Federal Register Vol. 80, No.80,

VPA-HIP is a competitive grants program available to State and Tribal governments. The program is authorized under the Food Security Act of 1985, and governed by regulations at 7 CFR part 1455. The primary objective of VPA-HIP is to support State and Tribal government programs that encourage owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land accessible to the public for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent recreation. Grant recipients may also use VPA-HIP funds to improve habitat on enrolled public-access-program lands.

NRCS expects most habitat improvement actions carried out with VPA-HIP funds to follow NRCS conservation practice standards and fall within existing categorical exclusions. Although VPA-HIP applicants that agree to follow NRCS conservation practice standards will receive preference for acceptance and funding, there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, NRCS has decided to prepare a programmatic EA to review the effects of activities that are likely to occur with VPA-HIP grants.

Proposed Action: The proposed action is to award grants in accordance with 7 CFR part 1455. Under this alternative, NRCS will provide an opportunity for State and Tribal governments to apply for grants to encourage owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land accessible to the public for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent recreation, and to improve and manage fish and wildlife habitat on their land under programs administered by State or Tribal governments. Grants will be awarded through a competitive process.

Alternatives: The draft programmatic EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative. The proposed action is the agency's preferred alternative because it meets the purpose of and need for the project with only minor, short-term adverse impacts to the environment anticipated. The no-action alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the action, and results in more adverse impacts to the environment than the preferred alternative.

Scoping: In developing the draft programmatic EA, NRCS conducted internal scoping with various agency discipline experts, and used experience gained from previous VPA-HIP grants and associated EAs. Potential adverse impacts identified through the scoping process may include localized, temporary, and minor increases in soil erosion, sediment transport, and particulate matter from ground disturbing activities and the use of agricultural equipment during the installation of conservation practices. In the longer term, there will be habitat improvements, and increased recreational and economic benefits.

No public scoping meetings are planned. Comments received from Federal, State or local agencies, Native American Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and interested citizens within 60 days of the date of this notice will be used to assist in the development of the final EA, and help NRCS determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact or an EIS. Comments may be submitted to Ms. Andrée DuVarney, National Environmental Coordinator, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890; email: [email protected].

Public Involvement: NRCS invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision-making. All persons and organizations with an interest in the environmental effects of VPA-HIP grants are urged to comment on the draft programmatic EA. Copies of the comments received will be included in the administrative record without change, and may include any personal information provided unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information.

Other Environmental Review and Coordination Requirements: VPA-HIP grant recipients will conduct site-specific evaluations of lands where habitat improvement projects are planned to address project compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. NRCS will conduct or oversee any required consultation with VPA-HIP grant recipients in accordance with applicable regulations.

On February 13, 2015, the United States informed the DSB that the United States intends to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in WTO/DS437. The CVD investigations at issue are as follows:

In accordance with Section 129(b)(1) of the URAA, the Department consulted with the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and on April 17, 2015, pursuant to those consultations, opened segments in the 15 CVD investigations at issue to commence administrative actions to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Each segment will consist of a separate administrative record with its own administrative protective order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b), interested parties may request access to business proprietary information in the segment of the proceeding to which they are participating. For each of these section 129 segments, we may request additional information and we may conduct verification of such information. Consistent with Section 129(d) of the URAA, the Department will make a preliminary determination in each of the Section 129 segments, the Department will provide interested parties with an opportunity to provide written comments on those preliminary determinations, and the Department may hold a hearing.

In accordance with the Department's regulations, all submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.6

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d)(l), to be included on the public service list for the Section 129 determination for the aforementioned proceedings, all interested parties, including parties that were part of the public service list in the underlying investigation(s) and any parties otherwise notified of the Department's commencement of these Section 129 proceedings, must file a letter of appearance. The letter of appearance must be filed separately from any other document (with the exception of an application for administrative protective order (APO) access; parties applying for and granted APO access would automatically be on the public service list). Parties wishing to enter an appearance or submit information with regard to these proceedings must upload their filing(s) to each relevant case number. Additionally, for each submission made in ACCESS, parties must select “S 129-SEC 129” as the segment and enter “DS437” in the segment specific information field.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.7 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 8 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is published in accordance with Section 129(b)(1) of the URAA.

Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

Public Participation: The call will be open to the public. All guests are required to register in advance, and will receive a copy of the draft letter upon registering. There will be 15 minutes of time allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the call. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the call. Comments may be submitted to Niara Phillips at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the call, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 7, 2015, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the call. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the call. A recording will be available within 30 days of the call.

NIST will release the Draft Community Resilience Planning Guide (CRPG) for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems for public comment on Monday, April 27, 2015, and it will be posted at http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/framework.cfm. The CRPG is being issued in a draft form with a 60-day public comment period. Public comments will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 26, 2015.

NIST established a program in Community Resilience to conduct research and develop guidance that improves the way communities prepare for, withstand, and recover from disruptive events, such as natural hazards. The Draft CRPG has benefitted from the input of private and public sector stakeholders and experts, with a wide range of expertise in areas including but not limited to community planning, disaster recovery, emergency management, business continuity, insurance/re-insurance, state and local government, design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure (buildings, water and wastewater, electric power, communications, transportation), and standards and code development. The Framework is intended to provide local governments with a methodology for including resilience in their long term community development planning process and to provide a means to facilitate engagement with external stakeholders that have a role in ensuring community resilience.

Public Workshop: The 5th NIST Community Resilience Workshop will be held on Monday April 27th at Texas Southern University, 3100 Cleburne Street, Houston, TX 77004 from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Central Time. The workshop will provide an overview of the Draft CRPG, describe its application, and present a panel of emergency planners and other local and regional representatives who will discuss the potential utility of the new tool for their communities and respond to questions from attendees. NIST encourages the attendance of anyone with an interest in improving the resilience of U.S. communities, including those with knowledge or expertise in community planning, disaster recovery, emergency management, business continuity, insurance/re-insurance, state and local government, design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure (buildings, water and wastewater, electric power, communications, transportation), and standards and code development. Limited onsite registration is available, please contact Steve Cauffman by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 301-975-6051. Additional information on the workshop, including the online registration link, is posted at: http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/5th-disaster-resilience-workshop.cfm.

Request for Public Comment: Persons interested in commenting on the Draft CRPG can submit their written comments using the suggested template posted on the NIST Web site at: http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/framework.cfm or in other formats. All comments received in response to this notice will become part of the public record and will be posted on the NIST Web site at: http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/framework.cfm.

Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. All comments will be made publicly available; therefore personal, proprietary or confidential information should not be included. All comments must be received by NIST by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 26, 2015 in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of the notice above. Comments received after this time will not be considered.

On January 9, 2015, notice was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 1398) that a request for an amendment Permit No. 15543-03 to conduct research on bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) dolphins for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The amended permit expands the study area to include the bay, sound, estuary and associated coastal waters of Mobile Bay, AL, and Terrebonne Bay, LA, and added annual takes in each location by remote biopsy sampling of bottlenose dolphins. Annual biopsy takes were also added to the currently authorized allotment of Florida biopsy activities to include a focused study in Pensacola Bay, FL. The amendment also authorizes the capture, satellite-tagging, and release of Atlantic spotted dolphins for health assessments by hoop-netting bow-riding individuals during surveys on the West Florida Shelf. Up to two takes by unintentional mortality are authorized annually. Finally, the amended permit authorizes a minor procedural modification to allow the administration of doubly-labeled water (deuterium oxide and oxygen-18) to bottlenose dolphins that are temporarily captured during currently permitted health assessments.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

The Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to discuss several issues. First, the AP will review progress and make recommendations related to Amendment 19 alternatives. Amendment 19 is considering measures to address timing issues that inhibit implementation of fishery specifications at the start of the scallop fishing year (March 1). The Advisory Panel will also discuss an issue that has been raised at previous meetings related to scallop fishing space in near shore areas and issues of differential catch rates for general category and limited access vessels. The Council may have a workshop later in the year to discuss these issues further. The AP will also review a draft action plan for Framework 27 that will consider fishery specifications for 2016 and default measures for 2017. Finally, the Advisory Panel will discuss final research priority recommendations for the 2016 Scallop Research Set-Aside announcement. All recommendations will be forwarded to the Scallop Committee meeting that is scheduled several weeks later.

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

Five proposals submitted by the Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) have been favorably reviewed and are pending final approval by NOAA's Grants Management Division under the 2015 Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program, including one in support of a project titled, “Determining the Impacts of Dredge Bag Modifications on Flatfish Bycatch in the LAGC Scallop Fishery.” All grants would include RSA Compensation fishing trips to harvest the set-aside award in order to procure the necessary funds for completing the research.

CFF submitted two complete applications for EFPs on March 24, 2015, and March 25, 2015, to enable data collection activities during research and compensation fishing trips associated with the five Scallop RSA projects, which include allowing seven commercial fishing vessels to exceed the crew size regulations at 50 CFR 648.51(c) in order to place a researcher on the vessel, and temporarily exempt the participating vessels from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes only. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited, including landing fish in excess of a possession limit or below the minimum size.

Experimental fishing activity conducted on both the research project and the compensation fishing trips would test gear modifications that adhere to current scallop gear regulations in an attempt to reduce finfish bycatch in the dredge fishery. Gear modifications that would be tested include the use of alternative materials for shoes, the use of lights or cameras mounted to the dredge frame, and replacing the skirt with two rows of 12-inch (30.48-cm) square mesh. It would also include modifying the twine top by placing rows of 12-inch (30.48-cm) square mesh forward of, but not overlapping the remainder rows of 10-inch (25.40-cm) diamond mesh. All trips would take place in scallop fishing areas open to the entire Atlantic sea scallop fishery.

Exemption from crew size limits is needed because a research technician would accompany vessels on some of the compensation fishing trips to collect catch data associated with different dredge modifications. The crew size exemption would be for approximately 30 DAS per EFP. The additional crew would only be in support of data collection activities, and would not process catch to be landed for sale. Exemption from possession limit and minimum sizes would support catch sampling activities, and ensure the vessel is not in conflict with possession regulations while collecting catch data. All catch above a possession limit or below a minimum size would be discarded as soon as practicable following data collection.

For all EFP trips, scallop catch would be evaluated by the number of baskets caught and a total catch weight would be obtained by the researcher. Total weight of bycatch species and individual measurements to the nearest centimeter would also be obtained by the researcher. If the volume of the catch is large, subsampling protocols would be necessary. All bycatch would be returned to the sea as soon as practicable following data collection. All research trips would otherwise be conducted in a manner consistent with normal commercial fishing conditions and catch would be retained for sale.

If approved, the applicant 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.

Agenda items to be discussed at the SSC meeting include: Develop multi-year ABC specification for Atlantic mackerel; review shad/river herring cap in mackerel fishery; review data update and Fishery Performance Reports for long-finned squid, Illex squid, butterfish, surf clams and ocean quahogs; review butterfish mortality cap in the long-finned squid fishery; develop science and research needs for blueline tilefish; and receive an update on the Council's Research Plan.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS): U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol; OMB Control Number 0704-0454.

Needs and Uses: This requirement is necessary to provide for protection of information or activities with national security significance. As such, this information collection requires contractors to comply with the notification process at DFARS 252.204-7010, Requirement for Contractor to Notify DoD if the Contractor's Activities are Subject to Reporting Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol.

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

Number of Respondents: 300.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 300.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Annual Response Burden Hours: 300.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol, the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes. The U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol permits the United States unilaterally to declare exclusions from inspection requirements for activities with direct national security significance.

The clause at 252.204-7010 is included in contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving fissionable materials (e.g., uranium, plutonium, neptunium, thorium, americium); other radiological source materials; or technologies directly related to nuclear power production, including nuclear or radiological waste materials.

The clause requires a contractor to provide written notification to the applicable DoD program manager and a copy of the notification to the contracting officer if the contractor is required to report its activities under the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol. Upon such notification, DoD will determine if access may be granted to IAEA inspectors, or if a national security exclusion should be applied.

Title and OMB Number: Information Collection in Support of the DoD Acquisition Process (Various Miscellaneous Requirements), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) parts 208, 209, and 235 and associated clauses in part 252; OMB Control Number 0704-0187.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 491.

Responses per Respondent: Approximately 2.

Annual Responses: 1,062.

Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,464.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement pertains to information required in DFARS parts 208, 209, 235, and associated clauses in part 252 that an offeror must submit to DoD in response to a request for proposals or an invitation for bids or a contract requirement. DoD uses this information to—

• Determine whether to provide precious metals as Government-furnished material;

• Determine an entity's eligibility for award of a contract under a national security program due to ownership or control by a foreign government;

• Determine whether there is a compelling reason for a contractor to enter into a subcontract in excess of $30,000 with a firm, or subsidiary of a firm, that is identified in the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement as being ineligible for award of Defense subcontracts because it is owned or controlled by the government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism;

• Determine an entity's eligibility for award of a contract due to ownership or control by the government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism;

• Evaluate claims of indemnification for losses or damages occurring under a research and development contract; and

• Keep track of radio frequencies on electronic equipment under research and development contracts so that the user does not override or interfere with the use of that frequency by another user.

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

Frequency: On occasion.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. The future agenda will include discussion on accreditation compliance, organizational management, strategic planning, resource management, and other matters of interest to the National Defense University. Limited space made available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or email to the point of contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. (Subject Line: Comment/Statement to the NDU BOV).

The AAPI Commission's Statutory Authority and Function: The President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is established under Executive Order 13515, dated October 14, 2009 and subsequently continued and amended by Executive Order 13585 and Executive Order 13652. The Commission is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. app.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. According to Executive Order 13515, the Commission shall provide advice to the President, through the Secretary of Education and a senior official to be designated by the President, on: (i) The development, monitoring, and coordination of executive branch efforts to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) through increased participation in Federal programs in which such persons may be underserved; (ii) the compilation of research and data related to AAPI populations and subpopulations; (iii) the development, monitoring, and coordination of Federal efforts to improve the economic and community development of AAPI businesses; and (iv) strategies to increase public and private-sector collaboration, and community involvement in improving the health, education, environment, and well-being of AAPIs.

Members of the public who would like to attend the meetings on May 13, 2015, and May 14, 2015 should R.S.V.P. to Bessie Chan via email at [email protected] no later than May 1, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. ET.

Submission of Written Comments: Due to time constraints, there will not be a public comment period at these meetings. However, individuals wishing to provide comments to the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and the Commission, may contact Bessie Chan via email at [email protected]. Please include in the subject line the wording, “Public Comment.”

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss current and future endeavors of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and key issues and concerns impacting the AAPI community; review the work of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; determine key strategies to help meet the Commission's charge as outlined in Executive Order 13515; and determine regional engagement strategies and deliverables around regional activities.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the AAPI Commission Web site not later than 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202 by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 245-6418 to schedule an appointment.

Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meetings (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Bessie Chan at 202-245-6418, no later than May 1, 2015. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability.

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

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

Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

Owner: CPV Valley, LLC.

Capacity: 720 megawatts (MW).

Plant Location: CPV Valley Energy Center, Route 6, Middletown, NY 10940.

In-Service Date: October 15, 2017.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On April 3, 2015, DOE received an application from CWP Energy for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for five years using existing international transmission facilities.

In its application, CWP Energy states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that CWP Energy proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as power marketers, independent power producers, electric utilities, and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by CWP Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning the CWP Energy application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-410. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Ruta Kalvaitis Skucas, Pierce Atwood LLC, 900 17th St. NW., Suite 350, Washington, DC 20006 and to Pascal Massey, CWP Energy, 407 McGill St., Suite 315, Montreal, PQ, H2Y 2G3.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On December 15, 2010, DOE issued Order No. EA-375 to the Applicant, which authorized Rainbow to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on December 15, 2015. On April 14, 2015, the Applicant filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-375 for an additional five-year term.

In its application, the Applicant states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments and other filings concerning the Rainbow application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-375-A. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Joseph A. Wolfe, Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, Kirkwood Office Tower, 919 South 7th Street, Suite 405, Bismarck, ND 58504 and Steven A. Weiler, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, 1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered SAB will hold a public teleconference for two purposes.

The first purpose is to discuss recommendations regarding the information provided in the agency's Fall 2014 regulatory agenda, specifically planned actions and their supporting science. Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/SAB%20Fall%202014%20Reg%20Agenda?OpenDocument.

The second purpose of this public teleconference is to review a draft SAB consultation report on the scientific and technical merit of the EPA's draft approach to develop preliminary bi-national phosphorous objectives and loading targets for Lake Erie. Quality review is a key function of the chartered SAB. Draft reports prepared by SAB committees, panels, or work groups must be reviewed and approved by the chartered SAB before transmittal to the EPA Administrator. Consistent with FACA, the chartered SAB makes a determination in a public meeting about each draft report and determines whether the report is ready to be transmitted to the EPA Administrator.

The SAB review will focus on a draft report on the EPA's plan to use an ensemble modeling approach to develop preliminary binational phosphorous objectives, loading targets and allocations for nearshore and offshore waters. Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/GLWQA?OpenDocument.

Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and materials in support of these teleconferences will be available on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the teleconferences.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer as noted above. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Carpenter, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above one week before the teleconference to be placed on the list of public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO, preferably via email, at the contact information noted above one week before each of the teleconferences so that the information may be made available to the Board members for their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter at (202) 564-4885 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Carpenter preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Title: EIB 15-01, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Feedback on Electronic Interfaces with Customers.

OMB Number: TBD.

Type of Review: New.

Need and Use: This is a request for a new three-year generic clearance for the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) that will allow it to develop, test and improve its digital customer interfaces—including on-line applications for financing support, other on-line reporting, and the agency's Web site. The procedures used to this effect include, but are not limited to, tests of various interfaces through focus groups, cognitive testing, web-based experiments and usability testing.

Ex-Im Bank is requesting the generic clearance in order to test new or proposed methodologies for customer interfaces, data collection activities, and Web site design. We believe the generic clearance will be a helpful vehicle for evaluating the usability and effectiveness of these methodologies.

In the past, Ex-Im Bank has approached design and testing through convenience samples of nine or fewer persons to provide input and feedback or by relying on employee feedback. Neither of these approaches meets Ex-Im Bank's needs to collect meaningful information on the usability and effectiveness of its customer interfaces.

In the reference document we have provided a description of the scope of possible activities that might be covered under this clearance. The requested clearance is important to Ex-Im Bank's usability testing program, because of the length of time required to develop customer interfaces.

The specific methods proposed for coverage by this clearance are listed below. Also outlined are the procedures Ex-Im Bank plans to put in place for keeping OMB informed about the identity of the usability tests and the nature of the research activities being conducted.

The methods proposed for use in system development are as follows:

• Pilot testing,

• Behavior coding,

• Exploratory interviews,

• Split sample experiments,

• Cognitive and usability interviews, and

• Focus groups.

Before each testing activity is undertaken, Ex-Im Bank will provide OMB with a memo describing the study to be conducted and a copy of the instrumentation and instruction materials that will be used. Depending on the stage of instrumentation development, this may be a printed questionnaire, a set of prototype items showing each item type to be used and the range of topics to be covered by the questionnaire, or an interview script. When split sample experiments are conducted, either in small group sessions or as part of a field test, the different versions of the questionnaires to be used will be provided. For a test of alternative procedures, the description and rationale for the procedures will be submitted. A brief description of the planned field activity will also be provided.

Affected Public: Individuals representing companies engaged in business with the Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

Annual Number of Respondents: 72.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 12 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 864 hours.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: On occasion.

Government Expenses: TBD.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the WRC-15 Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15). In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the eighth meeting of the WRC-15 Advisory Committee. Additional information regarding the WRC-15 Advisory Committee is available on the Advisory Committee's Web site, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/world-radiocommunication-conference-wrc-15. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live. Comments may be presented at the WRC-15 Advisory Committee meeting or in advance of the meeting by email to: [email protected].

Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to accommodate.

The proposed agenda for the eighth meeting is as follows:

I. Background

The Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (the predecessor to the APOE) was created in 1999 to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare + Choice (M + C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

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

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

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

The APOE charter was originally created in 1999, as the charter for the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education. The panel's charter was renewed, and the panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education, on January 21, 2011. The charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2015. The APOE will advise HHS and CMS on developing and implementing education programs for individuals with, or who are eligible for, the Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP about options for selecting health care coverage under these and other programs intended to ensure improved access to quality care, including preventive services. The scope of this panel, convened under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), also includes advising on education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

The charter will terminate on January 21, 2017, unless renewed by appropriate action. The APOE was chartered under 42 U.S.C. 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The APOE is governed by the provisions of FACA (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

In accordance with the renewed charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the February 27, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 10688), we published a notice titled “Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Renewal of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) and Request for Nominations”. The notice announced the renewal of the APOE charter and requested nominations for individuals to serve on the APOE.

This notice is an additional solicitation of nominees for the Panel. The APOE shall consist of no more than 20 members. The Chair shall either be appointed from among the 20 members, or a federal official will be designated to serve as the Chair. The charter requires that meetings shall be held approximately four times per year. Members will be expected to attend all meetings. The members and the Chair shall be selected from authorities knowledgeable in one or more of the following fields:

• Senior citizen advocacy

• Outreach to minority and underserved communities

• Health communications

• Disease-related advocacy

• Disability policy and access

• Health economics research

• Behavioral health

• Health insurers and plans

• Health information technology (IT)

• Social media

• Direct patient care

• Matters of labor and retirement

This notice announces that, in July 2015, the terms of 11 existing members will expire, and in October 2015, the terms of 2 additional members will expire. This notice invites interested organizations or individuals to submit nominations for membership for all 13 upcoming vacancies on the APOE (no self-nominations will be accepted). The Secretary, or designee, will appoint new members to the APOE from among those candidates determined to have the expertise required to meet specific agency needs, in a manner to ensure an appropriate balance of membership. We are committed to ensuring that the interests of both women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and disabled individuals are adequately represented on the APOE. Therefore, we encourage nominations of qualified candidates who can represent these interests. Any interested organization or person may nominate one or more qualified persons.

Each nomination must include a letter stating that the nominee has expressed a willingness to serve as a Panel member and must be accompanied by a curricula vitae and a brief biographical summary of the nominee's experience.

While we are looking for experts in a number of fields, our most critical needs are for experts in Health IT, Tribal Affairs, Community Health Centers/Medically Underserved Populations, African-American Health/Disparities, Health/Disability, Quality/Disparities, and State Programs/Medicaid/Rural.

We are requesting that all curricula vitae include the following:

• Date of birth

• Place of birth

• Title and current position

• Professional affiliation

• Home and business address

• Telephone and fax numbers

• Email address

• List of areas of expertise

In order to permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest, potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts.

Members are invited to serve for 2-year terms, contingent upon the renewal of the APOE by appropriate action prior to its termination. A member may serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor takes office. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.

The Secretary's Charter for the APOE is available on the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-andGuidance/Guidance/FACA/APOE.html, or you may obtain a copy of the charter by submitting a request to the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

I. Background

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The eight ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Health Canada; and Swissmedic. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).

The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization and the European Free Trade Area.

The eCTD is an ICH standard based on specifications developed by ICH and its member parties. The ICH M2 Expert Working Group has previously developed a list of requirements for input in the eCTD RPS Project. The list of requirements was last updated on November 11, 2010, and is available at http://estri.ich.org/ICH_eCTD_NMV_Requirements-V4-0.pdf (FDA has verified the Web site address, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register).

The ICH M8 Expert Working Group was formed in November 2010 to assume responsibility for the continued development of the next major version of the eCTD.

In February 2015, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that a draft guidance entitled “M8 eCTD v4.0 Draft Implementation Guide v2.0” and the related document entitled “eCTD v4.0 Implementation Package Draft Specification for Submission Formats v2.0” should be made available for public comment. These documents are the product of the M8 Expert Working Group. Comments about these draft documents will be considered by FDA and the M8 Expert Working Group.

Since adoption of the eCTD standard, the ICH Steering Committee has endorsed using the RPS Release 2 standard. A core feature of the RPS standard is the flexibility the message provides to enable future eCTD enhancements. The M8 eCTD draft implementation guidance provides instructions for creating the eCTD v4.0 RPS message for the ICH Modules 2 through 5 of the eCTD. The draft specifications document provides specifications for creating files for inclusion in the eCTD. These draft documents facilitate implementation of the eCTD v4.0 standard. The draft documents are being issued as a package that includes the draft ICH code list and the M8 schema files. In addition, the FDA regional/module 1 documents have been developed and are available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm309911.htm.

The M8 eCTD draft implementation guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

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

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Importers of Merchandise Subject to Actual Use Provisions.

OMB Number: 1651-0032.

Form Number: None.

Abstract: In accordance with 19 CFR 10.137, importers of goods subject to the actual use provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) are required to maintain detailed records to establish that these goods were actually used as contemplated by the law and to support the importer's claim for a free or reduced rate of duty. The importer shall maintain records of use or disposition for a period of 3 years from the date of liquidation of the entry, and the records shall be available at all times for examination by CBP.

Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 65 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,000.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Transfer of Cargo to a Container Station.

OMB Number: 1651-0096.

Form Number: None.

Abstract: Before the filing of an entry of merchandise for the purpose of breaking bulk and redelivering cargo, containerized cargo may be moved from the place of unlading or may be received directly at the container station from a bonded carrier after transportation in-bond. This also applies to loose cargo as part of containerized cargo. In accordance with 19 CFR 19.42, the container station operator may make a request for the transfer of a container to the station by submitting to CBP an abstract of the manifest for the transferred containers including the bill of lading number, marks, numbers, description of the contents and consignee.

Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,327.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 25.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 358,175.

Estimated Time per Response: 7 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,548.

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

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

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

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

Agenda: On May 12, 2015, the TMAC members will discuss the Council's work process regarding data and associated recommendations that will be needed in preparation of the reports and receive report outs from the following TMAC subcommittees: (1) Future Conditions; (2) Flood Hazard Risk Generation and Dissemination; and (3) Operations, Coordination, and Leveraging. A brief public comment period will take place prior to a vote on each topic. In addition, invited subject matter experts will brief TMAC members on FEMA's database-driven all digital display status/transition and the lending and insurance perspective. A two-hour Subcommittee Breakout Session will be held from 1:45-3:45 p.m.

On May 13, 2015, the TMAC members will discuss (1) the report outs from the TMAC subcommittees, (2) deliberations on content for the 2015 reports, and (3) next steps for TMAC discussions and report development. A brief public comment period will take place prior to a vote on each topic. In addition, invited subject matter experts will brief TMAC members on map generation and workflow process. A Subcommittee Breakout Session will be held from 9:45-11:15 a.m., and another Subcommittee Breakout Session will be held from 1-1:45 p.m. The full agenda and related briefing materials will be available at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC for review by May 4th, 2015.

Any member of the public may file written statements with the Council before, during, or up to 30 days after the meeting either in person or by mail. To the extent that time permits, the Council chairman will allow public presentation of oral comments at the meeting. To allow full consideration of information by Council members, written notice must be provided at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to Council members at the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and take appropriate actions regarding the following: (1) The Basin States Program created by Public Law 110-246, which amended the Act; (2) responses to the Advisory Council Report; and (3) other items within the jurisdiction of the Council.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), 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 that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 800—Bond and Insurance Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations under Regulatory Programs. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for part 800 is 1029-0043. Responses are required to obtain a benefit for this collection.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.

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 ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title: 30 CFR part 800—Bond and Insurance Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations under Regulatory Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0043.

Summary: The regulations at 30 CFR part 800 primarily implement section 509 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act), which requires that people planning to conduct surface coal mining operations first post a performance bond to guarantee fulfillment of all reclamation obligations under the approved permit. The regulations also establish bond release requirements and procedures consistent with section 519 of the Act, liability insurance requirements pursuant to section 507(f) of the Act, and procedures for bond forfeiture should the permittee default on reclamation obligations.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Description of Respondents: Surface coal mining and reclamation permittees and State regulatory authorities.

Total Annual Responses: 12,215.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 112,626 hours.

Total Annual Non-wage costs: $1,510,214.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), 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 that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for renewed approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR parts 779 and 783—Surface and Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for parts 779 and 783 is 1029-0035. Responses are required to obtain a benefit for this collection.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.

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 ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title: 30 CFR parts 779 and 783—Surface and Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0035.

Summary: Applicants for surface and underground coal mining permits are required to provide adequate descriptions of the environmental resources that may be affected by proposed mining activities. The information will be used by the regulatory authority to determine if the applicant can comply with environmental protection performance standards.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: 219 coal mining operators and 24 state regulatory authorities.

Total Annual Responses: 2,175.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 188,816.

Total Annual Non-Wage Burden Cost: $0.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Synaptics Incorporated on April 21, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain touchscreen controllers and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd of China; Goodix Technology Inc. of San Diego, CA; and BLU Products, Inc. of Doral, FL. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3066”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

Background: Section 215(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) requires that the Commission submit biennial reports to the Congress and the President regarding the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and consumers, and on the economy of the beneficiary countries. Section 215(b)(1) requires that the reports include, but not be limited to, an assessment regarding:

(A) The actual effect, during the period covered by the report, of [CBERA] on the United States economy generally, as well as on those specific domestic industries which produce articles that are like, or directly competitive with, articles being imported into the United States from beneficiary countries; and

(B) the probable future effect which this Act will have on the United States economy generally, as well as on such domestic industries, before the provisions of this Act terminate.

The report will cover trade with Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. The President designated Curaçao as a beneficiary country for purposes of CBERA and CBTPA on December 31, 2013.

Notice of institution of the investigation was published in the Federal Register of May 14, 1986 (51 FR 17678). The Commission plans to transmit the 22nd report, covering calendar years 2013 and 2014, by September 30, 2015.

Written Submissions: Interested parties are invited to submit information in writing concerning this report. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, and should be received not later than 5:15 p.m., June 1, 2015. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures require that interested parties file documents electronically on or before the filing deadline and submit eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00 p.m. eastern time on the next business day. In the event that confidential treatment of a document is requested, interested parties must file, at the same time as the eight paper copies, at least four (4) additional true paper copies in which the confidential information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties.

The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this investigation. Accordingly, any CBI received by the Commission in this investigation will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information. The report will be made available to the public on the Commission's Web site.

Summaries of Written Submissions: The Commission intends to publish, in an appendix to the report, summaries of positions provided by interested persons in their written submissions. Persons wishing to have a summary of their position included in the appendix should include a summary with their written submission. The summary may not exceed 500 words, should be in MSWord format or a format that can be easily converted to MSWord, and should not include any confidential business information. The summary will be published as provided if it meets these requirements and is germane to the subject matter of the investigation. In the appendix the Commission will identify the name of the organization furnishing the summary, and will include a link to the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) where the full written submission can be found.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office of Tribal Justice, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

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

Overview of this information collection:

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Request to the Attorney General for Assumption of Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: No form. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Office of Tribal Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The Department of Justice published a rule to establish the procedures for an Indian tribe whose Indian country is subject to State criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. 1162(a)) to request that the United States accept concurrent criminal jurisdiction within the tribe's Indian country, and for the Attorney General to decide whether to consent to such a request. The purpose of the collection is to provide information from the requesting tribe sufficient for the Attorney General to make a decision whether to consent to the request.

6. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Fewer than 350 respondents; 80 hours.

5. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated maximum 28,000 annual total burden hours associated with this collection (up to 350 respondents × 80 hours = 28,000 hours). Fewer than 350 Indian tribes are eligible for the assumption of concurrent criminal jurisdiction by the United States. The Department of Justice does not know how many eligible tribes will, in fact, make such a request. The information collection will require Indian tribes seeking assumption of concurrent criminal jurisdiction by the United States to provide certain information relating to public safety within the Indian country of the tribe.

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and/or

—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.

Overview of this information collection:

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death.

3. The agency form number: CIV SF 95. Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Individuals or households.

Other: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Abstract: This form is used by those persons making a claim against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that there will be 100,000 respondents who will each require 6 hours to respond.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated burden hours to complete the certification form is 600,000 hours.

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and/or

—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.

Overview of this information collection:

1. Type of Information Collection: New Voluntary Collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Evaluation of the justice AmeriCorp Legal Services for Unaccompanied Children Program.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Office of Legal Access Programs, Executive Office for Immigration Review.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: This information collection is part of the Evaluation of the justice AmericCorp (jAC) Leal Services for Unaccompanied Children Program (“Program”), and is funded by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in cooperation with the Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS). The Program is intended to provide legal services to children under the age of 16 who: (1) Are not in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. have been released to sponsors (who are sometimes parents or guardians) in the community; (2) have received a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings before EOIR; and, (3) have not had their cases consolidated with removal proceedings with a parent or legal guardian. The Program anticipates being able to provide services to 3,000 children in the first year, and 5,000 children annually every year thereafter. The information collection will be administered by the Vera Center on Immigration and Justice to provide performance measurement and evaluation services that will contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Program, to address implementation challenges, to inform and improve program design, to modify program operations and direction, and to contribute to greater accountability and transparency. The Program will use four data collection methods: (1) Performance measurement data entered by jAC member organizations in a secure web-based server for the purpose of semi-annual reporting to DOJ; (2) qualitative interviews of jAC program managers and selected DOJ employees (e.g. immigration judges and court administrators) conducted by telephone and in person during site visits for the purpose of implementation evaluation; (3) qualitative interviews with a small sample of unaccompanied children, who are provided with legal representation by the jAC program to document their understanding of immigration proceedings as a result of participation in the program; and (4) a brief, non-identifiable survey of jAC members (staff attorneys) at the end of their terms of service to determine their satisfaction with participation in the program.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 100 jAC members will take part in the survey annually. Based on similar surveys used by Vera to evaluate other programs, an average of 30 minutes per respondent is needed to complete the survey. The estimated range of burden for jAC members is expected to be between 15 minutes to 45 minutes for completion. An estimated 50 children will take part in the interview annually. The interview for assessing the child's understanding of immigration proceedings is estimated to take 1 hour per respondent to complete. The estimated range of burden for children interviewed is expected to be between 30 minutes and 1.5 hours for completion. The factors considered when creating the burden estimate were the young age of the children (between the ages of 12 and 16) and the fact that the interview would be conducted in-person. An estimated 200 jAC program stakeholders will take part in the interview annually. Based on similar interviews used by Vera to evaluate other programs, an average of 75 minutes per respondent is needed to complete the interview. The estimated range of burden for jAC program stakeholders is expected to be between 45 minutes to 1.5 hours for completion.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 350 hours. It is estimated that 100 jAC members will take 30 minutes to complete the survey; 50 children will take 1 hour to complete the interview; and 200 jAC stakeholders 75 minutes to complete the interview. The burden hours for collecting respondent data sum to 350 hours ((100 jAC members × 30 minutes = 50 hours) + (50 children × 1 hour = 50 hours) + (200 jAC stakeholders × 75 minutes = 250 hours)).

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

Overview of this information collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a new collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Emergency or Term Access to National Security Information.

(3) Agency form number: FD-1116.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: This form is utilized by the FBI to collect information in order to initiate a background investigation before granting access to classified and sensitive information to private sector people.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 500 respondents will complete each form within approximately 10 minutes for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 500 respondents will complete each form within approximately 10 minutes.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 83 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collection of information requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The purpose of the collection of information requirements specified in the Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard is to ensure that employers systematically evaluate the dangers in permit spaces before entry is attempted, and to ensure that adequate measures are taken to make the spaces safe for entry. Section 1910.146(c)(2) requires the employer to post danger signs to inform exposed employees of the existence and location of, and the dangers posed by, permit spaces.

Section 1910.146(c)(4) requires the employer to develop and implement a written “permit-space program” when the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces. The written program is to be made available for inspection by employees and their authorized representatives. Section 1910.146(d) provides the employer with the requirements of a permit-required confined space program.

Section 1910.146(c)(5)(i)(E) requires that the determinations and supporting data specified by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A), (c)(5)(i)(B), and (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section are documented by the employer and are made available to each employee who enters a permit space or to that employee's authorized representative.

Under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(H) of § 1910.146, the employer is required to verify that the space is safe for entry and that the pre-entry measures required by paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section have been taken, using a written certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the person providing the certification. The certification is to be made before entry and is required to be made available to each employee entering the space or to that employee's authorized representative.

Section 1910.146(c)(7)(iii) requires the employer to document the basis for determining that all hazards in a permit space have been eliminated using a certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the person making the determination. The certification is to be made available to each employee entering the space or to that employee's authorized representative.

Section 1910.146(c)(8)(i) requires that the employer inform the contractor that the workplace contains permit spaces and that permit space entry is allowed only through compliance with a permit space program meeting the requirements of this section. Section 1910.146(c)(8)(ii) requires that the employer apprise the contractor of the elements, including the hazards identified and the host employer's experience with the space, that make the space in question a permit space. Section 1910.146(c)(8)(iii) requires that the employer apprise the contractor of any precautions or procedures that the host employer has implemented for the protection of employees in or near permit spaces where contractor personnel will be working. Section 1910.146(c)(8)(v) requires the employer to debrief the contractor at the conclusion of the entry operations regarding the permit space program followed and regarding any hazards confronted or created in permit spaces during entry operations.

Section 1910.146(c)(9)(iii) requires that the contractor inform the host employer of the permit space program that the contractor will follow and of any hazards confronted or created in permit spaces, either through a debriefing or during the entry operation.

Section 1910.146(d)(5)(vi) requires the employer to immediately provide each authorized entrant or that employee's authorized representative with the results of any testing conducted in accord with paragraph (d) of the Standard.

Section 1910.146(d)(14) requires employers to review the permit space program, using the canceled permits retained under paragraph (e)(6) within 1 year after each entry and revise the program as necessary, to ensure that employees participating in entry operations are protected from permit space hazards.

Section 1910.146(e)(1) requires the employer to document the completion of measures required by paragraph (d)(3) by preparing an entry permit before employee entry is authorized. Paragraph (f) of § 1910.146 specifies the information to be included on the entry permit. Paragraph (e)(3) requires that the employer make the completed permit available at the time of entry to all authorized entrants by posting the permit at the entry portal or by any other equally effective means, so that the entrants can confirm that pre-entry preparations have been completed. Paragraph (e)(6) requires the employer to retain each canceled entry permit for at least one year; any problems encountered during an entry operation must be noted on the pertinent permit so that revisions to the permit space program can be made.

Section 1910.146(g)(4) requires that the employer certify that the training required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) has been accomplished by preparing a written certification record.

Section 1910.146(h)(3) requires the employer to ensure that all authorized entrants communicate with the attendant as necessary to enable the attendant to monitor entrant status and to enable the attendant to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the space as required by paragraph (l)(6) of the Standard. Section 1910.146(h)(4) requires the employer to ensure that all authorized entrants alert the attendant whenever the entrant recognizes any warning sign or symptom of exposure to a dangerous situation (paragraph ((h)(4)(i)), or the entrant detects a prohibited condition (paragraph (h)(4)(ii)).

Section 1910.146(i)(5) requires the employer to ensure that each attendant communicate with authorized entrants as necessary to monitor entrant status and to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the space under the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(6)(i)-(i)(6)(iv) of the Standard. Section 1910.146(i)(7) requires the employer to ensure that the attendant summon rescue and other emergency services as soon as the attendant determines that authorized entrants may need assistance to escape from permit space hazards. Section 1910.146(i)(8) requires that the employer ensure that the attendant warn unauthorized persons that they must stay away from the permit space (paragraph (i)(8)(i)); advise unauthorized persons that they must exit immediately if they have entered the permit space (paragraph (i)(8)(ii)); and inform authorized entrants and the entry supervisor if unauthorized persons have entered the permit space (paragraph (i)(8)(iii)).

Section 1910.146(j)(2) requires the employer to ensure that each entry supervisor verifies, by checking that the appropriate entries have been made on the permit, that all tests specified by the permit have been conducted and that all procedures and equipment specified by the permit are in place before endorsing the permit and allowing entry to begin.

Section 1910.146(k)(1)(i) requires the employer to evaluate a prospective rescuer's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified; Section 1910.146(k)(1)(ii) requires the employer to evaluate a prospective rescue service's ability, in terms of proficiency with rescue-related tasks and equipment, to function appropriately while rescuing entrants from the particular permit space or types of permit spaces identified. Section 1910.146(k)(1)(iv) requires that the employer inform each rescue team or service of the hazards they may confront when called on to perform rescue at the site. Section 1910.146(k)(1)(v) requires that the employer provide the rescue team or service selected with access to all permit spaces from which rescue may be necessary so that the rescue service can develop appropriate rescue plans.

Section 1910.146(k)(4) requires that if an injured entrant is exposed to a substance for which a “Material Safety Data Sheet” (MSDS) [now referred to as an SDS (Safety Data Sheet)] or other similar written information is required to be kept at the worksite, that the employer make the MSDS or written information available to the medical facility treating the exposed entrant.

Section 1910.146(l)(1) requires that employers consult with affected employees and their authorized representatives on the development and implementation of all aspects of the permit space program required by paragraph (c). Section 1910.146(l)(2) requires that employers make all information required to be developed by this section available to affected employees and their authorized representatives.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the collection of information requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 78,602 burden hours (from 1,433,443 to 1,512,045 burden hours). The Agency's estimates, based on updated data, that the number of establishments and workers affected by the Standard have decreased; however, this reduction is partially off-set by the inclusion of burden hours and costs associated with the newly-identified collection of information requirement related to annual review of the written permit space entry program and cancelled permits.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Permit-Required Confined Spaces (29 CFR 1910.146).

OMB Number: 1218-0203.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 1,303,846.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Total Responses: 7,977,651.

Average Time per Response: Varies from one minute (.02 hour) to maintain a certificate to 16 hours to develop a written permit-space entry program.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,512,045.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0858). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The information collection requirements in the Hazard Communication Standard ensure that the hazards of chemicals produced or imported are evaluated, and that information concerning these hazards is transmitted to downstream employers and their workers. The Hazard Communication Standard requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate chemicals they produce or import to determine if they are hazardous; for those chemicals determined to be hazardous, they must develop safety data sheets and warning labels. Employers are required to establish hazard communication programs to transmit information on the hazards of chemicals to their workers by means of labels on containers, safety data sheets, and training programs.

Implementation of these collection of information requirements will ensure that workers understand the hazards and identities of the chemicals to which they are exposed; thereby, reducing the incidence of chemically-related occupational illnesses and injuries.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; 1926.59; and 1928.21). The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 4,195,553 burden hours (from 10,689,248 hours to 6,493,695 hours). The burden hour decrease is primarily due to removing burden hours for employers completing revisions to their Safety Data Sheets and deleting time associated with employers becoming familiar with the Hazard Communication Standard. The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; 1926.59; and 1928.21).

OMB Number: 1218-0072.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 2,161,311.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Total Responses: 56,821,535.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 12 seconds for establishments to label an in-plant container to 8 hours for manufacturers or importers to conduct a hazard determination.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,493,695.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $25,015,143.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0014). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled “ADDRESSES.” The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

The information collection requirements specified in the 13 Carcinogens Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to the 13 carcinogens. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard: establishing and implementing a medical surveillance program for workers assigned to enter regulated areas; informing workers of their medical examination results; and providing workers with access to their medical records. Further, employers must retain worker medical records for specified time periods and make them available upon request to OSHA and NIOSH.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003). The Agency is requesting an increase of 21 burden hours to 1,493 hours. The increase is a result of the increased number of establishments affected by the standard from 95 to 97. The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).

OMB Number: 1218-0085.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 97.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; annually.

Total Responses: 2,195.

Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from approximately 5 minutes (for employers to allow employee access to records) to 2 hours (for worker medical surveillance).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,493.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $106,720.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0860). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) was enacted on December 19, 2014. FITARA outlines specific requirements related to:

To implement the requirements of FITARA, combined with the need to update policy and guidance related to other modern IT practices, OMB is establishing this guidance. This guidance reflects input from a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO), Assistant Secretaries for Management (ASAM), and Chief Operating Officers (COOs) communities.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1353) requires that the applicable federal agencies, working through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and the Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD) Program, develop a Federal cybersecurity research and development strategic plan. The strategic plan is to be delivered to Congress by the end of 2015.

On behalf of NITRD, the Cyber Security and Information Assurance Research and Development Senior Steering Group (CSIA R&D SSG) seeks public input in several areas identified by the Act and regarding the current federal priorities in cybersecurity research and development (R&D). Responders are asked to answer one or more of the following questions:

1. Section 201 (a)(1) of the Act identifies a number of cybersecurity objectives. What scientific, technological, or implementation gaps are indicated by those objectives? What research goals, for both basic and applied research, could serve as guidance for a federally-funded, multi-agency portfolio of R&D activities to close those gaps?

2. What innovative, transformational technologies have the potential to enhance the security, reliability, resiliency, and trustworthiness of the digital infrastructure, and to protect consumer privacy?

3. Discuss how the Federal government can foster the rapid transfer of R&D results into new cybersecurity technologies and applications for the timely benefit of society and the national interest.

4. Discuss how the current research infrastructure for creating, testing, and evaluating the next generation of secure networking and information technology systems could be improved, including how the access by academic researchers to this infrastructure and related data could be improved.

In 2011, the Government released “Trustworthy Cyberspace: Strategic Plan for the Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development Program” (http://www.nitrd.gov/subcommittee/csia/fed_cybersecurity_rd_strategic_plan_2011.pdf) outlining objectives for federally-funded research to fundamentally improve the security, safety, and trustworthiness of the nation's digital infrastructure. The 2011 Strategic Plan defined five promising areas where research could make fundamental, game-changing advances in improving the security and trustworthiness of cyberspace: Tailored Trustworthy Spaces, Moving Target, Cyber Economic Incentives, Designed-In Security, and Science of Security. The challenges and objectives described in the 2011 Strategic Plan remain pertinent and will be incorporated into the new Strategic Plan. The following questions are directed at the 2011 Strategic Plan:

5. What areas of research or topics of the 2011 Strategic Plan do not need to be prioritized anymore for federally-funded research (because, for example, solutions are now sufficiently mature, or the private sector is now significantly invested in addressing the deficiencies)?

6. What areas of research or topics of the 2011 Strategic Plan should continue to be a priority for federally-funded research and need continued federal R&D investments?

7. What challenges or objectives not included in the 2011 Strategic Plan should be a strategic priority for federally-funded R&D in cybersecurity? Discuss what new capabilities would be desired, what objectives should guide such research, and why those objectives should be a strategic priority.

Page limitation: Submissions must be 25 pages or less.

Comments can be submitted by any of the following methods:

(a) Email: [email protected].

(b) Fax: (703) 292-9097, Attn: Cybersecurity Research and Development.

(c) Mail: Attn: Cybersecurity Research and Development, NCO, Suite II-405, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

Deadline for submission under this RFI is June 19, 2015.

Responses to this RFI may be posted online at http://www.nitrd.gov. The CSIA R&D SSG therefore requests that no business proprietary information or copyrighted information be submitted in response to this RFI.

In accordance with FAR 15.202(3), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI.

Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on April 22, 2015.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0032 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0032.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15076A451.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected].

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0032 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

1. The title of the information collection: Requests to Agreement States for Information.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0029.

3. Type of submission: Revision.

4. The form number, if applicable: Not applicable.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Thirty-Seven Agreement States who have signed Section 274(b) Agreements with the NRC.

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 421.8 responses.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 37.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 3,374.4 hours.

10. Abstract: The NRC is seeking to revise this information collection to be a plan for a generic collection of information. The need and practicality of the collection can be evaluated, but the details of the specific individual collections will not be known until a later time. The Agreement States will be asked on a one-time or as-needed basis to respond to a specific incident, to gather information on licensing and inspection practices or other technical information. The results of such information requests, which are authorized under Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, will be utilized in part by the NRC in preparing responses to Congressional inquiries.

The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the St. George Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).

On April 20, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the St. George Airport submitted by the City of St. George meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The following is a brief overview of the request:

The City of St. George is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on the remaining approximate 223 acres of the former airport. A 40 acre parcel of airport property had previously been released by an instrument of release dated June 11, 2013. Physical constraints of the airport site required the construction and opening of the Replacement Airport in 2011, approximately 15 miles to the east. The former St. George Airport was decommissioned on January 15, 2011. The former airport is no longer needed for aviation purposes and the release is to allow for the sale of the property so the proceeds from the sale can be used towards payment of the City's share of the costs associated with the Replacement Airport. The property will be sold as the market improves, at fair market value. Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the St George Airport.

The overall safety of railroad operations, including shipments of hazardous materials, has improved in recent years. However, the July 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, demonstrates the potentially catastrophic consequences of a railroad accident resulting in the sudden release of large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids. Since that accident, there have been a number of derailments with subsequent fires and evacuations in the United States involving trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids (specifically, crude oil and ethanol). Although none of the recent derailments in this country have resulted in the tragic loss of life that occurred as a result of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, recent events have led DOT and FRA to thoroughly evaluate and address the unique risks associated with the growing reliance on trains to transport large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids.

For example, in the last two years, DOT (including FRA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)) has taken numerous actions to address the safe transportation by rail of Class 3 flammable liquids. Among other actions, DOT has issued three emergency orders 1 and several safety advisories, reached voluntary agreements with the railroad industry,2 and undertaken several separate rulemaking proceedings to address the transportation and handling of trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids. Notably, PHMSA, in cooperation with FRA, is nearing completion of a comprehensive final rule that will enhance the safe transportation of large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids by rail. The final rule will build on proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the HM-251 rulemaking proceeding (79 FR 45016, Aug. 1, 2014).3 The final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866 on February 5, 2015 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public). A chronology of various DOT actions to address safe transportation of flammable liquids is listed on PHMSA's Internet Web site.4

Despite ongoing efforts by DOT, the railroad industry, tank car manufacturers, and other interested parties, the United States has experienced the derailment of several trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids (i.e., “high-hazard flammable trains” or HHFTs) over just the past three months. (For purposes of this Safety Advisory a HHFT is a train comprised of 20 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid in a continuous block or 35 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid across the entire train.) These incidents occurred in Iowa, West Virginia, and Illinois. FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that the recent derailment in Illinois may have occurred as a result of a wheel break occurring on a railroad tank car loaded with petroleum crude oil.

The following is an overview of the circumstance surrounding the most recent notable derailment involving a HHFT. The probable cause of this derailment has not yet been established by FRA. Accordingly, nothing in this Safety Advisory is intended to attribute a definitive cause(s) to this incident, or to place responsibility for the incident on the acts or omissions of any specific person or entity.

On March 5, 2015, an eastbound BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) train consisting of 103 tank cars loaded with Bakken crude oil (petroleum crude oil, UN 1267, 3, PG I) derailed near Galena, Illinois, resulting in a fire. The train was traveling from North Dakota to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The train was traveling at an approximate speed of 23 mph when 21 loaded tank cars derailed. As a result of the derailment, petroleum crude oil was released and a fire ensued. Seven cars experienced catastrophic thermal tears, three cars released product through their bottom outlet valves, and two cars released product from their top fittings. The derailment occurred in a rural area only a few hundred feet from the Mississippi River. FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that a broken wheel on one of the loaded tank cars in the train may have caused the derailment.

In addition to the above-described incident, previous publicized derailments resulting in releases of crude oil or ethanol and/or resulting fires have occurred with increasing frequency (e.g., Dubuque, Iowa; Mt. Carbon, West Virginia; Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; Lynchburg, Virginia; Columbus, Ohio; Cherry Valley, Illinois; Arcadia, Ohio; New Brighton, Pennsylvania). Since February 2015, an additional three incidents occurred in Ontario, Canada, two of which involved HHFTs.

In light of FRA's preliminary findings with respect to the Galena, Illinois derailment (described further below), FRA believes that further industry action is necessary to ensure public safety. One area that FRA believes needs further industry consideration is the general mechanical condition of the equipment used in HHFTs. Thus, FRA is issuing this Safety Advisory to recommend that railroads take certain actions to ensure the safe mechanical condition of the tank cars used in HHFTs to prevent or identify defects that could lead to derailments.

As discussed above, the most recent crude oil derailment occurred in March near Galena, Illinois. FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that a broken wheel on a tank car loaded with petroleum crude oil may have caused that derailment. Federal railroad safety regulations prohibit the use of railroad freight cars with certain wheel defects. 49 CFR 213.103. For example, flat spots on any freight car wheel that exceeds 2.5″ in length, or with two adjoining flat spots, each of which is more than two inches in length, would prohibit that car from being placed in a train and transported. 49 CFR 215.103(f). This safety requirement is intended to prevent derailments and damage to other mechanical or track components that might occur as a result of moving a railroad car with flat spots in a wheel(s).

With regard to wheels with flat spots, wheels with that particular defect impact the rail each time the flat portion of the wheel meets the rail as the wheel rotates. Flat spots or other wheel defects (built up tread) cause freight car wheels to be out-of-round and may ultimately cause a wheel to break. Further, excessive wheel impacts caused by out-of-round wheels can cause rails to crack or break. Track defects are one of the leading causes of derailments. Several other notable derailments involving large quantities of flammable liquids that have occurred in this country so far this year (near Dubuque, Iowa and Mt. Carbon, West Virginia, respectively) are believed to have been track-caused, as was the 2014 crude oil train derailment that occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia. FRA is not asserting that these incidents were caused by flat spots on wheels or other mechanical defects, but only that that wheel defects can cause derailments and can damage track to the point that a rail breaks and causes a derailment. FRA's intent in publishing this Safety Advisory is to address the mechanical condition of tank cars used in HHFTs to avoid or identify mechanical defects that may lead to derailments, regardless of whether the ultimate cause of an accident is the result of a mechanical, track, or other defect.

Technology has enabled railroads to use additional means to learn of defects to freight cars and railroad track structures than were previously available. In relation to the issues in this Safety Advisory, the use of wayside detectors has specifically enabled railroads to identify certain wheel defects and prevent derailments before they occur. For example, hot wheel/box detectors have long been used to alert railroads and their train crews about potential wheel or axle problems while a train is enroute, such that the train can be inspected and cars with dangerous conditions removed from the train. Railroads also employ Wheel Impact Load Detectors (WILD) along their rights of way. These detectors identify wheels on a railcar that may have flat spots or other defects before a wheel can cause damage to railroad track structures.5

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has established industry-wide standards regarding how freight cars with wheels that have peak vertical load (kips) above certain thresholds should be handled. See e.g., 2015 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules. AAR guidance (Rule 41) states that when a freight car's wheel registers an impact on a wayside WILD of 65 kips or more, that the car's owner receives notification of that reading. When a wheel registers from 80 to 89 kips on a WILD, that wheel is condemnable and may be replaced when the car is on a shop or repair track for any other reason. Any wheel that registers over 90 kips is condemnable and may be replaced at any time. FRA also understands that some railroads have adopted procedures that set an additional upper threshold whereby a reading above a certain level (140 kips) would require the train in which the car is traveling to be stopped, and the car removed from the train to be repaired immediately before further movement. FRA's investigation of the recent incident near Galena, Illinois indicates that the train in question had passed over a WILD within approximately 130 miles before derailing. It appears that the car that potentially caused the derailment registered 83.87 kips on that WILD (while another car in the train registered 96 kips). A month earlier, on February 2, 2015, the car that potentially caused the derailment also registered over 80 kips while passing over two separate WILDs. Under AAR interchange rules, the option existed for the car to have had a problematic wheel replaced when the car was next on a repair track, while the car that registered 96 kips could have continued in transportation but been replaced at any time.

FRA continues to encourage the industry to implement this type of advanced wayside detection equipment and applauds the industry for its continued efforts to utilize the technology across the rail network. However, in light of the significant increases in the amount of Class 3 flammable liquids being transported by rail over the last few years and because wheel defects are known not only to cause derailments but also to cause significant damage to rails, FRA is recommending that railroads (and AAR via amendment to its interchange rules) lower the impact threshold for action to replace the wheels on any car in a HHFT specified below. FRA is recommending adjustment to the following threshold levels:

• 60 kips—issue maintenance advisory for the affected car;

• 70 kips—change the wheel at the tank car's next visit to a repair or shop track;

• 80 kips—condemn the wheel and replace at the first opportunity; and

• 120 kips—immediately stop the train to inspect the wheel and remove the car from service at the first available location.

FRA believes that in light of the significant increase in the number of HHFTs and the catastrophic consequences that can result when one of these trains experience a derailment, the industry needs to provide special attention to the mechanical condition of the tank cars being hauled in these trains. This is especially important while newer, more robust tank car standards are being developed. The adjustments recommended above may enable railroads to identify and replace wheel defects that could cause derailments much sooner than under the existing industry guidelines. FRA also continues to encourage the installation of additional WILD and other wayside detectors that might help prevent train derailments.

FRA is aware that the speed at which a train travels over a WILD may impact the readings that are generated (e.g., a car traveling at lower speed may result in a much lower WILD reading than when the same car travels over a WILD at a higher speed). However, railroads should not operate HHFTs over a WILD below normal operating speeds to avoid an elevated WILD reading. FRA also encourages railroads to use electronic data interchange so that a railroad transporting a tank car in an affected train would have access to WILD readings generated by other railroads that have previously transported that car.

Another area FRA believes industry could address to ensure the safe mechanical condition of rail cars used in HHFTs is mechanical inspections. Existing Federal railroad safety regulations that address mechanical and inspection requirements for freight cars are primarily found in 49 CFR parts 215 and 232. To detect mechanical defects such as wheels defects (before trains depart a terminal or point of origin) railroads are required to inspect railroad freight cars prior to transporting them in a train. 49 CFR 215.13. These inspections are referred to as pre-departure inspections and are typically performed by a designated inspector under § 215.11. Section 215.11 requires that a designated inspector demonstrate the knowledge and ability to inspect railroad freight cars to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 215, including the ability to detect wheel defects under § 215.103. However, if a designated inspector is not on duty, a railroad may use another person, often a train crew member, to perform an abbreviated inspection intended to detect readily discoverable defects (such as a cracked or broken wheel). These inspections are often referred to as “Appendix D” inspections. See appendix D to 49 CFR part 215.

In light of recent derailments involving HHFTs and the potential consequences of any future derailments, FRA is recommending that any HHFT traveling long distances have a pre-departure inspection performed by a designated inspector. Designated inspectors are typically mechanical employees. Unlike train crew members or other railroad employees, designated inspectors' duties primarily relate to the detection and remedy of mechanical defects on railroad rolling equipment. FRA believes that designated inspectors are better trained, equipped, and experienced to detect mechanical defects on rail cars that may lead to derailments than railroad employees whose duties primarily involve other tasks, such as operating trains. Thus, FRA believes safety is improved by using only designated inspectors to perform pre-departure inspections of HHFTs.

In addition to the required pre-departure inspection that is performed on trains to determine compliance with part 215, trains also must undergo an air-brake and other mechanical-related inspections prior to transportation under 49 CFR part 232. In 2001, FRA promulgated a final rule (66 FR 4104) that established minimum inspection standards for “extended haul” trains that travel long distances (up to 1,500 miles). 49 CFR 232.213. Railroads typically use the standards in § 232.213 to identify, inspect, and operate unit trains that travel long distances across the United States, such as coal trains and high priority intermodal trains. FRA believes that trains can be transported safety over such long distances if, among other requirements, quality mechanical inspections are performed to ensure that all air brakes in a train are operative at the point of origin, and that no mechanical defects exist prior to the train's departure. As explained in the final rule, § 232.213 contains “stringent inspection requirements, both brake and mechanical, by highly qualified inspectors” that ensure the safety of trains operated over long distances under that section's requirements. 66 FR 4121.

The brake inspection applicable to an extended haul train must be performed by a “qualified mechanical inspector” (QMI) as defined by § 232.5, while the part 215 inspection is required to be performed by a designed inspector under § 215.11 as discussed above. A QMI is required to receive instruction and training on the “troubleshooting, inspection, testing, maintenance or repair of the specific train brake components and systems for which the person is assigned responsibility.” 49 CFR 232.5. FRA believes that QMIs (versus other employees such as train crew members) possess the skill to perform high quality inspections and can identify defective conditions, know how those defects might affect other parts of the freight car's brake or mechanical systems, and know how such defects might be caused. 66 FR 4148.

In evaluating the recent incidents involving HHFTs, many of the trains were traveling uninterrupted (such as for reclassification at a yard) for long distances. For example, the recent crude oil derailments have involved trains transporting product from its source in North Dakota to refineries on the coasts—in some instances distances of well over 1,000 miles. FRA recognizes that many railroads already move these long distance trains as extended haul trains and conduct the mechanical and brake inspections discussed above. To assure the safety of HHFTs that might travel long distances, FRA recommends that such trains receive mechanical and brake inspections conducted by QMIs and designated inspectors. FRA believes that having these critical inspections conducted by highly qualified inspectors at the point where such trains are initiated will help ensure the safe mechanical condition of these trains.

In seeking the appropriate approach to ensuring safety, FRA has also limited the recommendations in this Safety Advisory to HHFTs only and would have applied to all of the recent incidents described above. This threshold ensures that FRA is focusing on the highest risk shipments and not unnecessarily making safety-related recommendations that would impose undue burdens on lesser risks that do not represent the same safety and environmental concerns. However, FRA also supports additional safety-related inspections or measures that railroads wish to adopt, irrespective of commodity being hauled or the type of operation.

Recommended Railroad Action: In light of the above discussion, FRA recommends for any HHFT that railroads:

(1) Continue to install and maintain Wheel Impact Load Detectors (WILD) along routes traveled by affected trains, and adjust the existing industry standards for actions to be taken when wayside WILDs detect an impact above a certain threshold for an affected train. If a railroad receives notification of a wheel impact for a car in an affected train above the below-listed thresholds, at a minimum, take the following actions:

• 60 kips—issue maintenance advisory to the car owner of the affected car;

• 70 kips—change the wheel at the tank car's next movement onto a repair or shop track;

• 80 kips—condemn the wheel and replace it at the first opportunity; and

• 120 kips—immediately stop the train to inspect the wheel and remove the car from service at the first available location.

(2) Conduct initial terminal brake inspections by qualified mechanical inspectors as defined in 49 CFR 232.5 and conduct freight car inspections at initial terminals with designated inspectors under 49 CFR 215.11 for any affected train that will travel 500 miles or more from its initial terminal to destination.

FRA encourages railroad industry members to take actions that are consistent with the preceding recommendations and to take other complementary actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's railroad employees. FRA may modify this Safety Advisory, issue additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate actions necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursuing other corrective measures under its rail safety authority.