federal acquisitions of their real property.

Bureau Form Numbers: DI-381, DI-382.

(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:

Total annual reporting per response: 50 minutes.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24.

Frequency of Response: Once per relocation.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 20 hours.

(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The information required is obtained through application made by the displaced person or business to the funding agency for determination as to the specific amount of monies due under the law. The forms, through which application is made, require specific information since the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act allows for various amounts based upon each actual circumstance. Failure to make application to the agency would eliminate any basis for payment of claims.

The Departments invite comments on:

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

(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

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

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission was established in the Rio Grande Natural Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460rrr-2). The nine-member Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, concerning the preparation and implementation of a management plan for non-Federal land in the Rio Grande Natural Area, as directed by law. The public is invited to review, comment on and ask questions about the Commission's draft management plan. The draft management plan and minutes from previous meetings are available for public inspection at: www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo.html.

The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension to continue protection of the investments made in the Brown Mountain, Pal Moore Meadows, Teepee, Cedar Creek, and Flowery Trail Seed Orchards in Colville and Kaniksu National Forests. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on April 12, 2035, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 43 U.S.C. 1714, the Secretary of the Interior determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:

Public Land Order No. 7133 (60 FR 18777(1995)), which withdrew 496.22 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the investment at the Brown Mountain, Pal Moore Meadows, Teepee, Cedar Creek, and Flowery Trail Seed Orchards, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until April 12, 2035.

The purposes of the WSP/EIS include implementing the long-term vision for protecting wilderness character that is contained in the parks' Final General Management Plan (GMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as well as enhancing established programs and actions for managing these areas as wilderness. A variety of controversial or long-standing issues are addressed in the WSP/EIS, including visitor capacity, wilderness permitting, party (group) size limits for people and stock, campfire regulations, camping locations and regulations, food-storage requirements, human-waste management, stock access, stock grazing, maintenance of facilities and trails, and management of frontcountry facilities that support wilderness use. The WSP/EIS also analyzes and determines the types and levels of commercial services that may be performed for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas, as required by § 4(d)(5) of the Wilderness Act (Extent Necessary Determination).

The WSP/EIS considers five alternatives that would manage the overall character of the parks' wilderness, including key aspects such as wilderness use levels, access and trails, stock use and grazing, recreational and administrative infrastructure, and the extent to which those activities proper for realizing wilderness purposes may be supported by commercial services. The main differences between these alternatives lie in the key elements of wilderness management—use levels, access and trails, stock use and grazing, and infrastructure, both recreational and administrative. These differences are driven by the different approach to management that each alternative offers. Each alternative serves visitor and/or operational needs in different ways, and would preserve natural resources in a condition that is consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act.

Alternative 1 (No-action/Status Quo) would continue to implement the existing Backcountry Management Plan (BMP) and the Stock Use and Meadow Management Plan (SUMMP) to guide wilderness management. The BMP establishes trailhead quotas, a wilderness permit system, and management objectives for campfires, campsites, sanitation, food storage, special-use limits, area closures, stock use and grazing, education and interpretation, trails and travel, signs, commercial operations, ranger stations, administrative policies, and monitoring (e.g., meadows monitoring). The SUMMP establishes the management system and tools for stock use and includes site-specific opening dates for grazing, grazing management, use levels, protection of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep ewe-lamb ranges, installation of drift fences, stock and camp etiquette, implementation of temporary variances, and other closures. The SUMMP also establishes a monitoring program to inform and modify management as necessary to reduce resource impacts.

Alternative 2 (NPS preferred alternative) would protect wilderness character by implementing site-specific actions, incorporating much of the current management strategies and tools used by the parks to protect wilderness. Wilderness would be managed by evaluating conditions in specific areas and mitigating impacts through targeted actions. The goal is to encourage wilderness use and minimize restrictions while preserving wilderness character. Alternative 2 acknowledges that there are some challenges in the most popular areas and in areas with sensitive resources that can be mitigated through targeted improvements in management. Most wilderness trails in the parks would remain open to stock under this alternative. Stock would continue to be allowed to travel up to one-half mile off maintained trails to reach campsites. Off-trail stock travel would continue to be allowed in four areas of the parks: On the Monarch Divide, in the Roaring River area, on the Hockett Plateau, and along the western side of the Kern River watershed south from the Chagoopa Plateau. Grazing would generally be allowed in areas open to camping with stock (within 0.5 mile of maintained trails open to camping with stock or in off-trail travel areas), with some exceptions. Under alternative 2, the levels and types of commercial services to be performed would be similar to current conditions. However, the levels and types of commercial services allowed would be limited in the Mount Whitney Management Area, an approximately 37,200 acre area around Mount Whitney within Sequoia National Park.

Alternative 3 would provide more opportunities for primitive recreation by allowing additional use, which would be expected to occur mostly in popular areas. To preserve the natural quality of wilderness, the popular use areas in wilderness would require additional development and restrictions on visitor behavior. Most wilderness trails in the parks would remain open to stock under this alternative. Stock would continue to be allowed to travel up to one-half mile off maintained trails to reach campsites. Off-trail stock travel would continue to be allowed in four areas of the parks: On the Monarch Divide, in the Roaring River area, on the Hockett Plateau, and along the western side of the Kern River watershed south from the Chagoopa Plateau. Grazing would generally be allowed within 0.5 mile of maintained trails open to camping with stock, with some exceptions. As part of allowing increased use, the levels of commercial services would increase to accommodate less experienced visitors, to help educate visitors, and to control the impacts of inexperienced or inadequately equipped visitors.

Alternative 4 emphasizes the undeveloped quality and non-commercial recreation. This alternative would eliminate some of the development currently in wilderness to emphasize the undeveloped quality of wilderness. There would be fewer signs, bridges, stock-related facilities, and ranger stations. Restrooms/privies and food-storage boxes would be removed and there would be no designated campsites. Because fewer resource-protecting developments would remain in place, the amount of use would need to be reduced to protect the natural quality of wilderness. Private parties traveling with stock would continue to have access to most trails in the parks, and stock would continue to be allowed to travel off-trail in four designated areas. However, commercial stock use would be limited to certain destinations and trails. No private, commercial, or administrative stock grazing would be allowed under this alternative. Commercial services would be reduced to levels significantly lower than those in the no-action alternative and commercial services would be limited in high-use areas

Alternative 5 (environmentally preferable alternative) emphasizes opportunities for solitude by reducing the total number of wilderness visitors allowed in wilderness. Presence of fewer visitors in wilderness would in turn allow for reduced levels of development, along with reduced restrictions on visitor behavior (fewer people need fewer facilities). Reducing the numbers of visitors would also result in reduced impacts on resources. Stock travel more than 0.5 mile from trails open to camping with stock would be prohibited. Stock use and grazing would generally be allowed in most areas where overnight use is permitted with some exceptions. Commercial services would be at levels lower than those in the no-action alternative in most locations, but the percentage of total visitor use supported by commercial services would be similar to the no-action alternative to ensure that reduced access would not disproportionally affect any particular user group.

Posting of Public Comments

Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as directed above will generally be made available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

An electronic copy of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II each year. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100.

The DEA established the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas and assessments of annual need on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53216). That notice stipulated that, as provided for in 21 CFR 1303.13, all aggregate production quotas and assessments of annual need are subject to adjustment.

Based on unanticipated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States the DEA proposes to adjust the established 2015 aggregate production quotas for the schedule I and II controlled substances difenoxin, diphenoxylate (for conversion), and marijuana to be manufactured in the United States in 2015. The adjustment is necessary to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, lawful export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.

In proposing the adjustment, the Administrator has taken into account the following criteria in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13: (1) Changes in demand for the basic class, changes in the national rate of net disposal for the class, and changes in the rate of net disposal by the registrants holding individual manufacturing quotas for the class; (2) whether any increased demand or changes in the national and/or individual rates of net disposal are temporary, short term, or long term; (3) whether any increased demand for that class can be met through existing inventories, increased individual manufacturing quotas, or increased importation, without increasing the aggregate production quota; (4) whether any decreased demand will result in excessive inventory accumulation by all persons registered to handle the class; and (5) other factors affecting the medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and lawful export requirements, as the Administrator finds relevant.

Since the establishment of the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas, the DEA has received requests from DEA registered manufacturers to manufacture difenoxin and diphenoxylate (for conversion) to support the manufacture of prescription drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of chronic diarrhea and for the treatment of diarrhea associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).1 These FDA approved products have not been manufactured since 2009 due to FDA-regulated manufacturing issues and there is no existing generic or therapeutic equivalent.

Since the establishment of the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas, the DEA has received notification from DEA registered manufacturers that research and product development involving cannabidiol, is increasing beyond that previously anticipated for 2015. The associated product development activities are related to process validation and commercialization activities, including qualification activities related to potential U.S. Food and Drug Administration submission support.

Additionally, the DEA has also received notification from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) that it required additional supplies of marijuana to be manufactured in 2015 to provide for ongoing and anticipated research efforts involving marijuana. NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which oversees the cultivation, production and distribution of research-grade marijuana on behalf of the United States Government, pursuant to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (March 30, 1961, 18 UST 1407).

The Administrator, therefore, proposes to adjust the 2015 aggregate production quotas for difenoxin, diphenoxylate (for conversion), and marijuana, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows: