Title: Importation of Clementines From Spain.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0203.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including fruit flies, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-69).

In accordance with § 319.56-34, clementines from Spain are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to ensure that exotic plant pests, such as Mediterranean fruit fly, are not introduced into the United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, including a trust fund agreement, grower registration and agreement, a Mediterranean fruit fly management program, fruit fly trapping and control activities, recordkeeping, a phytosanitary certificate, and box labeling.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.0033 hours per response.

Respondents: Growers and shippers of clementines and the national plant protection organization of Spain.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4,508.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 434.54.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1,958,919.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 6,507 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Infectious Salmon Anemia; Payment of Indemnity.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0192.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prevent the interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock within the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, APHIS established regulations in 9 CFR part 53 to pay indemnity to salmon producers in Maine whose fish are destroyed because of infectious salmon anemia (ISA). However, payment is subject to the availability of funding.

ISA is a foreign animal disease of Atlantic salmon that is caused by an orthomyxovirus. The disease affects wild and farmed Atlantic salmon. ISA poses a substantial threat to the economic viability and sustainability of salmon aquaculture in the United States.

In order to take part in the indemnity program, producers must enroll in the cooperative ISA control program administered by APHIS and the State of Maine. Program participants must inform the ISA Program Veterinarian in writing of the name of their accredited veterinarian, develop biosecurity protocols and a site-specific ISA action plan, submit fish inventory and mortality information, complete an appraisal and indemnity claim form, and assist APHIS or State officials with onsite disease surveillance, testing, and biosecurity audits.

Since the last extension of approval for these information collection activities, APHIS has decreased the estimated annual number of responses from 718 to 182 for two reasons. APHIS overestimated the estimated annual number of responses per respondent by listing 16 responses per respondent for 2 items when it should have been 1 response per respondent. In addition, there has been a decrease in the number of aquaculture operations, which has resulted in a change in the estimated annual number of respondents from 16 to 12.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.66 hours per response.

Respondents: ISA program participants, such as certain aquaculture industry business owners, managers, site employees, accredited veterinarians, or laboratory personnel.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 12.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 15.17.

Estimated annual number of responses: 182.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 484 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

(1) Provide informational presentations and discussions regarding the substantive issues before the TAC; and

(2) Review the types of elements and components to be included in recommendations.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for oral public comment. Those interested in providing comment orally can register at the meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments may be sent to Jason Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, Alaska 99833; by email to jasonanderson@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 907-772-5895. Summary/minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 45 days after the meeting.

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

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for three years unless terminated by the Secretary, but may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Areas Open for Designation:

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Alabama, is assigned to this official agency:

The entire State, except those export port locations within the State, which are served by GIPSA.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Texas, is assigned to this official agency:

Bounded on the north by the northern Young, Jack, Montague, Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, Morris, and Marion County Lines.

Bounded on the east by the eastern Red River, Morris, Marion, Harrison, Panola, Shelby, Sabine, Newton, Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, Galveston, Brazoria, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Refugio, Aransas, San Patricio, Nueces, Kleberg, Kennedy, Willacy, and Cameron County Lines.

Bounded on the south by the Southern Texas State Line.

Bounded on the west by the western Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Duval, McMullen, Atascosa, Bexar, Comal, Blanco, Burnet, Lampasas, Mills, Comanche, Eastland, Stephens, Young, and Montague County Lines.

Excludes export port locations served by GIPSA's League City Field Office, Beaumont Sub-office, and Corpus Christi Duty Point.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to this official agency:

Bounded on the North by the northern Bureau County line; the northern LaSalle and Grundy County lines; the northern Will County line east-southeast to Interstate 57;

Bounded on the East by Interstate 57 south to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 south to the Kankakee County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Kankakee and Grundy County lines; the southern LaSalle County line west to State Route 17; State Route 17 west to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 north to State Route 18; State Route 18 west to State Route 26; State Route 26 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 south to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 west to the western Peoria County line;

Bounded on the West by the western Peoria and Stark County lines; the northern Stark County line east to State Route 40; State Route 40 north to the Bureau County line.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Minnesota, is assigned to this official agency:

Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Carver, Scott, Dakota, Brown, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Rice, Goodhue, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Waseca, Steele, Dodge, McLeod, and Sibley Counties.

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, are assigned to this official agency:

The northern half of the State of Idaho down to the northern boundaries of Adams, Valley, and Lemhi Counties.

The entire State of Oregon, except those export port locations within the State that are served by GIPSA.

The entire State of Washington, except those export port locations within the State that are served by GIPSA.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2017. To apply for designation or for more information, contact Eric J. Jabs at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Alabama, Gulf Country, Kankakee, State, and Washington official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Eric J. Jabs at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

The Department renewed the CINTAC charter on August 13, 2014 for an additional two years, pursuant to the Department of Commerce authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The CINTAC functions solely as an advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of FACA. As noted in the SUMMARY , CINTAC advises the Secretary of Commerce regarding the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of civil nuclear goods and services for use by the Department in its role as a member of the Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and the Department's active participation in the Atoms for Prosperity interagency group to promote U.S. civil nuclear trade. In particular, the Committee advises on matters including, but not limited to:

(1) Matters concerning trade policy development and negotiations relating to U.S. civil nuclear exports;

(2) The effect of U.S. Government policies, regulations, programs, and foreign government policies and practices on the export of U.S. civil nuclear goods and services;

(3) The competitiveness of U.S. industry and its ability to compete for civil nuclear products and services opportunities in international markets, including specific problems in exporting, and provide specific recommendations regarding U.S. Government and public/private actions to assist civil nuclear companies in expanding their exports;

(4) The identification of priority civil nuclear products and services markets with the potential for high immediate returns for U.S. exports, as well as emerging markets with a longer-term potential for U.S. exports;

(5) Strategies to increase private sector awareness and effective use of U.S. Government export promotion programs, and recommendations on how U.S. Government programs may be more efficiently designed and coordinated;

(6) The development of complementary industry and trade association export promotion programs, including ways for greater and more effective coordination of U.S. Government efforts with private sector organizations' civil nuclear industry export promotion efforts; and

(7) The development of U.S. Government programs to encourage producers of civil nuclear products and services to enter new foreign markets, in connection with which CINTAC may advise on how to gather, disseminate, and promote awareness of information on civil nuclear exports and related trade issues.

CINTAC shall consist of approximately 40 members appointed by the Secretary, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance and based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee. Members shall represent U.S. entities involved in the export of civil nuclear products and services and reflect the diversity of this sector, including in terms of entities' size and geographic location. The Committee shall also represent the diversity of company or organizational roles in the development of civil nuclear energy projects, including, for example, U.S. civil nuclear manufacturing and services companies, U.S. utilities, U.S. trade associations, and other U.S. organizations in the U.S. civil nuclear sector. The Secretary shall appoint to the Committee at least one individual representing each of the following:

a. Civil nuclear manufacturing and services companies;

b. small businesses;

c. utilities;

d. trade associations in the civil nuclear sector;

e. research institutions and universities; and

f. private sector organizations involved in strengthening the export competitiveness of U.S. civil nuclear products and services.

Members shall serve in a representative capacity, expressing the views and interests of a U.S. entity, as well as its particular subsector; they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees. Each member of the Committee must be a U.S. citizen and must not be registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. No member may represent a U.S. entity that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities).

Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary from the date of appointment to the Committee to the date on which the Committee's charter terminates on August 13, 2016. The Secretary shall designate the Committee Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve in those positions at the pleasure of the Secretary. Members must attend a minimum of fifty percent of Committee meetings and a majority of subcommittee and working group activities to remain members. Failure to meet this minimum participation requirement could result in membership termination.

Members of the CINTAC will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses.

The Secretary of Commerce invites nominations to the CINTAC for the charter term consistent with the above membership requirements. Self-nominations will be accepted. If you are interested in nominating someone to become a member of the CINTAC, please provide the following information (2 pages maximum):

(1) Name;

(2) Title;

(3) Work phone, fax, and, email address;

(4) Name of entity to be represented and address including Web site address;

(5) Short biography of nominee including credentials;

(6) Brief description of the entity and its business activities, size (number of employees and annual sales), and export markets served; and,

(7) An affirmative statement that the applicant and entity to be represented meet all eligibility criteria, specifically addressing that the applicant:

(a) Is a U.S. citizen; and

(b) Is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

Please do not send organization brochures or any other information.

All nominations should be submitted in pdf or MS Word format via email to jonathan.chesebro@trade.gov, via FAX to 202-482-5665, or via mail to Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Nominations for immediate consideration must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT September 25, 2014. Nominees selected for appointment to CINTAC will be notified by return mail.

I. Abstract

NIST established an Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) to enable a coordinated U.S. approach to Standards for the Forensic Science Disciplines. NIST seeks broad participation from Forensic Science Practitioners, Researchers, Metrologists, Accreditation Bodies, Defense, and Prosecution. NIST solicits self-nominations from these communities, using the OSAC Membership Application, to identify individuals interested and qualified to contribute.

The OSAC Membership Application may be completed and submitted only via web-based application.

OMB Control Number: 0693-0070.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.

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.

The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished professional service in their professional community and knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities, including the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/committee.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Tuesday, September 9, 2014 from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET. There will be no central meeting location. The public is invited to participate in the meeting by calling in from remote locations. The primary purposes of this meeting are to provide an update on the NIST Smart Grid Program, provide a recap and analysis of the June 3-4, 2014 meeting, and plan for the next face to face SGAC meeting. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by submitting their request to Cuong Nguyen at cuong.nguyen@nist.gov or (301) 975-2254 no later than 5:00 p.m. ET, Tuesday, September 2, 2014. On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved from 1:45 p.m.-2:00 p.m. ET for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at cuong.nguyen@nist.gov.

All meeting participants are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, September 2, 2014, in order to be included. Please submit your name, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen at cuong.nguyen@nist.gov or (301) 975-2254. After pre-registering, participants will be provided with detailed instructions on how to join the teleconference/webinar from a remote location in order to participate.

The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69); codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(e), as amended, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Board is composed of 10 members, appointed by the Director of NIST. Hollings MEP is a unique program, consisting of centers across the United States and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. The Board provides a forum for input and guidance from Hollings MEP program stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of tools and services focused on supporting and growing the U.S. manufacturing industry, provides advice on MEP programs, plans, and policies, assesses the soundness of MEP plans and strategies, and assesses current performance against MEP program plans.

Background information on the Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/advisory-board.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Thursday, September 18, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. This meeting will focus on (1) the MEP Advisory Board's review of the plans for implementing the recently adopted NIST MEP Strategic plan, (2) overview of Hollings MEP export initiatives and partnerships, and (3) an update on NIST Hollings MEP system competitions. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/advisory-board.cfm.

Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend this meeting should submit their name, email address and phone number to Kari Reidy ( Kari.reidy@nist.gov or 301-975-4919) no later than Thursday, September 11, 2014, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Reidy. All attendees must pre-register in order to be admitted to the NIST campus. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Reidy or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/ .

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the beginning of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site as http://www.nist.gov/mep/advisory-board.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, or via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to kari.reidy@nist.gov

The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of critical infrastructure, 1 which has become increasingly dependent on information technology. Recent cyber attacks and publicized weaknesses reinforce the need for improved capabilities for defending against malicious cyber activity. This will be a long-term challenge. Additional steps must be taken to enhance existing efforts to increase the protection and resilience of critical infrastructure, while maintaining a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while also protecting privacy and civil liberties.

By Executive Order, 2 the Secretary of Commerce was tasked to direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to lead the development of a voluntary framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the “Framework”). 3 The Framework consists of standards, methodologies, procedures and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Framework was developed by NIST using information collected through the RFI that was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2013, a series of open public workshops, and a 45-day public comment period announced in the Federal Register on October 29, 2013. It was published on February 12, 2014, after a year-long, open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive input and public comments, and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 9167) on February 18, 2014.

Given the diversity of sectors in the Nation's critical infrastructure, the Framework development process was designed to build on cross-sector security standards and guidelines that are immediately applicable or likely to be applicable to critical infrastructure, to increase visibility and adoption of those standards and guidelines, and to find potential areas for improvement (i.e., where standards/guidelines are nonexistent or where existing standards/guidelines are inadequate) that need to be addressed through future collaboration with industry and industry-led standards bodies. The Cybersecurity Framework incorporates voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible and is consistent with voluntary international consensus-based standards when such international standards advance the objectives of the Executive Order. The Framework is designed for compatibility with existing regulatory authorities and regulations, although it is intended for voluntary adoption.

While the focus of the Framework is on the Nation's critical infrastructure, it was developed in a manner to promote wide adoption of practices to increase risk management-based cybersecurity across all industry sectors and by all types of organizations.

NIST remains committed to helping organizations understand and use the Framework. In the five-plus months since the document was published, NIST has reached out and responded to a large number of organizations to raise awareness, answer questions, and learn about their experiences with the Framework.

NIST has worked closely with industry groups, associations, non-profits, government agencies, and international standards bodies to increase awareness of the Framework. NIST has promoted the use of the Framework as a basic, flexible, and adaptable tool for managing and reducing cybersecurity risks, most frequently working in partnership with leaders at all levels of stakeholder organizations.

While the initial focus was on cross-sector needs, Section 8(b) of the Executive Order called on “Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.” NIST has participated in these and similar industry-government collaborative activities, in some cases serving in an advisory capacity.

In the time since the Framework's publication, NIST's primary goal has been to raise awareness of the Framework and how it can be used to manage cyber risks, in order to assist industry sectors and organizations to gain experience with it. While NIST appreciates that widespread implementation of the Framework can only occur over time, NIST views extensive voluntary use as critical to achieving the goals of the Executive Order. For these reasons, NIST is interested in learning about individual companies' and other organizations' knowledge of and experiences with the Framework. NIST wants to better understand how companies and organizations in all critical infrastructure sectors are approaching and making specific use of the Framework, in accordance with Section 7(f) of the Executive Order. This includes learning about which aspects of the Framework have been helpful or challenging, and about whether and how the Framework has been used to modify and strengthen management of cyber risks. The RFI responses will also inform the Department of Homeland Security's Critical Infrastructure Cyber Community C 3 Voluntary Program. 4

NIST understands that at this early stage the Framework may be used in a variety of ways, including: participation in a sector group that is reviewing how the Framework can best be implemented and coordinated with ongoing or planned initiatives; initial high-level review of an organization's current management of cyber risk; and more intensive deployment as an organization's guiding approach to managing its cyber risk.

In addition to seeking comments from individual critical infrastructure owners and operators of all sizes and their representatives from sector and professional associations, NIST invites submissions from Federal agencies, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, standard-setting organizations, 5 other members of industry, consumers, solution providers, and other stakeholders.

The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks comment. They are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include any topic believed to have implications for the degree of awareness and voluntary use and subsequent improvement of the Framework, regardless of whether the topic is included in this document.

While the Framework and associated outreach activities by NIST have focused on critical infrastructure, given the broad diversity of sectors that may include parts of critical infrastructure and the intention to continue to involve a broad set of stakeholders in use and evolution of the Framework, the RFI generally uses the broader term “organizations” in seeking information. NIST is especially interested in comments that will help to determine the Framework's usefulness and potential applicability across all critical infrastructure sectors. In addition, considering the interwoven nature of our Internet-based economy and society, information from and about organizations not included in critical infrastructure sectors also will be valuable.

Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Do not include in comments or otherwise submit proprietary or confidential information, as all comments received in response to this RFI will be made available publically at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-rfi.cfm .

Recognizing the critical importance of widespread voluntary usage of the Framework in order to achieve the goals of the Executive Order, and that usage initially depends upon awareness, NIST solicits information about awareness of the Framework and its intended uses among organizations.

1. What is the extent of awareness of the Framework among the Nation's critical infrastructure organizations? Six months after the Framework was issued, has it gained the traction needed to be a factor in how organizations manage cyber risks in the Nation's critical infrastructure?

2. How have organizations learned about the Framework? Outreach from NIST or another government agency, an association, participation in a NIST workshop, news media? Other source?

3. Are critical infrastructure owners and operators working with sector-specific groups, non-profits, and other organizations that support critical infrastructure to receive information and share lessons learned about the Framework?

4. Is there general awareness that the Framework:

a. Is intended for voluntary use?

b. Is intended as a cyber risk management tool for all levels of an organization in assessing risk and how cybersecurity factors into risk assessments?

c. Builds on existing cybersecurity frameworks, standards, and guidelines, and other management practices related to cybersecurity?

5. What are the greatest challenges and opportunities—for NIST, the Federal government more broadly, and the private sector—to improve awareness of the Framework?

6. Given that many organizations and most sectors operate globally or rely on the interconnectedness of the global digital infrastructure, what is the level of awareness internationally of the Framework?

7. If your sector is regulated, do you think your regulator is aware of the Framework, and do you think it has taken any visible actions reflecting such awareness?

8. Is your organization doing any form of outreach or education on cybersecurity risk management (including the Framework)? If so, what kind of outreach and how many entities are you reaching? If not, does your organization plan to do any form of outreach or awareness on the Framework?

9. What more can and should be done to raise awareness?

NIST is seeking information on the experiences with, including but not limited to early implementation and usage of, the Framework throughout the Nation's critical infrastructure. NIST seeks information from and about organizations that have had direct experience with the Framework. Please provide information related to the following:

1. Has the Framework helped organizations understand the importance of managing cyber risk?

2. Which sectors and organizations are actively planning to, or already are, using the Framework, and how?

3. What benefits have been realized by early experiences with the Framework?

4. What expectations have not been met by the Framework and why? Specifically, what about the Framework is most helpful and why? What is least helpful and why?

5. Do organizations in some sectors require some type of sector specific guidance prior to use?

6. Have organizations that are using the Framework integrated it with their broader enterprise risk management program?

7. Is the Framework's approach of major components—Core, Profile, and Implementation Tiers—reasonable and helpful?

8. Section 3.0 of the Framework (“How to Use the Framework”) presents a variety of ways in which organizations can use the Framework.

a. Of these recommended practices, how are organizations initially using the Framework?

b. Are organizations using the Framework in other ways that should be highlighted in supporting material or in future versions of the Framework?

c. Are organizations leveraging Section 3.5 of the Framework (“Methodology to Protect Privacy and Civil Liberties”) and, if so, what are their initial experiences? If organizations are not leveraging this methodology, why not?

d. Are organizations changing their cybersecurity governance as a result of the Framework?

e. Are organizations using the Framework to communicate information about their cybersecurity risk management programs—including the effectiveness of those programs—to stakeholders, including boards, investors, auditors, and insurers?

f. Are organizations using the Framework to specifically express cybersecurity requirements to their partners, suppliers, and other third parties?

9. Which activities by NIST, the Department of Commerce overall (including the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO); National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA); and the Internet Policy Taskforce (IPTF)) or other departments and agencies could be expanded or initiated to promote implementation of the Framework?

10. Have organizations developed practices to assist in use of the Framework?

NIST published a Roadmap  6 in February 2014 detailing some issues and challenges that should be addressed in order to improve future versions of the Framework. Information is sought to answer the following questions:

1. Does the Roadmap identify the most important cybersecurity areas to be addressed in the future?

2. Are key cybersecurity issues and opportunities missing that should be considered as priorities, and if so, what are they and why do they merit special attention?

3. Have there been significant developments—in the United States or elsewhere—in any of these areas since the Roadmap was published that NIST should be aware of and take into account as it works to advance the usefulness of the Framework?

Background: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: License radio frequencies in a way that maximizes their public benefits; keep wireless networks as open to innovation as possible; and make wireless services available to all Americans. See Charter at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/csmac-2013-charter. This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

Matters To Be Considered: The Committee will receive reports on the progress of the following subcommittees established to help NTIA develop new or revised strategies for responding more efficiently and effectively to fundamental technological, operational, and other trends to continue advancement of delivering spectrum products, services, and solutions that will support the ever-increasing demand for spectrum:

NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, prior to the meeting. To the extent that the meeting time and agenda permit, any member of the public may speak to or otherwise address the Committee regarding the agenda items. See Open Meeting and Public Participation Policy, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

Time and Date: The meeting will be held on October 9, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The times and the agenda topics are subject to change. The meeting will be available via two-way audio link and may be webcast. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, for the most up-to-date meeting agenda and access information.

Place: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4099, Washington, DC 20230. The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Washington at (202) 482-6415 or BWashington@ntia.doc.gov at least ten (10) business days before the meeting.

Status: Interested parties are invited to attend and to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before or after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of a meeting must send them to NTIA's Washington, DC office at the above-listed address and comments must be received five (5) business days before the scheduled meeting date, to provide sufficient time for review. Comments received after this date will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting. It would be helpful if paper submissions also include a compact disc (CD) in Word or PDF format. CDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to BWashington@ntia.doc.gov. Comments provided via electronic mail also may be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.

Records: NTIA maintains records of all Committee proceedings. Committee records are available for public inspection at NTIA's Washington, DC office at the address above. Documents including the Committee's charter, member list, agendas, minutes, and any reports are available on NTIA's Committee Web page at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

CNCS is particularly interested in comments which:

• Lead to clarification of the funding priorities and other components of the concept.

• Deepen the impact of this initiative in achieving measurable change in communities.

• Make the concept more accessible to diverse audiences.

• Make it easier for applicants to apply.

• Add elements that would make it easier for an applicant with no experience with CNCS or national service to apply.

CNCS will not respond individually to those providing input, but will consider comments in preparing for a future competition.

The EA is available electronically at http://www.dla.mil/InstallationSupport/Documents/DEA_Susquehanna%20RPMP_070814.pdf. Hardcopies of the EA also are available at the Red Land Community Library, 48 Robin Hood Drive, Etters, PA 17319, and the Fairview Township Municipal Building, 599 Lewisberry Road, New Cumberland, PA 17070.

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.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the Board of Visitors on continuing items of interest.

Agenda:

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: 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. However, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Caren Hergenroeder at 703-805-5134.

Written Statements: 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 Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors until its next meeting. Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Christen Goulding, 703-805-5412, christen.goulding@dau.mil .

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

Title of Collection: Migrant Education Program Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0662.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 150,847.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 278,593.

Abstract: The regulations for Title I, Part C establish minimum requirements for a State Educational Agency (SEA) comprehensive needs assessment, plan for service delivery, and program evaluation. The regulations also establish minimum requirements for documenting eligibility, re-interviewing, and establishing a system of quality controls. The Secretary will use the information collected to monitor the accuracy of program eligibility determinations, make needed improvements, and adjust State Migrant Education Program (MEP) allocations based on reported defect rates.

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

Title of Collection: Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0678.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,360.

Abstract: This data collection provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report the number of written, signed complaints; mediation requests; and hearing requests and the status of these actions with regards to children served under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) initiated during the reporting year. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by OSEP to monitor SEAs and for Congressional reporting.

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

Title of Collection: Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services are Provided in Accordance with Part C.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0557.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,697.

Abstract: This data collection provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report the number of children receiving early intervention services under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the settings in which these children are provided services, and the reasons by which these children exit Part C of IDEA. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by OSEP to monitor State agencies and for Congressional reporting.

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

Title of Collection: Annual Report of Children in State Agency and Locally Operated Institutions for Neglected and Delinquent Children.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0060.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,252.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,360.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education is requesting a three-year extension of ED Form 4376 Annual Report of Children in Institutions for Neglected or Delinquent Children, Adult Correctional Institutions, and Community Day Programs for Neglected and Delinquent Children. Approval of this form is needed in order to continue the on-going collection of data used to allocate funds authorized by Title I, Part A and Part D, Subparts 1 and 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, for school years 2015-16 and beyond.

NACIQI's Statutory Authority and Function: The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1011c. The NACIQI advises the Secretary of Education about:

• The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2, Part H, Title IV of the HEA, as amended.

• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations or a specific State public postsecondary vocational education or nurse education approval agency.

• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.

• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.

• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.

• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.

Meeting Agenda: In addition to its review of accrediting agencies and State approval agencies for Secretarial recognition, the meeting agenda will include Committee discussions regarding the Committee's draft policy recommendations to advise the Secretary in preparation for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA).

Below is a list of agencies, including their current and requested scopes of recognition, scheduled for review during the December 11, 2014 meeting:

1. Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (Requested Scope: The accreditation of educator preparation programs in degree-granting institutions of higher education throughout the United States that offer certificates/licensure, or associates, bachelors, masters, post-baccalaureate, or doctoral degrees, including those offered via distance education.)

1. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND) (Current Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation, within the United States, of Didactic and Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, postbaccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level, and accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.)

2. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) (Current Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Reasonable Assurance”) in the United States of programs leading to professional degrees (D.V.M. or D.M.D.) in veterinary medicine.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Provisional Accreditation”) in the United States of programs leading to professional degrees (D.V.M. or D.M.D.) in veterinary medicine.) NOTE: The language above reflects a technical change initiated by Department staff regarding the term the agency uses to confer its “preaccreditation” status.

3. Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), (Current Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of institutions of higher education in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including distance education programs offered at those institutions.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of institutions of higher education in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including distance education and correspondence education programs offered at those institutions.)

4. New York State Board of Regents, and the Commissioner of Education (NYSBR) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation of those degree-granting institutions of higher education in New York that designate the agency as their sole or primary nationally recognized accrediting agency for purposes of establishing eligibility to participate in HEA programs including accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions.)

5. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC-SR) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of senior colleges and universities in California, Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, including distance education programs offered at those institutions.)

1. Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education (OKSB-vt).

Submission of written comments regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review: Written comments about the recognition of a specific accrediting or State agency must be received by September 22, 2014, in the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox and include the subject line “Written Comments: (agency name).”

The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Comments about an agency's recognition after review of a compliance report must relate to the issues raised in the compliance report and the criteria for recognition cited in the Secretary's letter that requested the report. Comments about the renewal of an agency's recognition based on a review of the agency's petition must relate to its compliance with the Criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, or the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of State Agencies for Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education, as appropriate, which are available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html. Third parties having concerns about agencies regarding matters outside the scope of a compliance report or a petition should report those concerns directly to the Department to be reviewed as a complaint. Only material submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, become part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members.

Submission of requests to make an oral comment regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review: There are two methods the public may use to make a third-party oral comment of three minutes concerning one of the agencies scheduled for review at the December 11, 2014 meeting. Oral comments about agencies seeking renewal of recognition must relate to the Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, or the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of State Agencies for Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education, as appropriate, which are available at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.

Method One: Submit a request by email to the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members. Requests must be received by September 22, 2014, and include the subject line “Oral Comment Request: (agency name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone number, of the person(s) requesting to speak, and a brief summary (not to exceed one page) of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak.

Method Two: Register at the meeting location on December 11, 2014, to make an oral comment during NACIQI's deliberations concerning a particular agency or institution scheduled for review. The requestor must provide his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. A total of up to fifteen minutes during each agency review will be allotted for oral commenters who register on December 11, 2014. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter may not exceed three minutes.

The oral comments made will become part of the official record and will be considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations. No individual in attendance or making oral presentations may distribute written materials at the meeting.

Submission of written comments regarding the committee's policy recommendations: The Committee will publish its draft policy recommendations at http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.html#meetings by October 15, 2014, and invites written comments. Comments must be received by November 15, 2014, in the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox and include the subject line “Written Comments: Policy Recommendations”. The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number, of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Please do not send material directly to the NACIQI members.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the NACIQI Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC, by emailing aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov or by calling (202) 219-7067 to schedule an appointment.

Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

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

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

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5165; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Davis-Bacon Semi-Annual Labor Compliance Report; (3) Type of Request: three-year extension with minor change to reflect the end of Recovery Act grant database; (4) Purpose: To obtain information from the Department of Energy Management and Operation, Facilities Management Contractors, and recipients of financial assistance whose work is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 100; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 200; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.00 annually.

Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. The E.O. provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the public interest and after favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), determines the project's impact on electric reliability (including whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions), and considers any other factors that DOE may find relevant to the public interest. The regulations implementing the E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR Part 205. DOE's issuance of a Presidential permit indicates that there is no federal objection to the project, but does not mandate that the project be undertaken.

TDI-NE applied on May 20, 2014, to DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern Vermont. The proposed project, the New England Clean Power Link (NECPL), is a high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line with an operating voltage of +/−300 to 320 kilovolts (kV). The project would be constructed in both aquatic (underwater) and terrestrial (underground) environments.

As proposed, the NECPL project would have a transfer rating of 1,000 megawatts (MW). The proposed project would originate in the Canadian province of Quebec, cross the border in Alburgh, Vermont, and terminate at the existing Coolidge Substation in the towns of Ludlow and Cavendish, Vermont. The total length of the proposed project from the U.S. border to the Coolidge Substation is approximately 154.1 miles (248 km). The proposed route is described in more detail below, under Applicant's Proposal.

The NECPL Presidential permit application, including associated maps and drawings, can be viewed or downloaded in its entirety from the OE program Web site at: http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-2. The July 9, 2014, Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Application (79 FR 38869) is also available at this same Web site.

The proposed federal action is the granting of the Presidential permit for the international border crossing. The proposed construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of the portion of the transmission line within the United States are connected actions to DOE's proposed action. DOE will analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed federal action and the connected actions in the EIS. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). Because the proposed project may involve actions in floodplains and wetlands, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements, the EIS will include a floodplain and wetland assessment. DOE will include a floodplain statement of findings in the Record of Decision.

DOE invites Tribal governments and federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New England District, is a cooperating agency on this EIS. A Department of the Army permit is expected to be required for proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and also for proposed crossing(s) of navigable waterways under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 403). TDI-NE will apply to the USACE for the required Department of the Army permits. EPA Region 1 and the USCG are cooperating agencies due to their special expertise related to the proposed action.

TDI-NE describes its proposed route for the Project in terms of two segments, the Lake Champlain Segment and the Overland Segment. The U.S. portion of the proposed project is entirely within the State of Vermont.

The Lake Champlain segment would begin in Vermont at the U.S.-Canada border. The HVDC transmission line would be located underground within the Town of Alburgh, VT, for approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km). The HVDC transmission line would then enter Lake Champlain via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) on privately-owned property, and the transmission line would be buried in the bed of Lake Champlain, or placed on the bottom of the lake at lake depths of 150 feet (46 m) or more. The total distance through the lake is approximately 97.6 miles (157.1 km), entirely within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Vermont.

The Overland Segment would begin at the southern end of Lake Champlain in the Town of Benson where the HVDC transmission line would exit the water, via HDD installation on privately-owned property. The cables would be buried within the rights-of-way (ROW) of town roads east for approximately 4.4 miles (7.1 km) to Route 22A and then travel south within the Route 22A ROW for approximately 8.1 miles (13.0 km) to Route 4 in the Town of Fair Haven. The cables would be buried within the Route 4 ROW east for approximately 17.2 miles (27.7 km) to Route 7 in the Town of Rutland before travelling south buried within the Route 7 ROW for approximately 2.6 miles (4.2 km) to Route 103 in the Town of North Clarendon. Within the Route 103 ROW the cables would be buried for approximately 17.8 miles (28.6 km) south by southeast to Route 100 in the Town of Ludlow where the cables would be buried for approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) in the Route 100 ROW to connect with Town of Ludlow roads. The cables would be buried for approximately 4.8 miles (7.6 km) before terminating at the proposed HVDC converter station. Underground single-circuit 345-kV AC cables would be installed for approximately 0.3 miles (.5 km) to the south to connect the proposed HVDC converter station with the existing Coolidge Substation, which connects to the electric grid. The Applicant represents that the Project's precise final route would be subject to a number of factors, including resource issues, federal and state permitting, land acquisition, and stakeholder input.

In addition to the proposed route, TDI-NE's Presidential permit application describes four segment alternatives that it considered but decided not to incorporate into its proposed route. These include one alternative for the Lake Champlain segment and three alternatives for the overland segment (i.e., from Lake Champlain to the proposed HVDC converter station).

The alternative considered by TDI-NE for the Lake Champlain segment would have overlapped the proposed route within the lake and then proceeded for an additional 3 miles (4.8 km) south in Lake Champlain to exit the lake via HDD in the Town of West Haven, rather than Benson. The routing would proceed east through West Haven undergrounded along local roads (Cold Spring Road, Pettis Road, and Main Street) for approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) before transferring to the Route 22A ROW. At this point the alternative would continue south in the Route 22A ROW, approximately 3.4 miles (5.6 km) to the Town of Fair Haven.

The three Overland segment alternatives included a Western Segment alternative whereby the transmission cables would exit Route 4 at the intersection with Route 4A and would travel along Route 4A and then a railroad ROW to the Town of West Rutland for a distance of 13 miles (20.9 km). The route would then re-enter Route 4 and continue along the proposed route to the proposed converter station location. Additionally, there were two Eastern Segment alternatives that considered routing the cables: (1) within the railroad ROW in the Town of North Clarendon and travel south, then east, to Route 103 in Ludlow for a distance of 23.3 miles (37.5 km), at which point it would overlap again with the proposed route to reach the proposed HVDC converter station location in 7.5 miles (12.1 km); or (2) in the Vermont Electric Power Company ROW beginning in West Rutland for approximately 24 miles (38.6) to the proposed HVDC converter station location.

DOE's proposed action is to grant a Presidential permit to TDI-NE to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border near Alburgh, Vermont. The New England Clean Power Link Transmission Line Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0503) will address potential environmental impacts from the proposed action and the range of reasonable alternatives. The purpose and need for DOE's action is to decide whether to grant TDI-NE a Presidential permit. DOE's decision will be based on the NEPA review, the impact of the proposed action on electric reliability, and any other factors that DOE may find relevant to the public interest.

Under the Proposed Action, DOE would grant a Presidential permit to TDI-NE to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern Vermont.

Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not grant a Presidential permit for the proposed project. Under the No Action alternative, the EIS assumes for purposes of analysis that the proposed line and associated facilities would not be constructed.

The EIS will examine potential public health and safety effects and environmental impacts in the U.S. from the proposed transmission facilities. This notice is intended to inform agencies and the public of the proposed project, and to solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, the following is a list of examples of several potential environmental issues that DOE has identified for analysis:

1. Protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on protected or candidate species, including but not limited to the Indiana bat, dwarf wedgemussel, and Northeastern bulrush (federally listed endangered species) and northern long-eared bat (proposed federally listed endangered species as of June 30, 2014).

2. Biological resources: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on fish and shellfish, insects, birds and other wildlife, as well as effects on forests, shrubland, wetland, and grassland plant species, and the potential for introduction of invasive species.

3. Floodplains and wetlands: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on floodplains and wetlands, including those associated with lowland forest type vegetation.

4. Cultural or historic resources: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on archeological, architectural, and Traditional Cultural Properties (i.e., properties of religious and cultural importance), National Historic Landmarks, historic properties currently listed and potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, prehistoric sites, and cultural landscape.

5. Human health and safety: The EIS will consider the nature and potential effects of electric and magnetic fields that may be generated by the operation of the project.

6. Air quality: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on air quality, including the emission and effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

7. Soil: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on the loss or disturbance of soils.

8. Water resources: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the construction and operation of the project on a diverse set of water resource types that are found throughout the proposed project area including, but not limited to, major watersheds, public water inventory watercourses and basins, groundwater, and impaired water bodies.

9. Land use: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the installation and operation of the project on land uses, including agricultural lands, parks, recreational areas, and other public lands.

10. Noise: The EIS will consider the potential effects of the installation and operation of the project on noise levels at locations along the proposed line as well as at the location of the proposed HVDC converter station in Ludlow.

11. Socioeconomics: The EIS will consider potential impacts on community services and the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. DOE invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS.

Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process, both to help define the environmental issues to be analyzed and to identify the range of reasonable alternatives. DOE invites interested agencies, organizations, Native American tribes, and members of the public to submit comments to assist in identifying significant environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the EIS. Written and oral comments will be given equal weight. All comments received by DOE will be publicly available on the project EIS Web site at: http://www.NECPLinkEIs.com. Personally identifiable information, other than individuals' names, will be withheld.

The scoping meetings will be structured in two parts: first, a “workshop” period with presentations on the proposed NECPL project, and the associated federal decisions, followed by informal discussion that will not be recorded; and, second, the formal taking of comments with transcription by a court reporter. The meetings will provide interested parties the opportunity to view proposed project exhibits, ask questions, and make comments. The Applicant, DOE, and cooperating agency personnel will be available to answer questions.

Persons submitting comments during the scoping process, whether orally or in writing, will receive either paper or electronic copies of the draft EIS, according to their preference. Persons who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this time but who would like to receive a copy of the draft EIS for review and comment when it is issued should notify Brian Mills as provided above, with their paper-or-electronic preference.

In preparing the draft EIS, DOE will consider comments submitted during the scoping period. Comments can be submitted to Brian Mills either electronically or by paper copy; if the latter, consider using a delivery service because materials submitted by regular mail are subject to security screening, which both causes extended delay and potential damage to the contents. DOE will summarize all comments received in a “Scoping Report” that will be available on a project EIS Web site, and will be distributed either electronically to all parties of record or by mailing paper copies upon request. DOE expects to issue the draft NECPL EIS in April 2015 and the final EIS in October 2015.

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.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

1. 2:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda

2. 2:02 p.m. Approval of Minutes from July 9, 2014

3. 2:05 p.m. Update from Executive Committee—Carlos Valdez, Chair

4. 2:10 p.m. Update from DOE—Lee Bishop, Deputy Designated Federal Officer

5. 2:30 p.m. Public Comment Period

6. 2:45 p.m. Sub-Committee Breakout Session

• Draft Committee Work Plans for Fiscal Year 2015

• Discuss Topics for Committee Sponsored Draft Recommendations

• General Committee Business

7. 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting 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 Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan 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 Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: ­ http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

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 EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, 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 Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone 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 Menice Santistevan 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 Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/

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.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, 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 Melyssa P. Noe 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 the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe 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 Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board .

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0205

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Monthly Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report

(3) Type of Request: Revision to a currently approved collection;

(4) Purpose: The proposed, expanded Form EIA-914, Monthly Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report, will materially improve EIA's ability to collect and disseminate data on crude oil, lease condensate, and natural gas production in the lower 48 states on a more timely basis in order to meet EIA's mandate and energy data users' needs. Timely and accurate information on monthly crude oil, lease condensate, and natural gas production data in the United States is necessary to discern critical monthly production levels, variations, and trends—information that is crucial for informed decision and policy making before and during peak demand periods. Further, collecting API gravity information for state-level production provides information about the volume and changing trends in the quality of domestic oil production, informing topics of increasing public interest, such as domestic refining capability and potential export of U.S. crude oil.

(4a) Proposed Changes: The expanded Form EIA-914 will collect data from U.S. operators of natural gas and crude oil wells, and this monthly survey will be a cutoff sample (all operators producing above a threshold in a state will be surveyed). EIA currently has no survey to collect crude oil and condensate production. The expanded EIA-914 will improve EIA's oil production statistics and add more detail to its gas production statistics by increasing the number of individual states reporting. The proposed expanded Form EIA-914, Monthly Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report, would replace the current Form EIA-914, Monthly Natural Gas Production Report.

Providing timely oil and gas production data by state/area in a convenient “one-stop shop” and a standard format would enhance the utility of the data and provide markets with accurate information that is easy to use.

The proposed expanded Form EIA-914 instructions are included on the form to increase clarity and specificity for the requested data. Crude oil and lease condensate production are added to the form, as are additional states that increases the total number of states/areas from seven to twenty-one. Also added to the form is a request for crude oil and lease condensate production by API gravity category.

(5) Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 7,200.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 14,400.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: None.

The parties enter into this agreement to: (a) Determine the nature and extent of contamination and any threat to the public health, welfare, or environment caused by the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at or from the site, by conducting a remedial investigation; (b) identify and evaluate remedial alternatives to prevent, mitigate, or otherwise respond to or remedy any release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at or from the Site, by conducting a feasibility study (FS); and (c) provide for recovery by the agencies of future response costs for overseeing the work to be conducted under this settlement agreement.

Opportunity for Comment: The proposed agreement, the Agency's response to any comments, and additional background information relating to the agreement are available for public inspection. For sixty (60) days following the date of publication of this notice, the EPA will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

While not required by law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that reissuance of an agency's EEO policy statement each fiscal year is a symbol of the agency leadership's commitment to EEO and Diversity principles. The FCA conducted its annual review of Policy Statement FCA-PS-62 on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity and made minor grammatical changes.

The text of the updated Policy Statement is set forth below in its entirety. All FCA Board policy statements may be viewed on FCA's Web site. From www.fca.gov, select “Laws & Regulations,” then select “FCA Handbook,” then select “FCA Board Policy Statements.”

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) Board reaffirms its commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity (EEOD) and its belief that all FCA employees should be treated with dignity and respect. The Board also provides guidance to Agency management and staff for deciding and taking action in these critical areas.

Unquestionably, the employees who comprise the FCA are its most important resource. The Board fully recognizes that the Agency draws its strength from the dedication, experience, and diversity of its employees. The Board is firmly committed to taking whatever steps are needed to protect the rights of its staff and to carrying out programs that foster the development of each employee's potential. We believe an investment in efforts that strongly promote EEOD will prevent the conflict and the high costs of correction for taking no, or inadequate, action in these areas.

It is the policy of the FCA to prohibit discrimination in Agency policies, program practices, and operations. Employees, applicants for employment, and members of the public who seek to take part in FCA programs, activities, and services will be treated fairly. The FCA Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that FCA meets all EEOD requirements and initiatives in accordance with laws and regulations, to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination and that values all employees. FCA, under the appropriate laws and regulations, will:

• Ensure equal employment opportunity based on merit and qualification, without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, status as a parent, genetic information, or filing of a complaint, participation in discrimination or harassment complaint proceedings, or other opposition to discrimination;

• Provide for the prompt and fair consideration of complaints of discrimination;

• Make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants for employment and employees with physical or mental disabilities under law;

• Make reasonable accommodations based on applicants' and employees' religious beliefs or practices, consistent with Title VII;

• Provide an environment free from harassment to all employees;

• Create and maintain an organizational culture that recognizes, values, and supports employee and public diversity and inclusion;

• Develop objectives within the Agency's operation and strategic planning process to meet the goals of EEOD and this policy;

• Implement affirmative programs to carry out this policy within the Agency; and

• To the extent practicable, seek to encourage the Farm Credit System to continue its efforts to promote and increase diversity.

The FCA intends to be a model employer. That is, as far as possible, FCA will build and maintain a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of individual differences evident throughout this Nation. The Board views individual differences as complementary and believes these differences enrich our organization. When individual differences are respected, recognized, and valued, diversity becomes a powerful force that can contribute to achieving superior results. Therefore, we will create, maintain, and continuously improve on an organizational culture that fully recognizes, values, and supports employee diversity. The Board is committed to promoting and supporting an inclusive environment that provides to all employees, individually and collectively, the chance to work to their full potential in the pursuit of the Agency's mission. We will provide everyone the opportunity to develop to his or her fullest potential. When a barrier to someone achieving this goal exists, we will strive to remove this barrier.

The Board reaffirms its commitment to ensuring FCA conducts all of its employment practices in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Board expects full cooperation and support from everyone associated with recruitment, selection, development, and promotion to ensure such actions are free of discrimination. All employees will be evaluated on their EEOD achievements as part of their overall job performance. Though staff commitment is important, the role of supervisors is paramount to success. Agency supervisors must be coaches and are responsible for helping all employees develop their talents and give their best efforts in contributing to the mission of the FCA.

It is the policy of the FCA to provide a work environment free from unlawful discrimination in any form, and to protect all employees from any form of harassment, either physical or verbal. The FCA will not tolerate harassment in the workplace for any reason. The FCA also will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for reporting harassment or for aiding in any inquiry about reporting harassment.

A disabled veteran is defined as someone who is entitled to compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans Administration or someone who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability.

The FCA is committed to increasing the representation of disabled veterans within its organization. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans who served their country, especially those who were disabled because of service. To honor these disabled veterans, the FCA shall place emphasis on making vacancies known to and providing opportunities for employing disabled veterans.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0341.

Title: Section 73.1680, Emergency Antennas.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 142 respondents; 142 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 142 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $42,600.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1680 requires that licensees of AM, FM or TV stations submit an informal request to the FCC (within 24 hours of commencement of use) to continue operation with an emergency antenna. An emergency antenna is one that is erected for temporary use after the authorized main and auxiliary antennas are damaged and cannot be used. FCC staff uses the data to ensure that interference is not caused to other existing stations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1080.

Title: Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; and State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 670 respondents; 3,118 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 4.5 hours (range of 30 minutes to 10 hours).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332.

Total Annual Burden: 10,691 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $48,800.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will work with respondents to ensure that their concerns regarding the confidentiality of any proprietary or public safety-sensitive information are resolved in a manner consistent with the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 0.459.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this expiring information collection to the Office of Management Budget (OMB) after this 60 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for an extension of this information collection. The information sought will assist 800 MHz licensees in preventing or resolving interference and enable the Commission to implement its rebanding program. Under that program, certain licensees are being relocated to new frequencies in the 800 MHz band, with all rebanding costs paid by Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint). The Commission's overarching objective in this proceeding is to eliminate interference to public safety communications. The Commission's orders provided for the 800 MHz licensees in non-border areas to complete rebanding by June 26, 2008. This completion date was not met and the Commission orders also provide for rebanding to be completed in the areas along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1047.

Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, FCC 03-112.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit entities; State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 20 respondents; 20 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for this collection is found at section 225 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $200.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On June 17, 2011, the Commission released the Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 10-123, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003 and published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003, adopting additional requirements related to the substance and implementation of TRS mandatory minimum standards. In 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3), the Commission required TRS facilities to provide speed dialing functionality, that entails providers maintaining a list of telephone numbers, which imposes an annual recordkeeping requirement under the PRA.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0331.

Title: Aeronautical Frequency Notification, FCC Form 321.

Form Number: FCC Form 321.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,940 respondents; 1,940 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.67 hours (40 minutes).

Frequency of Response: One-time and on occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 1,300 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $126,100.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 321 is the means by which multichannel video programming distributors obtain authority to commence operation of a system on frequencies used by aeronautical services. The information is used to protect aeronautical radio communications from interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0569.

Title: Section 76.975, Commercial leased access dispute resolution.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 60 respondents; 60 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 40 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 154(i) and 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Total Annual Burden: 1,320 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.975 permits any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available or to charge rates for such capacity in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 may file a petition for relief with the Commission.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-60D for reference.

Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

Information Collection Request Title: Tissue and Organ Donor Epidemiology Study (TODES), OMB # 0990-New request, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.

Abstract: This Study is a request for a new data collection OMB Number: 0990-New TODES is being conducted in order to better understand the impact of donor screening and selection procedures, and to determine the extent of donor-donation level data that are collected for organ and tissue (including ocular) donors. The data that are obtained from Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) and Eye Banks will provide a better characterization of the deceased donor pool; information regarding data management and storage practices; and a measure of the degree of standardization of data collected by various organizations across the U.S. TODES may provide better estimates of the risk of HIV, HBV and HCV infections associated with organ and tissue transplantation and the potential for disease transmission; illustrate differences in laboratory screening methods and the impact of protocol variations; and serve as a pilot for future studies. This retrospective study will provide a framework for future, prospective studies of organ and tissue donors that could inform policy decisions regarding donor qualification procedures and, potentially, increase the donor pool.

A workshop in June 2005 (“Preventing Organ and Tissue Allograft-Transmitted Infection: Priorities for Public Health Intervention”) identified gaps in organ and tissue safety in the United States.1 Participants developed a series of allograft safety initiatives, assessed progress, and identified priorities for future interventions. Despite progress, improved recognition and prevention of donor-derived transmission events is needed. It was concluded that this requires systems integration across the organ and tissue transplantation communities including organ procurement organizations, eye and tissue banks, and transplant infectious disease experts. Commitment of resources and improved coordination of efforts are required to develop essential tools to enhance safety for transplant recipients.

OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Withholding Medicare Payments to Recover Medicaid Overpayments and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 447.31; Use: Certain Medicaid providers that are subject to offsets for the collection of Medicaid overpayments may terminate or substantially reduce their participation in Medicaid, leaving the state Medicaid agency unable to recover the amounts due. Recovery procedures allow for determining the amount of overpayments and offsetting the overpayments by withholding the provider's Medicare payments. To effectuate the withholding, the state agency must provide their respective CMS regional office with certain documentation that identifies the provider and the Medicaid overpayment amount. The agency must also demonstrate that the provider was notified of the overpayment and that demand for the overpayment was made. An opportunity to appeal the overpayment determination must be afforded to the provider by the Medicaid state agency. Lastly, Medicaid state agencies must notify CMS when to terminate the withholding. Form Number: CMS-R-21 (OMB control number: 0938-0287); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 54; Total Annual Responses: 27; Total Annual Hours: 81. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Stuart Goldstein at 410-786-0694).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Limitations on Provider Related Donations and Health Care Related Taxes; Limitation on Payment to Disproportionate Share Hospitals; Use: States may request a waiver of the broad based and uniformity tax program requirements. Each state must demonstrate that its tax program(s) do not violate the hold harmless provision. Additionally, state Medicaid agencies must report (quarterly) on health care related taxes collected and the source of provider related donations received by the state or unit of local government. Each state must maintain, in readily reviewable form, supporting documentation that provides a detailed description of each donation and tax program being reported, as well as the source and use of all donations received and collected. Without this information, the amount of Federal financial participation payable to a state cannot be determined. Form Number: CMS-R-148 (OMB control number: 0938-0618); Frequency: Quarterly and occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 50; Total Annual Responses: 40; Total Annual Hours: 3,200. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Stuart Goldstein at 410-786-0694).

3. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Identification of Extension Units of Medicare Approved Outpatient Physical Therapy/Outpatient Speech Pathology (OPT/OSP) Providers and Supporting Regulations; Use: The provider uses the form to report to the state survey agency extension locations that it has added since the date of last report. The form is used by the state survey agencies and by our regional offices to identify and monitor extension locations to ensure their compliance with the federal requirements for the providers of outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology services. Form Number: CMS-381 (OMB control number: 0938-0273); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector; Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,260; Total Annual Responses: 2,260; Total Annual Hours: 565. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact James Cowher at 410-786-1948.)

4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Payment Collection Operations Contingency Plan Under sections 1401, 1411, and 1412 of the Affordable Care Act and 45 CFR part 155 subpart D; Use: An Exchange makes an advance determination of tax credit eligibility for individuals who enroll in Qualified Health Plan (QHP) coverage through the Exchange and seek financial assistance. Using information available at the time of enrollment, the Exchange determines whether the individual meets the income and other requirements for advance payments and the amount of the advance payments that can be used to pay premiums. Advance payments are made periodically under section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act to the issuer of the QHP in which the individual enrolls. Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act provides for the reduction of cost sharing for certain individuals enrolled in a QHP through an Exchange, and section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act provides for the advance payment of these reductions to issuers. The statute directs issuers to reduce cost sharing for essential health benefits for individuals with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL) who are enrolled in a silver level QHP through an individual market Exchange and are eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit. Health insurance issuers will manually enter enrollment and payment data into a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet, and submit the information to HHS.

The data collection will be used by HHS to make payments or collect charges from issuers under the following programs: Advance payments of the premium tax credit, advanced cost-sharing reductions, and Marketplace user fees. HHS will use the information collected to make payments and collect charges in January 2014 and for a number of months thereafter, as may be required based on HHS's operational progress. Form Number: CMS-10515 (OMB control number: 0938-1217); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 575; Total Annual Responses: 7,475; Total Annual Hours: 94,373. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jaya Ghildiyal at 301-492-5149).

Information Collection Request Title: AIDS Drug Assistance Program Data Report OMB No. 0915-0345—Revision.

Abstract: HRSA's AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) is funded through The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part B, Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, which provides grants to states and territories. ADAP provides medications for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Program funds may also be used to purchase health insurance for eligible clients and for services that enhance access, adherence, and monitoring of drug treatments.

Each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and several territories receive ADAP grants. As part of the funding requirements, ADAPs submit reports concerning information on patients served; eligibility requirements; pharmaceuticals prescribed; and pricing and other sources of support to provide AIDS medication treatment, cost data, and coordination with Medicaid. Since 2005, ADAPs have supplied aggregate data to HRSA using the ADAP Quarterly Report (AQR). However, aggregate data cannot be analyzed with the detail that is required to assess quality of care or to sufficiently account for the use of Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Funds. To address this limitation, HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) developed a client-level data system for ADAPs called the ADAP Data Report (ADR), and in 2013, ADAPs began submitting the ADR. As of April 30, 2104, HAB retired the AQR and now only requires the submission of the ADR. The ADR will be submitted annually and consists of a Grantee Report and a client-level data file.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program requires the submission of annual reports by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the appropriate committees of Congress. The collection of grantee-level and client level data enables HRSA to more effectively respond to requests from the Secretary of HHS. In addition, client-level information is needed by HRSA in order to respond to the request for reviews of program performance and information for strategic planning. Client-level data is also needed to support the implementation and monitoring of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS).

On April 11, 2012, a memo from the Secretary of HHS directed the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) along with other Health and Human Services Operating Divisions (OpDivs) to work together to: (1) Identify seven common core HIV/AIDS indicators; (2) develop implementation plans to deploy these indicators; and (3) streamline data collection; and reduce reporting by at least 20 to 25 percent. In November 2012, the HIV/AIDS Indicators Implementation Group (HAIIG), comprised of representatives from HHS OpDivs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Veterans' Health Administration, and community partners successfully identified the required common core HIV/AIDS indicators.

Revisions to the ADR are required to support implementation of the core indicators, streamlining data collection and reducing reporting burden. Eleven data elements will be deleted from the ADR and several variables were modified to reduce reporting burden. Sex at Birth, defined as the biological sex assigned to the client at birth, will be added to align with variables collected by other HHS OpDivs. Type of ADAP-funded insurance assistance received will also be added to track ADAP's payment of full or partial premium and co-pays and deductibles.

In addition to the new data elements noted above, other new variables will be added to the ADR address provisions set forth in Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA includes several provisions aimed at eliminating health disparities in America. Section 4302 (Understanding health disparities: Data collection and analysis) of the ACA focuses on the standardization, collection, analysis, and reporting of health disparities data. Section 4302 requires the Secretary of HHS to establish data collection standards for race, ethnicity, and sex. The race/ethnicity data elements include reporting of Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander subgroups. The categories for HHS data standards for race and ethnicity are based on the disaggregation of the OMB standard used in the American Community Survey and the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census. The subgroup categories can be rolled-up to the OMB standard. These new data elements will be used in data analysis intended to identify and understand health disparities.

Likely Respondents: State ADAPs of Ryan White Part B grantees.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at Section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions which may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register .” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on July 1, 2014, through July 31, 2014. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

(a) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

(b) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

Technology descriptions follow.

Description of Technology: This technology concerns a novel monoclonal antibody for selecting new anti-cancer compounds.

The active form of ATR (ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related) kinase is phosphorylated at Threonine 1989 site (T1989). The monoclonal antibody binds the phosphorylated Threonine 1989 (T1989). The phosphorylated ATR senses DNA damage response and leads to cell cycle arrest. Targeting at ATR, anti-cancer drugs may induce cancer cell death.

This technology can be applied into stable and immunoassays on multiple platforms for measuring ATR activation and inhibition and may inform therapeutic decisions for cancer treatment.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Antibody specifically against phosphorylated ATR (at T1989 site).

• Application in assays to develop personalized medicine for pT1989 ATR-related disease.

• Application in assays for selecting measuring ATR modulation.

• Application in assays for selecting ATR inhibitors.

Competitive Advantages:

• Novel antibody against ATR phosphorylated at T1989.

• Possibility to establish stable and effective immunoassays to select drugs specifically targeting ATR.

• Works in western blot and IFA applications on crude (unenriched) cell lysates.

• Works in standard processed clinical and preclinical samples.

• Can be used to report drug activity.

Development Stage:

• In vitro data available.

• In vivo data available (animal).

• Prototype.

Inventors: Thomas D. Pfister (SAIC-Frederick), Allison M. Marrero (SAIC-Frederick), Ralph E. Parchment (SAIC-Frederick), James H. Doroshow (NCI).

Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-001-2014/0—US Provisional Application No. 61/893,070 filed 18 Oct 2013.

Licensing Contact: Surekha Vathyam, Ph.D.; 301-435-4076; vathyams@mail.nih.gov.

Description of Technology: Investigators at the National Institute of Mental Health have discovered a novel method for monitoring the effects of sleep deprivation on brain activity. Sleep deprivation has been known to adversely affect basic cognitive abilities, such as object recognition and decision making, even leading to hallucinations and epileptic seizures. This invention measures the degree of sleep deprivation and decrease in behavioral performance directly from resting brain activity. A deviation from optimal avalanche parameters correlates with duration of wakefulness and decrease in performance.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Monitor wakefulness, reaction time.

• Potential application for monitoring sleep-deprived first-responders (e.g., military, EMT, etc.)

Competitive Advantages:

• Continuously monitors brain activity.

• Non-invasive.

Development Stage:

• In vivo data available (human).

• Prototype.

Inventors: Dietmar Plenz (NIMH), Oren Shriki (NIMH), Christian Meisel (NIMH), Giulio Tononi (Univ. Wisconsin).

Publication: Meisel C, et al. Fading signatures of critical brain dynamics during sustained wakefulness in humans. J Neurosci. 2013 Oct 30;33(44):17363-72. [PMID 24174669].

Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-345-2013/0—US Application No. 61/866,962 filed 16 Aug 2013.

Related Technologies: HHS Reference No. E-294-2005/1-

• US Application No. 11/990,419 filed 14 Aug 2006, which issued as US Patent No. 8,548,786 on 01 Oct 2013.

• CA Application No. 2,618,933 filed 14 Aug 2006.

• AU Application No. 2006279572 filed 14 Aug 2006.

• EP Application No. 06813476.6 filed 14 Aug 2006.

• JP Application No. 2008-526298 filed 14 Aug 2006.

• AU Application No. 2013201187 filed 14 Aug 2006.

Licensing Contact: Charlene Maddox, Ph.D.; 301-435-4689; maddoxcs@mail.nih.gov.

Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute of Mental Health is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize this technology. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Suzanne Winfield, Ph.D. at winfiels@mail.nih.gov.

Description of Technology: The invention offered for licensing is in the field of biosensors with application in diagnostics and in regulation of implantable biomedical devices. More specifically, it is related to biological semiconductors based on the electrical percolation of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs). The nanotubes are embedded with biological ligands (e.g., antibodies). The electrical resistance of a semiconducting SWNT is found to dramatically increase upon the actuation by a specific antigen. Measurement of the change in resistance correlates with the concentration of the specific antigen and thus provides for quantitative determination and diagnostics of biological samples. The simple printing fabrication of electrical percolation biological semiconductors (EPBSC) can facilitate assembly of numerous types of gates (e.g., antibodies, DNA, etc.) and print many of such gates on the same chip for the creation of biological CPUs for various biomedical applications, including direct biodetection and regulation of implantable biomedical devices.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Pathogen detection.

• Biomarker targeted diagnostics.

• Point-of-care.

• Food allergens.

Competitive Advantages:

• Easy to assemble.

• Detection of multiple analytes.

• Digital signal amplification.

• Stable shelf-life.

Development Stage:

• In vitro data available.

• Prototype.

Inventors: Avraham Rasooly (NCI), Minghui Yang (Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore), Yordan Kostov (Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore), Hugh Brock (Univ. of Maryland, College Park).

Publications:

1. Qu F, et al. Electrochemical biosensing platform using hydrogel prepared from ferrocene modified amino acid as highly efficient immobilization matrix. Anal Chem. 2014 Jan 21;86(2):973-6. [PMID 24383679].

2. Herold KE, Rasooly A. Editorial for “biosensor technologies”. Methods. 2013 Oct;63(3):201. [PMID 24139786].

3. Bruck HA, et al. Electrical percolation based biosensors. Methods. 2013 Oct;63(3):282-9. [PMID 24041756].

4. Balsam J, et al. Thousand-fold fluorescent signal amplification for mHealth diagnostics. Biosens Bioelectron. 2014 Jan 15;51:1-7. [PMID 23928092].

5. Rasooly A, et al. An ELISA Lab-on-a-Chip (ELISA-LOC). Methods Mol Biol. 2013;949:451-71. [PMID 23329460].

Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-040-2009/0-

• US Patent No. 8,614,466 issued 24 Dec 2013.

• Pending European Patent Application 09828144.7.

Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, JD; 301-435-5019; shmilovm@mail.nih.gov.

Description of Technology: Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is mosquito-borne alphavirus endemic in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. In 2013 CHIKV infection has also emerged in the Caribbean and a pandemic of CHIKV has re-emerged in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan. Currently, there is no vaccine available for the prevention of CHIKV infection and no specific therapy exists to treat the illness. Researchers at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have developed a CHIKV Viral Like Particle (CHIKV VLP) vaccine based on plasmid expression vectors encoding structural proteins of the CHIKV virus, which gave rise to CHIKV VLPs in transfected cells. The CHIKV VLPs consist of the core, E1 and E2 proteins and are similar in buoyant density and morphology to replication-competent CHIKV virus. Immunization with CHIKV VLPs elicited neutralizing antibodies against envelope proteins from different CHIKV strains in mouse and nonhuman primate (NHP) models. Monkeys immunized with CHIKV VLPs produced high titer neutralizing antibodies that protected against viremia after high dose challenge. The selected CHIKV VLP vaccine candidate, VRC-CHKVLP059-00-VP, composed of the E1, E2, and capsid proteins from the CHIKV strain 37997, was recently evaluated by the VRC at the NIH Clinical Center for safety, tolerability and immunogenicity in the clinical protocol VRC 311 (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT01489358), a Phase I, open-label, dose escalation clinical trial. The VRC-CHKVLP059-00-VP vaccine was highly immunogenic, safe, and well-tolerated. VRC researchers have also developed the transient transfection manufacturing process for CHIKV and other alphaviruses, such as Western, Eastern and Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (WEVEE) viruses. Pre-clinical in vivo mouse and NHP data, Phase 1 clinical trial data and manufacturing data are available.

NIH will evaluate a license applicant's capabilities and experience in advancing similar technologies through the regulatory process. This technology is not eligible for the NIH's start-up license program.

Potential Commercial Applications: Chikungunya vaccines based on viral like particles.

Competitive Advantages:

• There is currently no CHIKV vaccine on the market.

• VRC-CHKVLP059-00-VP vaccine candidate is highly immunogenic, safe, and well-tolerated.

• Minimal containment requirements for CHIKV VLP manufacturing because live virus production is not required.

Development Stage:

• In vitro data available.

• In vivo data available (animal).

• In vivo data available (human).

Inventors: Gary J. Nabel, Wataru Akahata, Srinivas S. Rao (all of VRC/NIAID).

Publications:

1. Akahata W, et al. A virus-like particle vaccine for epidemic Chikungunya virus protects non-human primates against infection. Nat Med. 2010 Mar;16(3):334-8. [PMID 20111039].

2. Akahata W, Nabel GJ. A specific domain of the Chikungunya virus E2 protein regulates particle formation in human cells: implications for alphavirus vaccine design. J Virol. 2012 Aug;86(16):8879-83. [PMID 22647698].

3. Chang et al. Chikungunya Virus-Like Particle Vaccine Elicits Neutralizing Antibodies in Healthy Adults in a Phase I Clinical Trial; manuscript submitted.

Intellectual Property:

HHS Reference Nos. E-004-2009/0/1/2-

• US Provisional Application No. 61/118,206 filed 26 Nov 2008.

• US Provisional Application No. 61/201,118 filed 05 Dec 2008.

• International Application No. PCT/US2009/006294 (WO 2010/062396) filed 24 Nov 2009.

• and corresponding filings in the US, Europe, China, Australia, Brazil, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam.

HHS Reference Nos. E-057-2011/0/1/2-

• US Provisional Application No. 61/438,236 filed 31 Jan 2011.

• International Application No. PCT/US2012/023361 (WO 2012/106356) filed 31 Jan 2012.

• and corresponding filings in the US and India.

Licensing Contact: Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, Ph.D., MBA; 301-435-4507; ThalhamC@mail.nih.gov.

Unauthorized Use of Draft Immediate Services Program (ISP) Application: During April 2014, FEMA used the draft version of the ISP application to evaluate whether the State of Washington needed the ISP portion of the Crisis Counseling Program for the Washington State mudslides that occurred on March 22, 2014. Washington State was approved for the ISP portion of the Crisis Counseling Program and FEMA only utilized the ISP draft application during this one incident. FEMA will not use the ISP or RSP applications until OMB has approved both forms for use. FEMA is disclosing the unauthorized use for transparency purposes during the OMB review and approval process.

Title: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program.

Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0085.

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 003-0-1, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application; FEMA Form 003-0-2, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Regular Services Program Application; SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs; SF-425, Federal Financial Report; HHS Checklist/08-2007; HHS Project Performance Site Location Form.

Abstract: The CCP consists of two grant programs, the Immediate Services Program (ISP) and the Regular Services Program (RSP). The ISP and the RSP provide supplemental funding to States, U.S. Territories, and Federally recognized Tribes following a Presidentially-declared disaster. The grant programs provide funding for Training and Services, including community outreach, public education, and counseling techniques. States are required to submit an application that provides information on Needs Assessment, Plan of Service, Program Management, and an accompanying Budget.

Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,515 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $84,476.40. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $107,717.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 19, 2014, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lee K. dePalo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

The following areas of the State of North Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 5, 2014.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs, and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Arrival and Departure Record, Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure, and Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

OMB Number: 1651-0111.

Form Numbers: I-94 and I-94W.

Abstract: CBP Forms I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record) and I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record) are used to document a traveler's admission into the United States. These forms are filled out by aliens and are used to collect information on citizenship, residency, and contact information. The data elements collected on these forms enable the DHS to perform its mission related to the screening of alien visitors for potential risks to national security, and the determination of admissibility to the United States. The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) applies to aliens traveling to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and requires that VWP travelers provide information electronically to CBP before embarking on travel to the United States. Travelers who are entering under the VWP in the air or sea environment, and who have a travel authorization obtained through ESTA, are not required to complete the paper Form I-94W.

Pursuant to an interim final rule published on March 27, 2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR 18457) related to Form I-94, CBP has partially automated the Form I-94 process. CBP now gathers data previously collected on the paper Form I-94 from existing automated sources in lieu of requiring passengers arriving by air or sea to submit a paper I-94 upon arrival. Passengers can access and print their electronic I-94 via the Web site at www.cbp.gov/I94.

ESTA can be accessed at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/ . Samples of CBP Forms I-94 and I-94W can be viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/document/forms/form-i-94-arrivaldeparture-record and http://www.cbp.gov/document/forms/form-i-94w-visa-waiver-arrivaldeparture-record.

Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the burden hours resulting from revised estimates of the number of respondents using ESTA and filing Form I-94W. There are no changes to the information collected on Form I-94, Form I-94W, ESTA or the I-94 Web site.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Individuals, Carriers, and the Travel and Tourism Industry.

Form I-94 (Arrival and Departure Record):

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,387,550.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes.

Estimated Burden Hours: 583,544.

Estimated Annual Cost to Public: $26,325,300.

I-94 Web site:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,047,681.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 minutes.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 333,147.

Form I-94W (Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure):

Estimated Number of Respondents: 868,521.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 115,513.

Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $5,211,126.

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA):

Estimated Number of Respondents: 22,960,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,740,500.

Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $264,460,000.

On August 15, 2014, at 79 FR 48168, HUD published proposed FMRs for FY 2015. In this notice, HUD advised that public housing authorities in the Dallas, TX HMFA, along with the Housing Authority of the County of Cook (IL), the City of Long Beach (CA) Housing Authority, the Chattanooga, TN, Housing Authority, the Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Housing Authority, and the Laredo, TX Housing Authority continue to be the only PHAs managing their voucher programs using Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs). August 15, 2014, notice provided that the Small Area FMRs are listed in the notice's Schedule B addendum. (See 79 FR 48182.) Unfortunately the Schedule B addendum published on August 15, 2014, inadvertently excluded the Small Area FMRs for Dallas, Texas. This notice provides the corrected Schedule B Addendum.

With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14042). The refuge complex is located in the San Luis Valley, a high mountain basin located in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties, Colorado. A wide variety of habitats are found across the three refuges, including wet meadows, playa wetlands, riparian areas within the flood plain of the Rio Grande and other creeks, desert shrublands, grasslands, and croplands. Totaling about 106,000 acres, the refuges are an important stopover for numerous migratory birds. The refuges support many groups of nesting, migrating, and wintering birds, including grebes, herons, ibis, ducks, geese, hawks, eagles, falcons, shorebirds, owls, songbirds, and others.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act) by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including, where appropriate, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

We started the public outreach process in March 2011. At that time and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included holding six public meetings, mailing planning updates, maintaining a project Web site, and publishing press releases. We have considered and evaluated all the comments we have received during this process.

During the public scoping process with which we started work on this draft CCP and EIS, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the public raised several issues. Our draft CCP and EIS addresses them. A full description of each alternative is in the draft EIS. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.

Habitat and wildlife management: There would be few changes in management of habitats and wildlife populations across the refuge complex through the manipulation of water. We would continue to manage wetland areas, wet meadows, riparian areas, and upland habitats to provide for a variety of waterbirds and other migratory birds. We would continue to protect habitat for the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and other species of concern, including the Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub on Baca NWR. We would continue to produce small grains at current levels on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes. The management of elk populations would be limited to nonlethal dispersal, agency culling, and the distribution hunts on the former State lands of Baca NWR. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for season-long bison use within Baca NWR, and we would not use bison as a management tool in the future.

Water resources management: We would continue to manage water in the same manner, except as modified by changed State rules, regulations, and policies, and we would augment water supplies in accordance with State law.

Visitor services: We would continue to provide for limited wildlife-dependent public uses, including waterfowl and small game hunting on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. We would not build new facilities to support visitor services. Baca NWR would remain closed to all public access except for limited guided tours, and access to refuge offices.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: There would be few changes from current management. When the legislation passed authorizing the Baca NWR, it did not come with additional funding, and additional operations costs were absorbed into the current operations. We would seek some additional staff and operations funding to support current management needs.

Wilderness review: We would not recommend protection for any areas having wilderness characteristics or values.

Habitat and wildlife management: Although we would manage wetland and riparian areas within the refuge complex to achieve a variety of wetland types and conditions in order to support a diversity of migratory birds, we would focus on the focal species, including the federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher and other wildlife species like the Rio Grande chub and Rio Grande sucker that represent larger regional and landscape conservation goals. In specific areas, we would restore historical water flow patterns through more effective and efficient water management practices (e.g., moving water to areas that historically held more water). This could include removal or replacement of water infrastructure. We would restore riparian habitat along streams in Baca NWR and along selected areas along the Rio Grande in Alamosa NWR, and we would manage upland habitats to create a variety of conditions to provide for a diversity of wildlife species. We would use public hunting, including elk hunting, to complement the State's management across the refuge complex, with more limited dispersal hunting used on Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for bison management on Baca NWR, but we would research the feasibility of using semi-free-ranging bison year-round to effectively maintain and enhance refuge habitats. We would continue to grow limited amounts of small grain on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes.

Water resources management: We would continue to work with other landowners and agencies throughout the watershed to keep flexibility as well as to protect and, if necessary, augment our water rights as State regulations evolve. Our water infrastructure, delivery, and efficiencies would require upgrades to make sure our wildlife, habitat, and visitor services objectives are met.

Visitor services: In addition to allowing for waterfowl and limited small game hunting, we would offer limited elk hunting on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, and we would open Baca NWR for big game and small game hunting. We would improve public access on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, including allowing more access from approximately July 15 through February 28 for wildlife viewing and interpretation on roads and trails that are currently only open to waterfowl hunters during hunting season. We would also improve existing access. We would seek funding to build a visitor center and refuge complex offices at Monte Vista NWR to provide for safer access to the refuge complex headquarters and to provide for a modern work environment, as well as to offer a place for visitors to come and learn more about the refuge complex resources. We would open Baca NWR for a variety of compatible, wildlife-dependent opportunities, including providing facilities to support them, including an auto tour route, trails, viewing blinds, and offering interpretation and environmental education programs.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: We would increase our efforts toward identifying and protecting the significant cultural resources found on the refuge complex. We would work with partners and volunteers to accomplish our objectives, but we would also seek increased staffing levels of both full-time and seasonal employees, as well as increased funding for operations.

Wilderness review: We would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR and adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve that possess wilderness characteristics and values.

Habitat and wildlife management: We would take all feasible actions to restore—or mimic, where needed—the native vegetation community, based on ecological site characteristics, ecological processes, and other factors. We would restore the function of the riparian and playa areas on the Baca NWR. Where possible, we would restore natural waterflow patterns. We would phase out and end the production of small grains for migrating sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR. Similar to alternative B, we would use hunting to manage elk populations across the refuge complex. Periodically (not annually), we would use bison on Baca NWR to mimic the ecological benefit they may have once provided.

Water resources management: We would manage water to restore the hydrologic conditions, with less focus on habitat management for specific species or for providing wildlife viewing. In some years, water might not be available to meet life cycle needs for some waterfowl species. Existing water infrastructure would be removed or modified as needed.

Visitor services: We would continue to allow waterfowl and limited small game hunting on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. Similar to under alternative B, we would open the Baca NWR for big game and small game hunting, whereas, on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would rely on limited public hunting or agency dispersal methods for elk management.

There may be other changes in public use, depending on the habitat management action. Some areas could be closed, or wildlife viewing would be more limited. Current public access would be evaluated on the Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. If existing roads or trails are not needed, or if these facilities fragment habitat, they could be removed or altered. Viewing areas for sandhill cranes may be moved, depending on restoration efforts. As under alternative B, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would also allow for additional walking and biking on trails and roads within the hunt boundary from July 15 through February 28. We would not build a refuge headquarters or visitor center on Monte Vista Refuge. Except for limited hunting access to achieve our management objectives, there would be few visitor facilities or programs on Baca NWR, and most of the refuge would remain closed.

Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except that on Baca NWR, roads that are not needed or that are fragmenting habitat would be removed.

Wilderness review: This would be the same as under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

Habitat and wildlife management: Under this alternative, our habitat management practices would be a blend of alternatives A and B. We would manage wildlife habitats on the refuge complex consistent with our mission and purposes, while maximizing and emphasizing quality visitor experiences and wildlife-dependent public uses. For example, we could irrigate areas that are closer to public access to facilitate wildlife viewing. We would increase agricultural production of small grains for sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR, including the consideration of producing grain in specific places to enhance wildlife viewing. We would offer a variety of opportunities for elk hunting (e.g., youth hunts or additional provisions for persons with disabilities), managing numbers at levels that would restore and foster the long-term health of native plant communities. We would introduce and manage a small bison herd on a confined area of the Baca NWR, emphasizing wildlife viewing and interpretive opportunities.

Water resources management: We would manage water similar to alternative B, except we would make a concerted effort to make sure there is water in specific areas to enhance wildlife viewing; this practice could require additional augmentation of water.

Visitor services: We would provide for the widest variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Similar to under alternative B, public access and visitor programs would be expanded; however, there would be additional trails, viewing blinds, and seasonal auto tour routes across the refuge complex. Subsequently, we would increase interpretation and environmental education opportunities and seek more staff, volunteers, and partnerships to support the visitor services program. We would allow for limited fishing access on Alamosa NWR. We would also consider additional commercial uses.

Cultural resources, partnerships and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except there would be greater emphasis on using students and volunteers to help us survey areas with high potential for cultural resources. We would pursue more outside partnerships and seek to increase staffing and funding to support our refuge complex operations.

Wilderness review: This would be the same as that under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

In addition to any one method in ADDRESSES , you can view or obtain documents at the following locations:

• Our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/ccp/co/alm_bac_mtv/alm_bac_mtv.html.

• Public libraries:

Opportunity for public input will be provided at public meetings. The specific dates and times for the public meetings are yet to be determined, but will be announced via local media and a planning update.

We particularly seek comments on the following issues:

We consider comments substantive if they:

After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and final EIS.

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

The objective of this collection is to build better inventories of landslides through citizen participation. This project will make it possible for the public to report their observations of landslides on a USGS-hosted Web site. The information gathered through the on-line database will be used to classify the landslides and damage, as well as provide information to scientists about the location, time, speed, and size of the landslides. The USGS Landslide Hazards Program has developed an interactive Web site for public reporting of landslides.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0100.

Form Number: http://landslides.usgs.gov/dysi/form.php .

Title: Did you see it? Report a Landslide.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Affected Public: General Public.

Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion, after a landslide.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 2,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 167.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

In 2013, approximately over 6 million recreational visitors visited the Colorado River corridor. The National Park Service in collaboration with the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) are interested in understanding the quality and values of visitor trips related to recreational use from the base of Glen Canyon Dam to just below Lees Ferry. A mail-back survey will be used to collect information concerning 1) trip/visit characteristics, 2) activities and 3) opinions on river management. This collection proposes to provide data that will be used to update the currently used estimates that are more than 25 years old. Up-to-date and relevant information is needed concerning the estimation of recreational use in this area.

OMB Number: None. This is a new collection.

Title: Recreational Use Survey.

Type of Request: New.

Affected Public: General public and individual households.

Respondent Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: One-time.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,940.

Annual Burden Hours: 844 hours. We estimate the public reporting burden to be 20 minutes per completed survey response.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have not identified any “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

On June 11, 2014, the Regional Director, Northeast Region, signed the Record of Decision selecting Alternative B as the approved General Management Plan (GMP) for Gateway. The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made; synopses of other alternatives considered; the basis for the decision; a description of the environmentally preferable alternative; a finding on impairment of park resources and values; a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm; and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process.

The NPS will implement Alternative B: Discovering Gateway, which was identified as the agency's preferred alternative in the Final GMP/EIS. The complete description of the selected alternative is provided in chapter 2 of the Final GMP/EIS in the following sections: Management Concepts for Each Alternative, Management Zones, Desired Conditions Common to Both Alternatives and Alternative B: Discovering Gateway.

Under the selected alternative, the NPS will provide the widest range of activities and most recreation opportunities in dispersed locations throughout the park. New connections will be forged with park lands and communities adjacent and nearby Gateway. This alternative will offer the most instructional programming and skills development and draw people into the park to increase awareness and enjoyment of Gateway's historic resources and the natural environment. Gateway will provide more opportunities for multi-day excursions and overnight stays within the park and proposes different types of camping and lodging, varied use levels, and a range of supporting facilities. Increased use will be balanced with additional monitoring and management of wildlife and habitats. More convenient and affordable park access will be developed through trail connections, bicycle infrastructure, public transit, and waterborne transportation. The selected alternative prioritizes joint management and operations for visitor services, orientation, programs, and facilities with New York City and other partners.

The selected alternative describes the approach that the park will take to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Specific options to protect Gateway's resources include integrating long-term planning into park operations, monitoring observed and projected climate trends, conducting climate-related vulnerability assessments for fundamental resources and values, monitoring climate sensitive species, and implementing a range of adaptive management actions. Natural resource protection and restoration efforts will focus on softening hardened coastal edges, restoring wetland and coastal habitats and improving water quality within park waters. The park will pursue public-private partnerships that assist with the preservation and reuse of historic structures and landscapes for a wide variety of uses including visitor services, administrative and partner needs, recreational business opportunities or compatible private use. Gateway will continue to collaborate with a variety of academic and scientific institutions, non-profit organizations and agencies on research and projects to find creative solutions for the long-term preservation of natural and cultural resources.

The NPS selected Alternative B: Discovering Gateway because it best promotes a national park experience, provides a diversity of resource-based recreational opportunities and balances use with protection of the park's fundamental resources and values. The enabling legislation and park purpose identified in the Final GMP/EIS were given the highest consideration as the basis for selecting Alternative B. The selected alternative provides for the greatest diversity of outdoor recreation and access to park shorelines for water-based activities—primary reasons for which Gateway was established as the first NPS urban national recreation area—and emphasizes new physical and programmatic connections with adjacent communities and local government park systems to further increase opportunities for park access. The selected alternative focuses on the preservation and interpretation of the key resources mentioned in the park's legislation and emphasizes new partnerships with New York City and adjacent communities that will greatly enhance the park's ability to fulfill the intent of the enabling legislation and support targeted resource protection goals.

This planning process was initiated in 2009 and included extensive involvement with key stakeholders, agencies, resource experts, and members of the public. Information was disseminated through newsletters and press releases, and all interested parties were provided with opportunities to provide input and feedback during public meetings, workshops, and document review periods. The Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GMP/EIS) was available for public and agency review from August 2, 2013, through October 22, 2013, with five public open houses held in August and September 2013. The Final GMP/EIS responded to, and incorporated, agency and public comments received on the Draft GMP/EIS. The Final GMP/EIS was released for a 30-day no action period on May 9, 2014, ending June 9, 2014.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Aztec Ruins National Monument, Aztec, NM, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Aztec Ruins National Monument.

At an unknown date, five cultural items were removed from an unknown location in San Juan County, NM. In 1953, the items were donated to Aztec Ruins National Monument by Sherman Howe. Catalog records indicate that the items were found in a burial. No information is available regarding the whereabouts of any associated human remains. The five unassociated funerary objects are one Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic mug, one Black-on-White ceramic ladle, one corrugated ceramic culinary jar, and two Black-on-White ceramic bowls.

At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from Haymie Ranch in San Juan County, NM. The item and associated human remains were donated to Aztec Ruins National Monument in 1960 by Esaias Haymie. The human remains were repatriated in 1998. The one unassociated funerary object is a Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic canteen.

At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from LA 45 West Ruin in San Juan County, NM. Catalog records indicate that the item was likely removed from a burial but no human remains have been found. The one unassociated funerary object is a Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic bowl.

In 1934, four cultural items were removed from LA 45 West Ruin in San Juan County, NM. Associated human remains were repatriated in 1998. The four unassociated funerary objects are one Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic cup, two Black-on-White ceramic bowls, and one corrugated ceramic culinary jar.

In 1953, 29 cultural items were removed from LA 45 Hubbard Mound in San Juan County, NM. Associated human remains were repatriated in 1998. The 29 unassociated funerary objects are 1 bone tube, 1 Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic bowl, 1 Mesa Verde Black-on-White ceramic scoop, and 26 Black-on-White ceramic sherds.

The major occupation in and around Aztec Ruins National Monument has been well documented since the beginning of the 20th century in archeological sources as dating to the Pueblo II-Pueblo III period (circa A.D. 900-1300). A cultural affiliation study and subsequent tribal consultation indicate that the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico considers Aztec Ruins National Monument to be within their ancestral homeland. Oral traditions of ancestral puebloan peoples, including the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, support a history of migrations through and occupation of Aztec Ruins National Monument and surrounding areas. The cultural items were identified by Hopi and Zuni cultural specialists as funerary objects used in Hopi and Zuni burial practices based upon the specific forms and ceramic designs, as well as archeological contexts.

Officials of Aztec Ruins National Monument have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 40 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Lawrence Turk, Superintendent, Aztec Ruins National Monument, 84 Road 2900 (Ruins Road), Aztec, NM 87410, telephone (505) 334-6174 x222, email larry_turk@nps.gov, by September 25, 2014. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico may proceed.

Aztec Ruins National Monument is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.

Background: Section 1205(a) of the 1988 Act requires that the Commission keep the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Harmonized Tariff Schedule or HTS) under continuous review and periodically recommend to the President such modifications in the HTS as the Commission considers necessary or appropriate, including to conform the HTS with amendments made to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Convention), which contains the Harmonized System nomenclature in the Annex to the Convention.

The Harmonized System nomenclature provides uniform product architecture for the customs tariffs and statistical nomenclatures of all major trading countries of the world, including the United States. The Harmonized System establishes the general arrangement or structure of product categories, set forth in chapters, 4-digit headings and 6-digit subheadings. It also includes the general rules of interpretation, and section and chapter legal notes that define the scope of sections, chapters, 4-digit headings and 6-digit subheadings. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule is based on the Harmonized System nomenclature. In addition, however, the HTS includes national subdivisions (8-digit subheadings and 10-digit statistical annotations), as well as additional U.S. chapter notes, and other national provisions that facilitate the administration of U.S. customs, tariff and statistical programs.

On June 27, 2014, the WCO adopted recommended amendments to the Harmonized System nomenclature that are scheduled to enter into force on January 1, 2017. The amendments are the fifth in a series of such amendments and are part of the WCO's ongoing program of periodically reviewing and updating the Harmonized System nomenclature. The Commission has posted a copy of the WCO amendments on its Web site at www.usitc.gov. The Commission will recommend to the President such modifications in the HTS as it considers necessary or appropriate to conform the HTS with such amendments.

The Commission will also consider two additional possible modifications in the HTS identified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as part of this investigation. The first relates to the HTS nomenclature for taro (also known as dasheens). In the HTS, fresh or chilled taro is provided for in HTS subheading 0714.40.10, while fresh or chilled dasheens are provided for in HTS subheading 0714.90.10. As part of this investigation, the Commission intends to consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to recommend to the President that one of the two subheadings be deleted from the HTS. The second additional possible modification relates to the HTS nomenclature for corned beef, which is provided for in HTS subheading 1602.50.10. The superior subheading to subheading 1602.50.10 provides for certain meat of bovine animals that is not cured. However, corned beef is a cured meat product. As part of this investigation, the Commission intends to consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to recommend to the President that the HTS be modified to provide for corned beef under a superior subheading for cured meat of bovine animals.

An up-to-date copy of the HTS, which incorporates the Harmonized System in its overall structure, can be found on the Commission Web site at www.usitc.gov. Hard copies and electronic copies on CD can be found at many of the 1,400 Federal Depository Libraries located throughout the United States and its territories; further information about these locations can be found at www.gpoaccess.gov or by contacting GPO Access by telephone at (866) 512-1800.

Proposed Recommendations, Opportunity To Comment: In preparing its recommended modifications, the Commission will first prepare proposed recommendations and provide opportunity to interested Federal agencies and the public to present their views in writing on those proposed recommendations. The Commission expects to publish the proposed recommendations on its Web site in December 2014, and will publish a notice in the Federal Register at that time providing notice of their availability and the procedures for filing written views, including the date by which such written views must be filed. To assist the public in understanding the proposed changes and in developing comments, the Commission will include, with the proposed recommendations and in its report to the President, a non-authoritative cross-reference table linking the proposed tariff codes to the corresponding current tariff codes. Persons using the successive versions of this table should be aware that the cross-references shown are subject to change during the course of the investigation.

Recommendations to the President: The Commission will submit its recommended modifications to the President in the form of a report that will include a summary of the information on which the recommendations were based, together with a statement of the probable economic effect of each recommended change on any industry in the United States. The report also will include a copy of all written views submitted by interested Federal agencies and a copy or summary, prepared by the Commission, of the views of all other interested parties. The Commission expects to submit that report in July 2015.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

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

The DEA established the initial 2014 aggregate production quotas and assessments for annual need on September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55099). The notice stipulated that, as provided for in 21 CFR 1303.13, all aggregate production quotas and assessments for annual need are subject to adjustment. On May 5, 2014, a notice titled, “Controlled Substances: Adjustment to the Established 2014 Aggregate Production Quota for Marijuana,” was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 55099). That notice adjusted the established 2014 aggregate production quota for marijuana for reasons stated therein. All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to the adjusted 2014 aggregate production quota for marijuana on or before June 4, 2014.

The DEA received one comment on the notice with request for comments. The commenter supported the adjusted 2014 aggregate production quota for marijuana. The DEA appreciates the support for this adjusted 2014 aggregate production quota for marijuana which will provide for the estimated scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.

The DEA has taken into consideration the one comment received during the 30-day period and the Administrator has determined, pursuant to Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826), based on all of the above, and for the reasons stated in the May 5, 2014, notice, that the adjusted established 2014 aggregate production quota for marijuana to be manufactured in the United States in 2014 to provide for the estimated scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, shall remain as follows:

By notice dated May 28, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2014, 79 FR 32319, SA INTL GMBH C/O., Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC., 3500 Dekalb Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63118, applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic classes of controlled substances. In reference to the non-narcotic raw material, no comments or objections have been received. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of SA INTL GMBH C/O., Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC., to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:

The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis.

In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR pt. 0, subpt. R, App.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on June 6, 2014, Chemtos, LLC, 14101 W. Highway 290, Building 2000B, Austin, Texas 78737-9331, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers for use as reference standards.

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR pt. 0, subpt. R, App.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on June 9, 2014, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: