Upon request, BIS will initiate an investigation to determine the effects of imports of specific commodities on the national security, and will make the findings known to the President for possible adjustments to imports through tariffs. The findings are made publicly available and are reported to Congress. The purpose of this collection is to account for the public burden associated with the surveys distributed to determine the impact on national security.

Collected electronically or on paper.

OMB Control Number: 0694-0120.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission, extension of a current information collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time per Response: 7 hours, 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This information collection is comprised of two rarely used short supply activities: “Registration Of U.S. Agricultural Commodities For Exemption From Short Supply Limitations On Export (USAG)”, and “Petitions For The Imposition Of Monitoring Or Controls On Recyclable Metallic materials; Public Hearings (Petition).” These activities are statutory in nature and, therefore, must remain a part of BIS's information collection budget authorization.

Collected electronically or on paper.

OMB Control Number: 0694-0102.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.

Estimated Time per Response: USAG, 1 hour; Petition, 200 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 201.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

I. Abstract

This collection of information is required by the Export Administration Regulations and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) were established to advise and assist the U.S. Government on export control matters. Under this collection, interested parties may submit a request to BIS to establish a new TAC. BIS provides administrative support for these Committees.

Collected electronically or on paper.

OMB Control Number: 0694-0100.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Background

On May 25, 2000, the Department published notice of the Order in the Federal Register . 2 On July 2, 2014, Toray requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b) to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Woongjin for purposes of the antidumping duty order. We received no comments from other interested parties.

The product covered by the order is certain PSF. Certain PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to the order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture.

Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from the order. Also specifically excluded from the order are PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from the order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of these orders is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from, an interested party for a review of an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department determines that the information submitted by Toray constitutes sufficient evidence to conduct a changed circumstances review of the Order.

In a changed circumstances review involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. 3 While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. 4 Thus, if the record demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. 5

Based on the information provided in its submission, Toray provided sufficient evidence to warrant a review to determine if it is the successor-in-interest to Woongjin. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a changed circumstances review. However, the Department finds it is necessary to issue a questionnaire requesting additional information regarding changes in management and information regarding the company's customer base, as provided for by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2). For that reason, the Department is not conducting this review on an expedited basis by publishing preliminary results in conjunction with this notice of initiation. The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). That notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

During the course of this changed circumstances review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the merchandise subject to review. The cash deposit will only be altered, if warranted, pursuant to the final results of this review.

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

Title of Collection: Teacher Training Initiative (TTI) Local Education Agencies (LEA) Partnership Application.

OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

Type of Review: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number).

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal governments (Local Education Agencies).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 200.

Abstract: The Bureau plans to seek Office of Management and Budget approval to collect application information from LEAs interesting in partnering with the Bureau to design and implement a model for training K-12 teachers to teach and/or incorporate financial education concepts in their curriculum. The goal of the Initiative is to identify ways to improve and sustain youth financial capabilities by training and supporting teachers at the LEA-level to teach relevant financial concepts. Additional information may be obtained as described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552; DD Form 149; OMB Control Number 0704-0003.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is necessary for all Service personnel (current and former Service members) to apply to their respective Military Department Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) for a correction of an error or injustice in their military records under Title 10, United States Code § 1552. The BCMRs of the Military Departments are the highest administrative boards and appellate review authorities in the Services for the resolution of military personnel disputes. The Military Department Secretaries, acting through the BCMRs, have broad powers and are duty bound to correct records if an error or injustice exists. The range of issues includes, but is not limited to, awards, clemency petitions (of courts-martial sentences), disabilities, evaluation reports, home of record, memoranda of reprimands, promotions, retirements, separations, survivor benefit plans, and titling decisions by law enforcement authorities. Information collection is needed to provide current and former Service members with a method through which to request correction of a military record and to provide the Services with the basic data needed to process the request.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 20,785.

Number of Respondents: 41,570.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 41,570.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Under Title 10 United States Code Section 1552, Active Duty and Reserve Component Service members, Coast Guard, former Service members, their lawful or legal representatives, spouses of former Service members on issues of Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) benefits, and civilian employees with respect to military records other than those related to civilian employment, who feel that they have suffered an injustice as a result of error or injustice in military records may apply to their respective Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) for a correction of their military records. These Boards are the highest level appellate review authority in the military. The Service member submits to the respective BCMR a DD Form 149, “Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1552.” The DD Form 149 was devised to standardize applications to the BCMRs. This information is used to identify and secure the appropriate official military and medical records from the appropriate records storage facilities. Information on the form is used by the Military Department BCMRs to identify the issues and arguments raised by applicants, identify any counsel representing applicants, and determine if the applicants filed their petitions within the three-year statute of limitations established by Congress. Disclosure is voluntary; however, failure to provide requested information may result in a denial of an application. An applicant's Social Security Number is used to retrieve these records and links to the member's official military personnel file and pay record.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 293; OMB Control Number 0704-0004.

Needs and Uses: Former members of the Armed Forces who received an administrative discharge have the right to appeal the characterization or reason for separation. Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 1553, and DoD Directive 1332.28 established a Board of Review consisting of five members to review appeals of former members of the Armed Forces. The DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, provides the respondent a vehicle to present to the Board their reasons/justifications for a discharge upgrade as well as providing the Services the basic data needed to process the appeal.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 7,500.

Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 10,000.

Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

Frequency: One-time.

Under Title 10 U.S. Code, section 1553, the Secretary of a Military Department established a Board of Review, consisting of five members, to review appeals of former members of the Armed Forces. This information collection allows an applicant to request a change in the type of military discharge issued. Applicants are former members of the Armed Forces who have been discharged or dismissed (other than a discharge or dismissal by sentence of a general court-martial), or if the former member is deceased or incompetent, the surviving spouse, next-of-kin, or legal representative who is acting on behalf of the former members. The DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, provides the former member an avenue to present to their respective Service Discharge Review Board their reasons and justifications for a discharge upgrade as well as providing the Military Department the basic data needed to process the appeal.

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. This notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

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. Seating is on a first-come basis.

The purpose of the September 10, 2014 meeting is to review new start research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1 million over the proposed length of the project as required by the SERDP Statute, U.S. Code—Title 10, Subtitle A, Part IV, Chapter 172, § 2904. The full agenda follows:

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board. Written statements may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to an approved meeting agenda.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board. The DFO will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database at http://www.facadatabase.gov/ .

Time is allotted at the close of each meeting day for the public to make comments. Oral comments are limited to 5 minutes per person.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Use of Government Sources by Contractors, and related clause in Part 252; OMB Control Number 0704-0252.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 3,500.

Responses per Respondent: 3.

Annual Responses: 10,500.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately .5 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 5,250.

Needs and Uses: This information collection permits contractors to place orders from Government supply sources, including Federal Supply Schedules, requirements contracts, and Government stock. The information submitted enables DoD to evaluate whether a contractor is authorized to place such orders.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit entities 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 Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) part 223, Occupational Safety and Drug-Free Work Force, and related clauses in DFARS 252.223; OMB Control Number 0704-0272.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 1,519.

Responses per Respondent: 9.

Annual Responses: 13,507.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately .7 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 675,079 (9,448 response hrs + 665,631 recordkeeping hrs).

Number of Recordkeepers: 12,255.

Average Annual Burden per Recordkeeper: 54.3 hours.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requires that an offeror or contractor submit information to DoD in response to DFARS solicitation provisions and contract clauses relating to occupational safety and drug-free work force. DoD contracting officers use this information to—

○ Verify compliance with requirements for labeling of hazardous materials;

○ Ensure contractor compliance and monitor subcontractor compliance with DoD 4145.26-M, DoD Contractors' Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives, and minimize risk of mishaps;

○ Identify the place of performance of all ammunition and explosives work; and

○ Ensure contractor compliance and monitor subcontractor compliance with DoD 5100.76-M, Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives.

In addition, this information collection requires DoD contractors to maintain records regarding drug-free work force programs provided to contractor employees. The information is used to ensure reasonable efforts to eliminate the unlawful use of controlled substances by contractor employees.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit entities 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 Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Evaluation Factor for Use of Members of the Armed Forces Selected Reserve; OMB Control Number 0704-0446.

Type of Request: Reinstatement.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 100.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 100.

Needs and Uses: In accordance with section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163), the contracting officer may use an evaluation factor that considers whether an offeror intends to perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve. When such an evaluation factor is used, the contracting officer includes the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, Evaluation Factor for Employing or Subcontracting with Members of the Selected Reserve, to require offerors to provide documentation to support any proposal to use employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve in performance of any resultant contract. This information is required to enable the contracting officer to properly evaluate the offer against the evaluation criteria.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit entities 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 Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Small Business Programs; OMB Control Number 0704-0386.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 41.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 41.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 41.

Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to improve administration under the small business subcontracting program and to evaluate a contractor's past performance in complying with its subcontracting plan.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit entities 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 Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

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

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office plans to support the continued increase of sustainably produced domestic bioenergy from renewable feedstocks. This Request for Information (RFI) is directed at landscape design approaches for integrating cellulosic bioenergy feedstock production into existing agricultural and forestry systems in a way that maintains or improves environmental sustainability—specifically, greenhouse gas mitigation, water quality, water quantity, soil quality, air quality, and biodiversity. “Landscape design” refers to a spatially explicit plan for resource allocation and management that meets multiple desired objectives including environmental (maintains or enhances ecosystem services), social (is acceptable to relevant stakeholders), and economic (maintains or improves livelihoods and landowner profitability). DOE is seeking information on cost-effective, feasible approaches for testing the landscape design approach for increasing bioenergy feedstock production at a watershed, multi-landowner, or comparable spatial scale through a combination of modeling, data collection, field research, and engagement with landowners and other relevant stakeholders. DOE is specifically interested in information on appropriate experimental designs for assessing comprehensive environmental sustainability indicators, potential barriers to implementing landscape design, approaches for assessing needed feedstock logistic systems, and possible projects to test landscape design approaches for bioenergy systems on the landscape.

This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). EERE is not accepting applications for funding project proposals.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(l)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its decision and order as set forth below. The decision and order denies Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) a waiver from the applicable residential refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1 and appendix A for certain basic models of its Keg Beer Coolers, Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers and Hotel Refrigerators and Ultra-Compact Hotel Refrigerators, as applicable. Under today's decision and order, FSI must continue to use the applicable DOE test procedure found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1 and appendix A.

Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).

In the Matter of: Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) (Case No. RF-038)

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of this notice. 1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is currently set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1. That procedure will be superseded by a new Appendix A contained in the same part and subpart. Manufacturers are required to use Appendix A starting in September 2014.

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27, which were recently amended, contain provisions that enable a person to petition DOE to obtain a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered products. See 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014) (revising 10 CFR 430.27, effective June 9, 2014). (DOE notes that while the previous version of 10 CFR 430.27 was effective at the time of FSI's submission, the substantive aspects of this regulation have not been changed by the May 9th rule.) A person may petition for a waiver from the test procedure requirements that would ordinarily apply to a particular basic model covered under DOE's regulations when (1) the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1) (noting that a person may petition to waive for a particular basic model any requirements of 10 CFR 430.23 or of “any appendix” under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics.

The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. See 10 CFR 430.27(l) (prior to June 9, 2014) and 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2) (effective June 9, 2014). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m) (prior to June 9, 2014). See also 10 CFR 430.27(h) (effective June 9, 2014).

Any interested person who has submitted a petition for waiver may also file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

On December 12 and 17, 2013, FSI submitted two separate petitions for waiver from the test procedure applicable to residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A and A1. The December 12th petition, which was accompanied by a request for an interim waiver that DOE denied, sought a waiver from appendices A1 and A with respect to the following specific product and model lines—Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, SBC590OS, and SBC635M), Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers (Models ALBF44 and ALBF68), and Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 and HTL3). 2 The December 17th petition, which was not accompanied by a request for an interim waiver, sought a waiver from the upcoming test procedure requirements in appendix A, which will be required to be used starting in September 2014, for the following specific product and model lines—Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC490B and SBC570R), Assisted Living Refrigerators (Models FF71TB, FF73, FF74, AL650R, ALB651BR, AL652BR, ALB653BR, CT66RADA, CT67RADA, AL750R, ALB751R, AL752BR, and ALB753LBR), and Ultra-Compact, Hotel Refrigerators (Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, and FFAR2H). FSI did not contend in either petition that the products at issue have a design characteristic preventing the testing of any of the affected models. FSI also asserted generally that a denial of its waiver request would result in economic hardship.

With respect to the technical aspects of its petition, FSI asserted that its products could not be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. In particular, it asserted that the DOE test procedures for residential refrigeration products (both the current Appendix A1 and the new Appendix A that will be mandatory beginning on September 15, 2014) require that FSI's products be tested under conditions that would not, in its view, yield a fair and accurate representation of the actual energy use of its products. FSI stated that DOE's procedure (both current and future) require an ambient temperature of 90 °F, which would, in FSI's view, yield results that would not accurately reflect the energy use of its products during normal use.

The 90 °F ambient temperature condition simulates the effects of door openings and closings, which are not performed during testing. See 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10) (explaining that “[t]he intent of the energy test procedure is to simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 °F (21 °C)) with door openings, by testing at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door openings.”). As FSI pointed out, this particular aspect of the procedure, which has been widely accepted by industry, has been in place for at least 30 years. See, e.g. FSI Petition at 3 (Dec. 12, 2013). FSI contended that the products addressed by its waiver petitions will be sold for uses where door openings and closings are highly infrequent. As a result, in its view, testing these products in accordance with the required DOE test procedure conditions, which are based on long-accepted industry-based testing standards, would result in measurements of energy use that are unrepresentative of the actual energy use of its products when considering the conditions of expected use by consumers.

As an alternative to the DOE test procedure, FSI submitted an alternate test procedure to account for the energy consumption of its products. That procedure would test these units at 70 °F or 72 °F over a 24-hour period instead of the required 90 °F ambient temperature condition. In FSI's view, using this alternate test procedure will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of its products.

On March 17, 2014, DOE published FSI's petitions for waiver in their entirety. That notice also denied FSI's request for an interim waiver from the test procedure. 79 FR 14686. In explaining its denial of FSI's interim waiver request, DOE indicated that FSI's petition provided insufficient information for DOE to determine whether the alternative test procedure that FSI proposed to use would be likely to provide a measurement of the energy use of these products that is representative of their operation under conditions of expected consumer use. Since DOE had found it unlikely that FSI's waiver petition would be granted and had determined that it was not desirable for public policy reasons to grant FSI with immediate relief, DOE declined to grant an interim waiver and sought additional information on the underlying basis for FSI's proposed alternative. In seeking comments on FSI's proposal, DOE noted that the existing test procedures in appendices A (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers) and B (freezers) to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as well as recent test procedure waivers, contain a method for addressing certain types of products for which less frequent door openings occur. See 79 FR at 14688. Specifically, the test procedure for residential freezers, which continues to apply a 90 °F ambient temperature during testing, applies an adjustment factor to account for the relatively fewer expected door openings of upright and chest freezers, each of which has a corresponding adjustment factor for the overall energy use.

DOE received a single comment in response to the March 17th notice. That comment, a submission from FSI dated April 14, 2014, disagreed with DOE's decision to deny FSI's interim waiver. In support of its position, FSI restated the general position expressed in its petition regarding the less frequent door openings it expected its products to experience, which it believed justified its claim that testing at 90 °F would result in measurements of energy consumption that were not representative of its products' energy use. FSI further stated that if DOE were to deny FSI's waiver request, it would be less able to plan its product selection, marketing, and sales programs and would be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared with larger multinational appliance manufacturers. FSI also indicated that if its products were to be forced off the market, the hotel industry may increasingly turn to more consumptive products such as those that rely on thermoelectric or absorption cooling.

To support its view, FSI cited several studies preceding DOE's recent efforts to update and revise its test procedures that evaluated the representativeness of the 90 °F test condition. While some of the studies do indicate that the 90 °F test condition is an imperfect approximation of the additional thermal loading imposed by the door openings expected during typical consumer use, the extent to which the findings can be generalized to all products covered by DOE standards on a national basis is limited in several respects. For example, some studies were based on a relatively small sample of products (e.g., one study used only two units), others were based on in situ (i.e., on-site) test conditions that may not be representative at a national level (e.g., one study only evaluated homes in Florida), and not all studies relied on testing conducted in a manner consistent with the DOE test in respects other than that 90 °F test condition (e.g., one study tested the units with spacing to the wall behind the unit closer than DOE requires). FSI also cited results from its own testing of the products that are the subject of the petition. FSI claimed that its test data demonstrate that the 90 °F test condition is not appropriate. (FSI did not submit any of the reports from this testing.) These various pieces of information, however, do not substantiate FSI's claim that its products experience fewer door openings during actual use or that its suggested alternate temperature conditions would be appropriate in this context.

DOE notes that it first adopted the 90 °F ambient test condition in 1977 after conducting a public notice and comment proceeding to discuss the merits of a proposed test procedure that included the possibility of adopting the 90 °F ambient temperature condition or a higher one. See 42 FR 46140, 46142 (Sept. 14, 1977) (rejecting adoption of a 104 °F ambient test condition in favor of 90 °F). DOE explained the basis for selecting this temperature condition in its proposal leading to that final rule by noting in part that the selected temperature is designed to compensate for door openings when they occur and a correction factor can be applied “when appropriate.” 42 FR 21584, 21586 (April 27, 1977). Further, the industry's more recent efforts at revising and updating the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers have continued to consistently apply the 90 °F ambient condition during testing. These industry efforts culminated in the development of the current version of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers' Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, HRF-1-2008 (“HRF-1”), which DOE has incorporated by reference into its regulations. See 77 FR 3559 (Jan. 25, 2012) and 79 FR 22320 (April 21, 2014). That industry procedure continues to rely on the 90 °F ambient condition during testing. See HRF-1, sec. 1.2. The continued reliance on this ambient condition indicates that it continues to provide materially accurate comparative data that are representative of the true energy consumption characteristics of the various categories of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

In view of the substantial amount of effort and analysis conducted both by the industry and DOE regarding the appropriateness of applying a 90 °F ambient condition, the supporting information offered by FSI does not provide a sufficient basis for permitting the use of an alternative procedure for the particular products addressed in FSI's petition. Additionally, the limited information provided by FSI (i.e. summary results without supporting data) does not indicate that its alternative testing approach would be appropriate.

FSI also cited the requirement in EPCA that DOE's “test procedures be reasonably designed to measure energy consumption representatively and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” DOE notes that the complete text of this section, found at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), states that “any test procedures prescribed under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary.” Emphasis added.

In DOE's view, adopting FSI's alternative testing method would prevent DOE from providing a test procedure that would meet the statutory requirement prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293. The already prescribed 90 °F ambient condition has been substantially vetted and accepted by the refrigeration industry for decades and is widely viewed as being reasonably designed to produce results that measure the energy use and efficiency of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers—such as those at issue in FSI's petitions—during a representative average use cycle or period of use. Given this background, and the limited supporting data offered by FSI in favor of an alternative test procedure, DOE cannot conclude that a waiver is appropriate with respect to FSI's request.

Lastly, FSI asserted that it would suffer unnecessary economic hardship and financial burdens if it is not granted a test procedure waiver. DOE notes that the criteria for granting a waiver, in contrast to an interim waiver, do not weigh the potential economic hardships that a particular applicant may claim are likely to occur. Notwithstanding this fact, FSI provided no financial details following the publication of its petition that would demonstrate the extent of any economic hardship or impact that would have enabled DOE to further evaluate the merits of FSI's claim. And as indicated in DOE's earlier notice denying FSI's request for an interim waiver, the company did not provide sufficient information for DOE to evaluate its claim. See 79 FR at 14688. Accordingly, DOE cannot provide FSI with the relief it seeks under its claims of economic hardship.

As DOE stated previously in its March 2014 notice, FSI's waiver petition did not provide DOE with sufficient information to establish that FSI's alternative test procedure would evaluate its models in a manner that is representative of their actual energy use under conditions of expected consumer use. Since it did not appear likely that FSI's petition for waiver would be granted as submitted and that it is not desirable for public policy reasons to grant FSI immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver, DOE declined to grant FSI's request for an interim waiver and sought comment from stakeholders and the public on the merits of FSI's proposed alternative test method. While FSI submitted comments disagreeing with DOE's decision, those comments did not provide sufficient justification for DOE to change its decision in light of the issues discussed above. However, should FSI or other interested stakeholders raise this issue in the context of a test procedure rulemaking or revised petition for waiver, DOE may consider the adoption of an alternative approach such as an appropriate adjustment factor to reassess the situation presented by FSI. At this time, however, given the absence of sufficient information, DOE cannot grant FSI's petition for waiver as requested.

Thus, by this decision and order, DOE denies FSI's waiver request from the applicable residential refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A-1 and appendix A for the following basic models:

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, SBC590OS, and SBC635M);

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers (Models ALBF44 and ALBF68); and

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 and HTL3).

DOE is also denying FSI's waiver request from the applicable residential refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A for the following basic models:

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC490B and SBC570R);

• Assisted Living Refrigerators (Models FF71TB, FF73, FF74, AL650R, ALB651BR, AL652BR, ALB653BR, CT66RADA, CT67RADA, AL750R, ALB751R, AL752BR, and ALB753LBR); and

• Ultra-Compact, Hotel Refrigerators (Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, and FFAR2H).

Under today's decision and order, FSI must test its specific models of its Keg Beer Coolers, Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers and Hotel Refrigerator variants using the DOE test procedure found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A-1 and, when, applicable, the test procedure found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.

This is a notice of an administrative settlement agreement for recovery of past response costs pursuant to section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.

In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR Part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs), as set forth in 40 CFR Part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR Part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs.

The EPA hereby announces the designation of a new reference method for measuring pollutant concentrations of particulate matter as PM 10 in the ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR Part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011(76 FR 54326-54341).

The new reference method for PM 10 is a manual monitoring method based on a particular, commercially available PM 10 sampler, as specified in appendix J 40 CFR part 50. The newly designated reference method is identified as follows:

The application for reference method determination for the PM 10 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on May 28, 2014. This monitor is commercially available from the applicant, Tisch Environmental, Inc., 145 S. Miami Avenue, Village of Cleves, OH 45002.

Test monitors representative of this method have been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted in the application, EPA has determined, in accordance with Part 53, that this method should be designated as a reference method. The information in the application will be kept on file, either at EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or in an approved archive storage facility, and will be available for inspection (with advance notice) to the extent consistent with 40 CFR Part 2 (EPA's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act).

As a designated reference method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, the method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the applicable designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program” EPA-454/B-08-003, December, 2008. Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR Part 58.

Consistent or repeated noncompliance should be reported to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

Designation of this new reference method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR Part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0219, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets .

The registrant and products subject to this NOITS are listed in Table 1. A NOITS was sent to each registrant of the affected products via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), first class mail, return receipt requested. The NOITS was received by Repar Corporation on or before May 19, 2014, as evidenced by a USPS Return Receipt Card. Based on that receipt date, the 30-day deadline for Repar making a timely hearing request was June 18, 2014. The June 18, 2014 deadline passed without Repar filing a hearing request in response to the NOITS. As a result, Repar's affected product registrations were suspended by operation of law.

The registrant failed to submit the data or information required by the Data-Call In Notice, or to take other appropriate steps to secure the required data for their pesticide products listed in Table 2 of this unit.

1. You may avoid suspension under this notice if you or another person adversely affected by this notice properly request a hearing within 30 days of your receipt of the NOITS by mail or, if you did not receive the notice that was sent to you via USPS first class mail return receipt requested, then within 30 days from the date of publication of this Federal Register notice (see DATES ). If you request a hearing, it will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of FIFRA section 6(d) and the Agency's procedural regulations in 40 CFR part 164. Section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA, however, provides that the only allowable issues which may be addressed at the hearing are whether you have failed to take the actions which are the bases of this notice and whether the Agency's decision regarding the disposition of existing stocks is consistent with FIFRA. Therefore, no substantive allegation or legal argument concerning other issues, including but not product, may be considered in the proceeding. The Administrative Law Judge shall by order dismiss any objections which have no bearing on the allowable issues which may be considered in the proceeding. Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of FIFRA provides that any hearing must be held and a determination issued within 75 days after receipt of a hearing limited to the Agency's original decision to require the submission of data or other information, the need for or utility of any of the required data or other information or deadlines imposed, any allegations of errors or unfairness in any proceedings before an arbitrator, and the risks and benefits associated with continued registration of the affected request. This 75-day period may not be extended unless all parties in the proceeding stipulate to such an extension. If a hearing is properly requested, the Agency will issue a final order at the conclusion of the hearing governing the suspension of your products. A request for a hearing pursuant to this notice must:

• Include specific objections which pertain to the allowable issues which may be heard at the hearing.

• Identify the registrations for which a hearing is requested.

• Set forth all necessary supporting facts pertaining to any of the objections which you have identified in your request for a hearing.

An additional copy should be sent to the person who signed this notice. The request must be received by the Hearing Clerk by the applicable 30-day deadline as measured from your receipt of the NOITS by mail or publication of this notice, as set forth in DATES and in Unit IV.1., in order to be legally effective. The 30-day time limit is established by FIFRA and cannot be extended for any reason. Failure to meet the 30-day time limit will result in automatic suspension of your registration(s) by operation of law and, under such circumstances, the suspension of the registration for your affected products will be final and effective at the close of business on the applicable 30-day deadline as measured from your receipt of the NOITS by mail or publication of this notice, as set forth in DATES and in Unit IV.1., and will not be subject to further administrative review. The Agency's rules of practice at 40 CFR 164.7 forbid anyone who may take part in deciding this case, at any stage of the proceeding, from discussing the merits of the proceeding ex parte with any party or with any person who has been connected with the preparation or presentation of the proceeding as an advocate or in any investigative or expert capacity, or with any of their representatives. Accordingly, the following EPA offices, and the staffs thereof, are designated as judicial staff to perform the judicial function of EPA in any administrative hearings on this NOITS: The Office of the Administrative Law Judges, the Office of the Environmental Appeals Board, the EPA Administrator, the EPA Deputy Administrator, and the members of the staff in the immediate offices of the EPA Administrator and EPA Deputy Administrator. None of the persons designated as the judicial staff shall have any ex parte communication with trial staff or any other interested person not employed by EPA on the merits of any of the issues involved in this proceeding, without fully complying with the applicable regulations.

2. You may also avoid suspension if, within the applicable 30-day deadline period as measured from your receipt of the NOITS by mail or publication of this notice, as set forth in DATES and in Unit IV.1., the Agency determines that you have taken appropriate steps to comply with the FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) DCI notice. In order to avoid suspension under this option, you must satisfactorily comply with Table 2.—List of Requirements in Unit II., for each product by submitting all required supporting data/information described in Table 2 of Unit. II. and in the Explanatory Appendix (in the docket for this Federal Register notice) to the following address (preferably by certified mail): Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

For you to avoid automatic suspension under this notice, the Agency must also determine within the applicable 30-day deadline period that you have satisfied the requirements that are the bases of this notice and so notify you in writing. You should submit the necessary data/information as quickly as possible for there to be any chance the Agency will be able to make the necessary determination in time to avoid suspension of your products. The suspension of the registrations of your company's products pursuant to this notice will be rescinded when the Agency determines you have complied fully with the requirements which were the bases of this notice. Such compliance may only be achieved by submission of the data/information described in Table 2 of Unit II.

Your products will remain suspended, however, until the Agency determines you are in compliance with the requirements which are the bases of this notice and so informs you in writing.

After the suspension becomes final and effective, the registrant subject to this notice, including all supplemental registrants of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., may not legally distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. Persons other than the registrant subject to this notice, as defined in the preceding sentence, may continue to distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. Nothing in this notice authorizes any person to distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. in any manner which would have been unlawful prior to the suspension.

If the registrations for your products, listed in Table 1 of Unit II., are currently suspended as a result of failure to comply with another FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) DCI notice or Section 4 Data Requirements notice, this notice, when it becomes a final and effective order of suspension, will be in addition to any existing suspension, i.e., all requirements which are the bases of the suspension must be satisfied before the registration will be reinstated.

It is the responsibility of the basic registrant to notify all supplementary registered distributors of a basic registered product that this suspension action also applies to their supplementary registered products. The basic registrant may be held liable for violations committed by their distributors.

Any questions about the requirements and procedures set forth in this notice or in the subject FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) DCI notice, should be addressed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Agency's authority for taking this action is contained in FIFRA sections 3(c)(2)(B) and 6(f)(2), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.

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

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 4 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 or 24(c). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.

Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register canceling all of the affected registrations.

Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register .

Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II. have not requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 180-day comment period on the proposed requests.

Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register . Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

National Drinking Water Advisory Council: The Council was created by Congress on December 16, 1974, as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300j-5 and is operated in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The Council consists of 15 members, including a Chairperson, all of whom are appointed by the EPA's Administrator. Five members represent appropriate State and local agencies concerned with water hygiene and public water supply; five members represent private organizations or groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of water hygiene and public water supply—of which two such members shall be associated with small, rural public water systems; and five members represent the general public. The current list of members is available on the EPA Web site at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/.

The Council will meet in person once each year and may hold a second meeting during the year either in person or by video/teleconferencing. These meetings generally occur in the spring and fall. Additionally, members may be asked to participate in ad hoc workgroups to develop policy recommendations, advice letters and reports to address specific program issues.

Member Nominations: Any interested person and/or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific representation required by the SDWA for the current vacancies: State and local agencies concerned with water hygiene and public water supply (one vacancy); private organizations or groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of water hygiene and public water supply—of which two such members shall be associated with small, rural public water systems (two vacancies with at least one associated with small, rural public water systems); and the general public (three vacancies). Other criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:

• Demonstrated experience with drinking water issues at the national, State or local level;

• Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication and consensus-building skills;

• Willingness to commit time to the Council and demonstrated ability to work constructively on committees;

• Absence of financial conflicts of interest;

• Absence of appearance of a lack of impartiality; and

• Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the Council, e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations and other considerations.

Nominations must include a resume, which provides the nominee's background, experience and educational qualifications, as well as a brief statement (one page or less) describing the nominee's interest in serving on the Council and addressing the other criteria previously described. Nominees are encouraged to provide any additional information that they feel would be useful for consideration, such as: availability to participate as a member of the Council; how the nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of the Council; and any concerns the nominee has regarding membership. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, current business address, email and telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations.

Persons selected for membership will receive compensation for travel and a nominal daily compensation (if appropriate) while attending meetings. Additionally, all selected candidates will be designated as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be required to fill out the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special Government Employees” (EPA Form 3310-48). This confidential form provides information to the EPA ethics officials to determine whether there is a conflict between the SGE's public duties and their private interests, including an appearance of a loss of impartiality as defined by Federal laws and regulations. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the EPA NDWAC Web site, http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/fact.cfm.

Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees. To help the EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.

Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collection of information:

Title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection With Regulation Z (Truth in Lending).

OMB Number: 3064-0082.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: State nonmember banks and state savings associations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8796.

Total Annual Burden: 2,371,008 hours.

General Description of Collection: Regulation Z, issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, prescribes uniform methods of computing the cost of credit, disclosure of credit terms, and procedures for resolving billing errors on certain credit accounts.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Principal Campaign Committees

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Virginia Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 23, 2014; and a Post-General Report on December 4, 2014. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)

Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2014 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Virginia Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)

Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Virginia Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Additional disclosure information in connection with the Virginia Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,300 during the special election reporting periods (see chart below for closing date of each period). 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v) and (b).

Presolicitation notices are used by the Government for several reasons, one of which is to aid prospective contractors in submitting proposals without undue expenditure of effort, time, and money. The Government also uses the presolicitation notices to control printing and mailing costs. The presolicitation notice response is used to determine the number of solicitation documents needed and to assure that interested offerors receive the solicitation documents. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing. After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record.

Respondents: 5,310.

Responses per Respondent: 8.

Annual Responses: 42,480.

Hours per Response: .08.

Total Burden Hours: 3,398.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice and Response, in all correspondence.

Executive Order (E.O.) 13627, entitled Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts, dated September 25, 2012 (77 FR 60029, October 2, 2012) and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013) strengthen the long standing zero-tolerance policy of the United States regarding Government employees and contractor personnel engaging in any form of trafficking in persons.

Additional protections are required where the estimated value of the supplies (other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items) to be acquired outside the United States, or the services to be performed, outside the United States has an estimated value that exceeds $500,000. These protections include the following: (a) The contractor is required to implement and maintain a compliance plan during the performance of the contract that includes an awareness program, a process for employees to report activity inconsistent with the zero-tolerance policy, a recruitment and wage plan, a housing plan, and procedures to prevent subcontractors from engaging in trafficking in persons; and (b) The contractor is required to submit a certification to the contracting officer prior to receiving an award, and annually thereafter, asserting that it has the required compliance plan in place and that there have been no abuses, or that appropriate actions have been taken if abuses have been found. The compliance plan must be provided to the contracting officer upon request, and relevant portions of it must be posted at the workplace and on the contractor's Web site. Additionally, contractors are required to flow these requirements down to any subcontracts where the estimated value of the supplies acquired or the services required to be performed outside the United States exceeds $500,000.

Three respondents submitted public comments on the new information collection. The analysis of the public comments is summarized as follows:

Comment: Several respondents commented that the four hour estimate per contract to prepare and submit an annual certification underestimates the burden because it does not take into consideration the time required to monitor, detect and terminate any agent subcontractors or subcontractor employees who have engaged in trafficking in persons at all tiers.

Response. The Councils performed a detailed analysis and believe that the certification process should require minimal additional attention if a company is taking the time required to maintain a sound compliance plan. Therefore, the Councils have not increased the estimated number of burden hours.

Comment. One respondent commented that the 24 hour estimate to prepare the compliance plan underestimates the burden.

Response. The Councils performed detailed analysis taking into account many factors. The estimated burden associated with writing the compliance plan takes into consideration that this is one-time, to be updated, as necessary, to align with the size, scope and complexity of later procurements. The Councils have not increased the estimate.

Respondents: 120.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 120.

Hours per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 120.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-00XX, in all correspondence.

Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.223-2, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts, requires prime contractors to report annually the product types and dollar values of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-designated biobased products purchased to the System for Award Management (SAM) Web site. The information reported by prime contractors enables Federal agencies to report annually to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) concerning actions taken to implement and measure progress in carrying out the preference for biobased products required under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8102.

A reassessment of 52.223-2 was preformed. Based on the comprehensive reassessment performed, this information collection resulted in an increase in the total burden hours from the previous information collection that was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 81940 on December 29, 2011. Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) was searched to determine the number of unique DUNS numbers for the following selected Product Services Codes: A-Research and Development; F-Natural Resources Management; J-Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of Equipment; M-Operation of Government-Owned Facility; S-Utilities and Housekeeping Services; T-Photographic, Mapping, Printing, and Publication Services; Y-Construction of Structures and Facilities; and Z-Maintenance, Repair or Alteration of Real Property. The clause will apply to the majority of the contract actions in the selected PSCs. The increase is likely a result of increased awareness of the biobased requirements and use of the contract clause in service and construction contracts.

Respondents: 64,123.

Responses per Respondent: 5.

Hours per Response: 5.

Total Burden Hours: 1,603,075.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0180, Biobased Procurements, in all correspondence.

The FAR requires certain information to be provided by contractors which would enable the Government to make payments under the contract by electronic fund transfer (EFT). The information necessary to make the EFT transaction is specified in clause 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Central Contractor Registration, which the contractor is required to provide prior to award, and clause 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Other than Central Contractor Registration, which requires EFT information to be provided as specified by the agency to enable payment by EFT.

Respondents: 14,000.

Responses per Respondent: 10.

Annual Responses: 140,000.

Hours per Response: .5.

Total Burden Hours: 70,000.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0144, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer, in all correspondence.

Pursuant to Sections 301. The Office of Policy and Planning is the program office for this award.

Justification: IOM is a nonprofit organization and is part of the National Academy of Sciences. IOM undertakes studies that may be specific mandates from Congress or requested by federal agencies and independent organizations.

IOM has an established Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events. The Forum held a panel on Long-term Recovery of the Healthcare Service Delivery Infrastructure in February 2012 during the 2012 Public Health Preparedness Summit in Anaheim, California. The Forum's purpose is to foster dialogue among stakeholders, identify opportunities for public/private collaboration, and identify and address issues relevant to public health and medical preparedness. IOM is part of the National Academies, which also has an established Disasters Roundtable. The Disasters Roundtable holds workshops three times per year on topics often relevant to recovery partners. IOM is uniquely positioned to be able to not only identify relevant partners and stakeholders but also garner their participation in the proposed activities because of their existing structures and established reputation.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: All written comments must be 15 days after posting of this announcement. Please submit comments at asprgrants@hhs.gov .

The challenge is authorized by Public Law 111-358, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES Act).

Subject of Challenge Competition:

Entrants of the Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge will be asked to submit two point-in-time measures of the hypertension control rate for the practice's or health system's hypertensive population. One measure is for the previous 12 month period and the second for the previous 12 to 24 months. Entrants will also be asked to provide the prevalence of hypertension in their population and describe the sustainable systems used by the practice or health system that support continued improvements in blood pressure control and some population characteristics.

Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition:

To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity—

(1) Shall have completed the nomination form in its entirety to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by HHS/CDC;

(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements in this section and;

a. Be a U.S. licensed clinician, practicing in any U.S. setting, who provides continuing care for adult patients with hypertension. The individual must be a citizen or permanent resident of the U.S.

b. Or be a U.S. incorporated medical practice, defined as any practice with two or more U.S. licensed clinicians who by formal arrangement share responsibility for a common panel of patients, practice at the same physical location or street address, and provide continuing medical care for adult patients with hypertension;

c. Or be a health system, incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the U.S. that provides continuing medical care for adult patients with hypertension. We encourage large health systems (those that are comprised of a large number of geographically dispersed clinics and/or have multiple hospital locations) to consider having one or a few of the highest performing clinics or regional affiliates apply individually instead of the health system applying as a whole;

(3) Must treat all adult patients with hypertension in the practice seeking care, not a selected subgroup of patients;

(4) Must have a data management system (electronic or paper) that allows HHS/CDC or their contractor to check data submitted;

(5) Must treat a minimum of 500 adult patients annually and have a hypertension control rate of at least 70%;

(6) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment;

(7) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during assigned duty hours;

(8) Shall not be an employee or contractor at CDC;

(9) Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award and specifically requested to do so due to competition design;

(10) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge;

(11) Must agree to participate in a data validation process to be conducted by a reputable independent contractor. To the extent applicable law allows, data will be kept confidential by the contractor and will be shared with the CDC in aggregate form only i.e., the hypertension control rate for the practice not individual hypertension values;

(12) Individual nominees and individuals in a group practice must be free from convictions or pending investigations of criminal and health care fraud offenses such as felony health care fraud, patient abuse or neglect; felony convictions for other health care-related fraud, theft, or other financial misconduct; and felony convictions relating to unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of controlled substances as verified through the Office of the Inspector General List of Excluded Individuals and Entities. http://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/background.asp. Individual nominees must be free from serious sanctions, such as those for misuse or mis-prescribing of prescription medications. Such serious sanctions will be determined at the discretion of the agency consistent with CDC's public health mission. CDC's contractor may perform background checks on individual clinicians or medical practices.

(13) Health systems must have a written policy in place that conducts periodic background checks as described in (12) on all providers and takes appropriate action accordingly. In addition, a health system background check will be conducted by CDC or a CDC contractor that includes a search for The Joint Commission sanctions and current investigations for serious institutional misconduct (e.g., attorney general investigation). CDC's contractor may also request the policy and any supporting information deemed necessary.

(14) Champions previously recognized through the 2013 Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge retain their designation as a “Champion” and are not eligible to be named a Champion in the 2014 challenge.

(15) Must agree to accept the prize and be recognized if selected and agree to participate in an interview to develop a success story that describes the systems and processes that support hypertension control among patients. Champions will be recognized on the Million Hearts® Web site. Strategies used by Champions that support hypertension control may be written into a success story, placed on the Million Hearts® Web site, and attributed to Champions.

An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equal basis.

By participating in this challenge, an individual or organization agrees to assume any and all risks related to participating in the challenge. Individuals or organizations also agree to waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, when participating in the challenge, including claims for injury; death; damage; or loss of property, money, or profits, and including those risks caused by negligence or other causes.

By participating in this challenge, individuals or organizations agree to protect the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to challenge activities.

Individuals or organizations are not required to hold liability insurance related to participation in this challenge.

Federal organizations will be offered a simultaneous opportunity to participate in a separate but similar challenge, and will be eligible for recognition only. No cash prize will be awarded.

Registration Process for Participants:

To participate, interested parties will navigate to www.millionhearts.hhs.gov. On this site, nominees will find the rules and guidelines for participating as well as access to the entry form. Information required of the nominees on the nomination form includes:

• The size of the nominee's adult patient population, a summary of known patient demographics (e.g., age distribution), and any noteworthy patient population characteristics.

• The number of the nominee's adult patients who were seen during the past year and had a hypertension diagnosis (i.e., hypertension prevalence).

• The nominee's current hypertension control rate for their hypertensive population. In addition, the hypertension control rate during the previous year is required. In determining the hypertension control rate, CDC defines “hypertension control” as a blood pressure reading <140 mmHg systolic and <90 mmHg diastolic among patients with a diagnosis of hypertension. Million Hearts® supports use of the National Quality Forum (NQF) Measure #0018 for controlling high blood pressure or similar definitions. Details about NQF 0018 can be found at http://www.qualityforum.org/QPS/0018 .

• Sustainable clinic systems or processes that support hypertension control. These may include provider or patient incentives, dashboards, staffing characteristics, electronic record keeping systems, reminder or alert systems, clinician reporting, service modifications, etc.

The hypertension control rate should be for the provider's or health system's entire adult hypertensive patient population, not limited to a sample. Examples of ineligible data submissions include hypertension control rates that are limited to treatment cohorts from research studies or pilot studies, patients limited to a specific age range (such as 18-35), or patients enrolled in limited scale quality improvement projects.

The estimated burden for completing the nomination form is 30 minutes.

Amount of the Prize:

Up to a total of 20 of highest scoring individual clinicians, clinical practices or health systems will be recognized as Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Champions and will receive a cash award of $2,000. A maximum of $40,000 will be awarded in this challenge.

Payment of the Prize:

Prizes awarded under this challenge will be paid by electronic funds transfer and may be subject to Federal income taxes. HHS will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.

Basis Upon Which Winner Will Be Selected:

The nomination will be scored based on hypertension control rate (95% of score); and sustainable systems in the practice that support hypertension control (5% of score).

Nominees with the highest score will be required to participate in a two-phase process to verify their data. Nominees who are non-compliant or non-responsive with the data requests or timelines will be removed from further consideration. Phase 1 includes verification of the hypertension prevalence and blood pressure control rate data submitted and a background check. For nominees whose Phase 1 data is verified as accurate, phase 2 consists of a medical chart review. National Quality Forum Measure #0018 for controlling high blood pressure will be used to evaluate the submitted data. Details about NQF 0018 can be found at http://www.qualityforum.org/QPS/0018.

A CDC-sponsored panel of three to five experts consisting of HHS/CDC staff will review the nominations that pass the verification to select Champions. Final selection will take into account all the information from the nomination form, the background check, and data verification. Geographic location and population treated may be used to break ties in the event of tie scores at any point in the selection process.

Some Champions will participate in a post-challenge telephone interview. The interview will include questions about the strategies employed by the individual or organization to achieve high rates of hypertension control, including barriers and facilitators for those strategies. The interview will focus on systems and processes and should not require preparation time by the Champion. The estimated time for the interview is two hours, which includes time to review the interview protocol with the interviewer, respond to the interview questions, and review a summary data about the Champion's practices. The summary will be written as a success story and will be posted on the Million Hearts® Web site.

Additional Information:

Information received from nominees will be stored in a password protected file on a secure server. The challenge Web site may post the number of nominations received but will not include information about individual nominees. The database of information submitted by nominees will not be posted on the Web site. Information collected from nominees will include general details, such as the business name, address, and contact information of the nominee. This type of information is generally publically available. The nomination will collect and store only aggregate clinical data through the nomination process; no individual identifiable patient data will be collected or stored. Confidential or propriety data, clearly marked as such, will be secured to the full extent allowable by law.

Information for selected Champions, such as the provider, practice, or health system's name, location, hypertension control rate, and clinic practices that support hypertension control will be shared through press releases, the challenge Web site, and Million Hearts® and HHS/CDC resources.

Summary data on the types of systems and processes that all nominees use to control hypertension may be shared in documents or other communication products that describe generally used practices for successful hypertension control. HHS/CDC will use the summary data only as described.

Compliance With Rules and Contacting Contest Winners:

Finalists and Champions must comply with all terms and conditions of these official rules, and winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein. The initial finalists will be notified by email, telephone, or mail after the date of the judging.

Privacy:

Personal information provided by entrants on the nomination form through the challenge Web site will be used to contact selected finalists. Information is not collected for commercial marketing. Winners are permitted to cite that they won this challenge.

The names, cities, and states of selected Champions will be made available in promotional materials and at recognition events.

General Conditions:

The HHS/CDC reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the challenge, or any part of it, for any reason, at HHS/CDC's sole discretion.

Award Approving Official: Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice announces a meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel). Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish an advisory panel if the Secretary determines that the panel is “in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed . . . by law.” Such duties are imposed by section 1804 of the Social Security Act (the Act), requiring the Secretary to provide informational materials to Medicare beneficiaries about the Medicare program, and section 1851(d) of the Act, requiring the Secretary to provide for “activities . . . to broadly disseminate information to [M]edicare beneficiaries . . . on the coverage options provided under [Medicare Advantage] in order to promote an active, informed selection among such options.”

The Panel is also authorized by section 1114(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a). The Secretary signed the charter establishing this Panel on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) and approved the renewal of the charter on December 18, 2012 (78 FR 32661, May, 31, 2013).

Pursuant to the amended charter, the Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concerning optimal strategies for the following:

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

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, providers, and stakeholders pursuant to education and outreach programs of issues regarding these and other health coverage 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 the Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.

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

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

• Drawing the program link 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 prevention services, envisioned under health care reform.

The current members of the Panel are: Samantha Artiga, Principal Policy Analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation; Joseph Baker, President, Medicare Rights Center; Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Philip Bergquist, Manager, Health Center Operations, CHIPRA Outreach & Enrollment Project and Director, Michigan Primary Care Association; Marjorie Cadogan, Executive Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services; Jonathan Dauphine, Senior Vice President, AARP; Barbara Ferrer, Executive Director, Boston Public Health Commission; Shelby Gonzales, Senior Health Outreach Associate, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities; Jan Henning, Benefits Counseling & Special Projects Coordinator, North Central Texas Council of Governments' Area Agency on Aging; Louise Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Miriam Mobley-Smith, Dean, Chicago State University, College of Pharmacy; Ana Natale-Pereira, Associate Professor of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Associate Medical Director, Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island; Megan Padden, Vice President, Sentara Health Plans; Jeanne Ryer, Director, New Hampshire Citizens Health Initiative, University of New Hampshire; Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Winston Wong, Medical Director, Community Benefit Director, Kaiser Permanente and Darlene Yee-Melichar, Professor & Coordinator, San Francisco State University.

The agenda for the September 12, 2014 meeting will include the following:

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Narrative Report from States and Units of Local Government is required by federal statute and regulation, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, Title II, Subtitle D, Part 2, Sections 261 to 265, Payments to States and Units of Local Government to Assure Access for Individuals with Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 15421-25). The report is provided in writing to the Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities. Each State or Unit of Local Government must prepare and submit an annual report at the end of every fiscal year. The report addresses the activities conducted with the funds provided during the year. The information collected from the annual report will be aggregated into an annual profile of how States have utilized the funds and establish best practices for election officials. It will also provide an overview of the State election goals and accomplishments and permit the Administration on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities to track voting progress to monitor grant activities. ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 55 Chief Election officials respond annually which should be an average burden of 20 hours per State per year or a total of 2,750 hours for all states annually.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341) directs FDA to issue regulations establishing definitions and standards of identity for food “[w]henever . . . such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. . . .” Under section 403(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(g)), a food that is subject to a definition and standard of identity prescribed by regulation is misbranded if it does not conform to such definition and standard of identity. Section 130.17 (21 CFR 130.17) provides for the issuance by FDA of temporary marketing permits that enable the food industry to test consumer acceptance and measure the technological and commercial feasibility in interstate commerce of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and standards of identity. Section 130.17(c) enables the Agency to monitor the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable definitions and standards of identity. The information so obtained can be used in support of a petition to establish or amend the applicable definition or standard of identity to provide for the variations. Section 130.17(i) specifies the information that a firm must submit to FDA to obtain an extension of a temporary marketing permit.

In the Federal Register of June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32556), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

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

The estimated number of temporary marketing permit applications and hours per response is an average based on our experience with applications received for the past 3 years and information from firms that have submitted recent requests for temporary marketing permits. Based on this information, we estimate that there will be, on average, approximately 13 firms submitting requests for 2 temporary marketing permits per year over the next 3 years.

Thus, we estimate that 13 respondents will submit 2 requests for temporary marketing permits annually under § 130.17(c). The estimated number of respondents for § 130.17(i) is minimal because this section is seldom used by the respondents; therefore, the Agency estimates that there will be one or fewer respondents annually with two or fewer requests for extension of the marketing permit under § 130.17(i). The estimated number of hours per response is an average based on the Agency's experience and information from firms that have submitted recent requests for temporary marketing permits. We estimate that 13 respondents each will submit 2 requests for temporary marketing permits under § 130.17(c) and that it will take a respondent 25 hours per request to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 650 hours. We estimate that one respondent will submit two requests for extension of its temporary marketing permits under § 130.17(i) and that it will take a respondent 2 hours per request to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 4 hours.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

LUPRON DEPOT-PED (leuprolide acetate for depot suspension), Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED (leuprolide acetate for depot suspension), Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, are the subject of NDA 020263, held by Abbvie Endocrine, Inc., and initially approved on April 16, 1993. LUPRON DEPOT-PED is indicated for treatment of children with central precocious puberty.

In a report dated January 30, 1999, Abbvie notified FDA that LUPRON DEPOT-PED (leuprolide acetate for depot suspension), Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED (leuprolide acetate for depot suspension), Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, were being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug products to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

Joan Janulis, on behalf of Lachmann Consultant Services, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated November 4, 2013 (Docket No. FDA-2013-P-1510), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; or LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that the products were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; and LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 3.75 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial; or LUPRON DEPOT-PED, Injectable 7.5 mg/vial and 7.5 mg/vial, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the following persons listed in table 1:

FDA is requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in table 2:

Chronic pain is a major public health problem that is estimated to affect more than 100 million people in the United States and about 20 to 30 percent of the population worldwide. The prevalence of persistent pain is expected to rise in the near future as the incidence of associated diseases (including diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disorders, arthritis, and cancer) increases in the aging U.S. population.

Opioids are powerful analgesics that are commonly used and found to be effective for many types of pain. However, opioids can produce significant side effects, including constipation, nausea, mental clouding, and respiratory depression, which can sometimes lead to death.

In addition, long-term opioid use can also result in physical dependence, making it difficult to discontinue use even when the original cause of pain is no longer present. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that long-term opioid use for pain can actually produce a chronic pain state, whereby patients find themselves in a vicious cycle in which opioids are used to treat pain caused by previous opioid use.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the prescribing of opioids by clinicians has increased threefold in the last 20 years, contributing to the problem of prescription opioid abuse. Today, the number of people who die from prescription opioids exceeds the number of those who die from heroin and cocaine, combined.

Health care providers are in a difficult position when treating moderate to severe chronic pain; opioid treatments may lessen the pain, but may also cause harm to patients. Additionally, there has not been adequate testing of opioids in terms of what types of pain they best treat, in what populations of people, and in what manner of administration. With insufficient data, and often inadequate training, many clinicians prescribe too much opioid treatment when lesser amounts of opioids or non-opioids would be effective. Alternatively, some health care providers avoid prescribing opioids altogether for fear of side effects and potential addiction, causing some patients to suffer needlessly.

The 2014 “NIH Pathways to Prevention Workshop: The Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain” will seek to clarify:

• Long-term effectiveness of opioids for treating chronic pain;

• Potential risks of opioid treatment in various patient populations;

• Effects of different opioid management strategies on outcomes related to addiction, abuse, misuse, pain, and quality of life;

• Effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for opioid treatment; and

• Future research needs and priorities to improve the treatment of pain with opioids.

The workshop is sponsored by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention and the NIH Pain Consortium.

Initial planning for each Pathways to Prevention workshop is coordinated by a Working Group that nominates panelists and speakers and develops and finalizes questions that frame the workshop. After finalizing the questions, an evidence report is prepared by an Evidence-based Practice Center through a contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). During the one-and-one-half-day workshop, invited experts discuss the body of evidence, and attendees have opportunities to provide comments during open discussion periods. After weighing evidence from the evidence report, expert presentations, and public comments, an unbiased, independent panel will prepare a draft report that identifies research gaps and future research priorities. The draft report is posted on the ODP Web site, and public comments are accepted for two weeks. The final report is then released approximately two weeks later.

Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comprehensive conservation plan policy, and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), we, the Service, announced the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (draft CCP/EA) for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Winston, and Noxubee Counties, Mississippi, for public review and comment. This announcement published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2014 (79 FR 44188). However, edits had not yet been completed on the draft CCP/EA; therefore, the draft CCP/EA is not yet ready for public review. We will publish a second Federal Register notice when the draft CCP/EA is ready for review, and open a comment period.

This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public teleconference of the Joint Implementation Working Group (Working Group) for the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (Strategy). The Working Group is made up of the Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce), other Federal natural resource agencies, and State and tribal wildlife partners. The purpose of the Strategy is to inspire and enable natural resource professionals and other decision makers to take action to conserve the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and ecosystem functions, as well as the human uses and values these natural systems provide, in a changing climate. At this meeting, the working Group will review the first Strategy Implementation Progress Report, discuss future approaches to implementation, hear comments from stakeholders, and make plans for the Fall-2014 in-person meeting.

The adverse impacts of climate change transcend political and administrative boundaries. No single entity or level of government can safeguard wildlife and society against the effects of climate change. In cooperation with our co-leaders—NOAA, other Federal natural resource agencies, State wildlife agencies, and tribal partners—we announced publication of the strategy on April 1, 2013 (78 FR 19514). The Strategy presents a unified approach—reflecting shared principles and science-based practices—for reducing the negative impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, our natural resource heritage, and the communities and economies that depend on them. The Strategy provides a basis for sensible actions that can be taken now, in spite of the uncertainties that exist about the precise impacts of climate change. It also provides guidance about what further actions are most likely to promote natural resource adaptation to climate change, and describes mechanisms that will foster collaboration for effective action among all levels of government, conservation organizations, and private landowners.

Please visit the Strategy Web site at http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov to download a copy of the Strategy or Strategy Highlights brochure, or to obtain additional background on the development of the Strategy.

Please note that future meetings of the Working Group will be announced only on the Web site.

• Co-chair remarks and updates.

• Review of Agenda.

• Preview of NFWPCAS Implementation Progress Report and plans for release.