Background

On May 7, 2012, FSIS published a Federal Register notice (77 FR 26725) announcing new traceback procedures that it intended to implement when FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find a presumptive positive for Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) O157:H7 in raw ground beef or bench trim. FSIS explained that these new procedures would enable FSIS to better determine whether the establishments that produced the source materials for contaminated product have produced other product that may not be microbiologically independent from the contaminated product. The Agency also announced its intention to request that an establishment recall product if the establishment was the sole supplier of beef manufacturing trimmings source materials for ground product that FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find positive for E. coli O157:H7, evidence suggests that contamination most likely occurred at the supplier establishment, and a portion of the product from the originating source lot from the supplier establishment was sent to other establishments (77 FR 26725). Finally, this notice announced the availability of compliance guidelines concerning establishment sampling for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) organisms or virulence markers and compliance guidelines for STEC sampled and tested labeling claims.

FSIS has summarized and responded to the comments on the Federal Register notice and guidance below. In response to the comments, FSIS has not made any significant changes to the policies, procedures, or guidance announced in 2012. However, FSIS has updated the policies, procedures, and guidance to reflect the changes that apply to E. coli O157:H7 and would appropriately apply to non-O157 STEC.

On September 20, 2011, FSIS declared six STEC organisms, in addition to E. coli O157:H7, adulterants in raw non-intact beef product or raw intact beef product intended for use in raw non-intact beef product (76 FR 58157). On June 4, 2012, FSIS started testing beef manufacturing trimmings for these six non-O157 STEC organisms. FSIS is gathering information to assess the economic effects of testing for the non-O157 STECs in raw ground beef components and ground beef. As noted in the May 31, 2012 Federal Register , when the Agency completes the updated analysis, FSIS will announce its availability and request comments on the analysis (77 FR 31976). As FSIS also stated in the May 31, 2012 Notice, the Agency will then assess comments and make any necessary changes before finalizing the economic analysis and before making a determination on expanding FSIS testing to include ground product and raw ground beef components other than beef manufacturing trimmings. Below, FSIS has discussed how FSIS would implement the traceback and recall policies based on non-O157 STEC positive results in ground beef and bench trim should FSIS start testing these products for the adulterant non-O157 STEC.

FSIS will use high event period (HEP) criteria in determining whether a systemic breakdown of process control at a slaughter establishment led to cross-contamination between multiple production lots. A systemic breakdown of process control and the resulting contamination would create insanitary conditions that may affect the disposition of intact lots of beef in addition to beef manufacturing trimmings and could lead to more product becoming adulterated than the product found positive for the pathogen. As is discussed below, FSIS has revised the FSIS Compliance Guideline For Establishments Sampling Beef Trimmings for Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Organisms or Virulence Markers ( http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e0f06d97-9026-4e1e-a0c2-1ac60b836fa6/Compliance_Guide_Est_Sampling_STEC_0512.pdf?MOD=AJPERES ) to include the six additional adulterant STEC such that if an establishment's sample testing shows that it has experienced a HEP, then the establishment has likely experienced a HEP for non-O157 STEC as well as for E. coli O157:H7. Similarly, FSIS has revised the Compliance Guideline for E. coli O157:H7 Sampled and Tested Claims for Boneless Beef Manufacturing Trimmings (Trim) ( http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/compliance-guides-index/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOINAg3MDC2dDbwMDIHQ08842MTDy8_YwMgYqCASWYG_paEbUEFYoL-3s7OBhZ8xkfpxAEcDQvq9iLDAqMjX2TddP6ogsSRDNzMvLV8_Ijk_tyAnMzEvOVU3vTQzJbUYKJ6SWqEfrh-F10B_E3QFWHwMUYDbSwW5oRFVPmnBnumKigBJZmxC/#Ecoli ) to address the data that FSIS would need to see to approve labels bearing statements that product has been sampled and tested for non-O157 STEC, in addition to E. coli O157:H7.

FSIS will implement the traceback procedures announced in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register on October 14, 2014. Under these new traceback procedures, Enforcement, Investigations, and Analysis Officers (EIAOs) will conduct traceback investigations at establishments that produced the E. coli O157:H7 presumptive positive product and at suppliers that provided source materials for the ground beef or bench trim that FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find presumptive positive. These traceback investigations will begin as soon as possible in response to presumptive positive results and supplier information from the producing establishment. During these investigations, EIAOs will gather relevant information about the production of the product, including use of antimicrobials and prevention of cross-contamination, sanitary conditions, and relevant purchase specifications.

Furthermore, as part of their traceback investigations, EIAOs will review slaughter establishment test results to determine whether the establishment has experienced a HEP.

HEPs in beef manufacturing trimmings at slaughter establishments are periods in which the establishment experiences a high percentage of positive results for E. coli O157:H7 or Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) organisms or virulence markers in beef manufacturing trimmings samples from production lots containing the same source materials. In this situation, the beef manufacturing trimmings were produced from one or more carcasses slaughtered and dressed consecutively or intermittently within a defined period of time (e.g., shift).

There are two types of HEP that may indicate out-of-control situations in the establishment's production process. A HEP may indicate an event in which some specific occurrence or event causes a clustering of STEC organisms or virulence markers that indicate contamination in product, or a HEP may mean that a systemic breakdown of the slaughter dressing operation has occurred and has created an insanitary condition that may be applicable to all parts of the beef carcass (e.g., primal cuts in addition to the beef manufacturing trimmings and other raw ground beef and patty components). If the establishment has developed its own supportable HEP criteria, then the EIAOs will determine whether it has experienced a HEP based on the establishment's HEP criteria and will determine whether the establishment's HEP criteria are appropriately supported. Accordingly, FSIS recommends that as part of their supporting documentation for their hazard analysis (9 CFR 417.5(a)), establishments document the criteria they use to identify HEPs. If the establishment has not developed its own HEP criteria, EIAOs will determine whether the establishment has experienced a HEP based on the FSIS criteria discussed below.

In the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , FSIS provided criteria for identifying a localized out-of-control event in which some specific occurrence caused a clustering of STEC contamination in product. The event would not indicate, necessarily, a severe or global systemic breakdown or inherent weakness of the process or food safety system. During a localized HEP, intact primal and subprimal cuts would not be affected if such cuts routinely undergo a complete pathogen reduction treatment on all exposed surfaces.

FSIS also provided criteria for identifying a systemic HEP that indicates a systemic breakdown or inherent weakness of the process or food safety system. Virtually all raw beef product produced during the period of the systemic HEP would likely be affected, regardless of whether antimicrobial treatments were applied such as to primal cuts.

FSIS is not making any changes to the HEP criteria described in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register . The final HEP criteria are:

1. For a local HEP: 3 or more STEC organism (or virulence marker) positive results out of 10 consecutive samples from production lots containing same-source materials; and

2. For a systemic HEP:

A. 7 or more STEC organism (or virulence marker) positive results out of 30 consecutive samples from production lots containing same-source materials.

B. At establishments that test more than 60 samples per day, from production lots containing same-source materials, the number of E. coli O157:H7 (or STEC organism or virulence marker) positive samples below within the samples tested in the table:

The above criteria are based on high degrees of confidence (establishing sufficient statistical evidence) that the process percentage exceeded 5 percent during some period. The 5 percent represents a value that is definitively higher than the expected percent positive found when an establishment is operating under good manufacturing practices. For the systemic HEP based on daily testing of more than 60 samples  1 and the local HEP guidance, FSIS used close to 99 percent confidence for establishing sufficient statistical evidence. 2 For the systemic short-term HEP (based on 30 samples), FSIS selected about 99.95 percent confidence for asserting sufficient statistical evidence. The reason for this high degree of confidence is that FSIS wanted to have a short-term HEP criterion to help establishments identify periods of serious processing problems.

As FSIS explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , based on all the information gathered during traceback investigations, EIAOs will present findings to the District Manager on which to determine whether adulterated product has entered commerce. The EIAO will also make recommendations concerning whether regulatory and enforcement actions are warranted. The District Manager will then determine whether adulterated product entered commerce; if it has, whether to contact the FSIS Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff; and whether enforcement actions are appropriate.

At this time, EIAOs will perform the traceback procedures at establishments that produce raw ground beef products and bench trim products that FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find presumptive positive for E. coli O157:H7 and EIAOs will perform the traceback procedures at establishments that supply the source materials for these products. Should FSIS begin testing raw ground beef products and bench trim products for the six adulterant non-O157:H7 STEC, EIAOs would perform the traceback procedures at establishments that produce raw ground beef and bench trim products that FSIS or other Federal or state agencies find presumptive positive for any STEC organism that FSIS has declared to be an adulterant and EIAOs would perform traceback procedures at the supplying establishments that provided source materials for these products. These traceback procedures will allow FSIS to identify problems that occurred at the establishments that produced the non-O157 STEC positive product and at their suppliers on a timely basis.

As is explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , most establishments use testing that includes an enrichment step followed by differential screening specific to STEC organisms, particularly E. coli O157:H7 or their associated virulence markers (77 FR 26728). Positive results during screening tests require further testing to detect E. coli O157:H7. If the establishment does not perform the additional testing, it should treat lots that test positive in screen tests as positive for E. coli O157:H7. Similarly, FSIS considers these results positive for STEC. STEC includes E. coli O157:H7 and the non-O157 STEC. If establishments test beef manufacturing trimmings for E. coli organisms and virulence markers rather than for specific STEC organisms, and their results indicate that they have experienced a HEP based on the HEP criteria above, they will have likely experienced a HEP for E. coli O157:H7 and the non-O157 STEC. Therefore, during traceback investigations, if EIAOs determine that a slaughter establishment has experienced a HEP based on establishment results for beef manufacturing trimmings and based on the establishment's HEP criteria, or based on the FSIS HEP criteria, EIAOs will likely find that the establishment has experienced a HEP for non-O157 STEC in addition to E. coli O157:H7. The HEP criteria above would apply to non-O157 STEC, as well as E. coli O157:H7. The actions EIAOs will take in response to finding that an establishment has experienced a HEP for non-O157 STEC would be the same they would take in response to an E. coli O157:H7 HEP.

This notice imposes no new requirements for establishments related to HEPs. The new EIAO instructions and investigations are only intended to improve and expedite FSIS traceback procedures. As FSIS explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , EIAOs do not conduct this type of traceback investigation now until they conduct Food Safety Assessments (FSAs). FSAs are scheduled approximately 30 days after the confirmed positive results become available, so FSAs are much later than the traceback investigations EIAOs will now conduct. As noted above, the new traceback investigations will begin as soon as possible in response to presumptive positive results. Also, during FSAs, EIAOs do not ask all the focused questions that they will ask as part of this new procedure. Finally, EIAOs do not currently evaluate whether an establishment has experienced a HEP when performing an assessment (77 FR 26727).

FSIS will also implement the recall procedures announced in the May 7, 2012 Notice on October 14, 2014. Under these procedures, FSIS will request that supplier establishments recall product if:

(1) FSIS or another Federal or State agency finds raw ground beef positive for E. coli O157:H7 at a grinding establishment;

(2) FSIS determines that E. coli O157:H7 introduction, such as cross-contamination, was unlikely to have occurred at the grinding establishment where the sample was taken (based on FSIS's assessment of the grinding establishment's handling practices);

(3) FSIS determines that the grinding establishment did not combine material from multiple source lots to create the lot of product that tested positive;

(4) After conducting traceback to identify the slaughter and beef manufacturing trimmings fabrication supplier that provided the sole source material, FSIS determines that the supplier or downstream users split the implicated lot before sending it to the establishment where the positive sample was taken; and

(5) Some portion of the split lot sent to the grinder was sent into commerce for further processing into product that does not receive a full lethality treatment to eliminate E. coli O157:H7 in a federally inspected establishment.

At this time, when the criteria listed above occur, the recall procedures will apply to suppliers of materials of raw ground beef products that FSIS or another Federal or State agency finds positive for E. coli O157:H7. Should FSIS begin testing ground beef for the six non-O157:H7 STEC that are adulterants, and the criteria listed above occur, those recall procedures would apply to suppliers of materials of raw ground beef products that FSIS or another Federal or State agency finds positive for any of the STEC organisms that FSIS has declared an adulterant. Contamination with any of these STEC organisms is most likely to occur at the supplying slaughter establishment, so it is appropriate that the Agency request a recall of any source materials still in commerce if a slaughter establishment was the sole supplier of source materials for ground product that FSIS or another Federal or State agency finds positive for these STEC organisms. In addition, these recall policies and procedures are appropriate because STEC organisms are enteric pathogens. Therefore, contamination may occur during the slaughter process, from transfer of contamination from the hides, hooves, and gut of cattle. Contamination may occur through cross-contamination at the grinder; however, if there is no evidence of cross-contamination at the grinder, contamination most likely occurred at the slaughter or beef manufacturing trimmings establishment (77 FR 26728).

FSIS requested comments on costs that would result from this recall policy but did not receive specific comments on this issue. As explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , had this recall policy been in place, FSIS may have requested 29 additional recalls in the two year period between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, if suppliers had split their lots and sent source materials to other establishments in addition to the grinder where FSIS found the positive source material. 3 Any additional recalls under these circumstances are likely to better prevent the public from consuming adulterated product (77 FR 26727). Removing from commerce source materials that may be contaminated with STEC organisms is critically important. This new recall policy will better protect the public from consumption of STEC contaminated product because it will better ensure that source materials that are contaminated with STEC organisms are removed from commerce.

FSIS samples beef manufacturing trimmings and most other raw ground beef components at the slaughter establishment. Therefore, if FSIS finds a positive in these products, it does not have to trace product back to a different slaughter supplier establishment because all the source materials are typically from the slaughter establishment that produced the positive product. However, FSIS samples “bench trim” at establishments that did not slaughter the cattle used to produce the source materials. Bench trim materials are materials that the receiving establishment uses as entire cuts to produce nonintact product or uses to derive trimmings for use in non-intact product.

When FSIS finds bench trim positive, FSIS does not typically request the recall of source materials from suppliers of the bench trim. In many cases, receiving establishments use primal or subprimal products as bench trim in their entirety to produce non-intact product. In this situation, the primal or subprimal products or trimmings would typically constitute an independent lot. Therefore, if FSIS finds the subprimal or primal product, or trim derived from the subprimal or primal product, positive for E. coli O157:H7, FSIS would not typically request a recall from the supplier slaughter establishment because there would likely be no product to recall related to the primal or subprimal product. Also, based on FSIS's experience with bench trim sampling, bench trim is usually combined with multiple lots at the grinding establishment. So again, FSIS would not request a recall at the supplier establishment in this situation.

Bench trim is typically primal or subprimal product that the slaughter establishment did not intend for use in ground or other non-intact, raw product. Many slaughter establishments maintain information on their Web sites or provide information to receiving establishments explaining that this product is not intended for grinding or use in other non-intact, raw product. However, receiving establishments may use some portion of the primal or subprimal product to produce non-intact, raw product. When they do so, many of these receiving establishments employ additional antimicrobial treatments to the primal or subprimal product or test the non-intact product or trimmings derived from the primal or subprimal product.

If FSIS finds the bench trim product positive and the slaughter establishment did not intend the primal or subprimal product to be used in non-intact product, the positive result does not necessarily represent a problem with the slaughter establishment's food safety system. The slaughter establishment designated the primal or subprimal product for intact use and its food safety system likely addressed the hazards associated with intact product, rather than non-intact product.

However, should FSIS find bench trim positive, it would conduct the type of traceback investigation that is described in this notice and activities, including sampling and testing of primal and subprimal product, to verify that the establishment is meeting all HACCP requirements. In most cases, FSIS would not request that the slaughter establishment recall subprimal or primal product because the positive product was not intended for grinding or other non-intact use.

If data show that the slaughter establishment experienced a HEP, FSIS may request a recall. If FSIS finds that the slaughter establishment experienced a high event period and did not take action to reduce possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination in primal and subprimal products; that the slaughter establishment was the sole supplier for the bench trim; that contamination did not occur at the receiving bench trim establishment; and that the supplier co-mingled primal or subprimal cuts and then sent some of the same lot used to produce the bench trim that FSIS found positive to additional establishments, FSIS would ask the slaughter supplier establishment to recall the product.

The May 7, 2012 Federal Register notice announced the availability of guidance, FSIS Compliance Guideline for Establishments Sampling Beef Trimmings for Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Organisms or Virulence Markers and Compliance Guideline for E. coli O157:H7 Sampled and Tested Claims for Boneless Beef Manufacturing Trimmings (Trim).

FSIS has revised the establishment sampling guidance to reflect the Agency's recent policy developments relating to the six adulterant non-O157 STECs. As is discussed above, most establishments generally test for pathogenic E. coli organisms and virulence markers rather than for specific STEC organisms. Therefore, the criteria that FSIS has provided in the guidance are general and would indicate that the establishment may be experiencing problems controlling any of the STEC organisms. The guideline is meant to help slaughter establishments develop and implement sampling and testing programs for STECs in beef manufacturing trimmings. The HEP guidance will be most useful to slaughter and fabrication establishments that manufacture 50,000 pounds or more of beef manufacturing trimmings daily because they are likely to conduct sufficient testing on same source beef manufacturing trimmings to be able to determine whether a HEP has occurred. Smaller volume slaughter and fabrication establishments can also use the HEP criteria in the guidance, particularly those that take 10 or 30 samples. Non-slaughter establishments will not know whether problems with slaughter and dressing procedures have contributed to a HEP because they do not have the necessary information from the establishment that slaughtered the cattle. As is stated in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , FSIS recommends that slaughter and fabrication establishments conduct sampling and testing of beef manufacturing trimmings at a frequency to find evidence of contamination surviving the slaughter and dressing operation (optimally every production lot) to best protect against adulterated product entering commerce. Establishment verification testing results on beef manufacturing trimmings are likely the best available information a slaughter establishment can use to determine the effectiveness of its slaughter and dressing operation (77 FR 26730).

FSIS also has revised the guidance to include a more detailed explanation of FSIS's HEP criteria, to make clear that establishments have flexibility in designing and supporting HEP criteria that is different from FSIS's HEP criteria, and to cite askFSIS as a resource for providing feedback to establishments on the design of HEP criteria that is different than FSIS's criteria.

FSIS recommends that establishments identify HEP criteria so they can determine whether they need to withhold product from commerce when a HEP has occurred, because a HEP may indicate more widespread adulteration of product, beyond the product found positive. If establishments identify and respond to HEPs, they will minimize the chance that they will release adulterated product into commerce.

The sampled and tested claims guidance continues to provide information on the use of labels bearing an FSIS sketch approved E. coli O157:H7 sampled and tested claim on beef manufacturing trimmings. As is explained in the guidance, such special labeling claims are voluntary. An establishment may use such claims when it demonstrates that they are truthful and not misleading (9 CFR 317.8(a)). FSIS must approve such claims before the establishment may use them on labels (9 CFR 317.4(a)). FSIS has updated the guidance to recognize that establishments may want to submit a request for a labeling claim stating that product has been tested for the six adulterant non-O157:H7 STEC in addition to E. coli O157:H7. In the final guidance, FSIS has explained that the Agency would need to see the same type of information to approve sampled and tested claims for the other adulterant STEC organisms as it would need to see for sampled and tested claims concerning E. coli O157:H7.

As is explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , this guidance document addresses label claims that are not intended to be displayed to consumers. FSIS may approve STEC organisms sampled and tested claims on beef manufacturing trimmings that goes to, for example, a retailer who purchases the beef manufacturing trimmings for grinding. However, FSIS will not approve such a label claim for display to consumers because it may be misleading to them by suggesting that the end product is free of pathogens or may not need to be cooked thoroughly.

These labeling claims will provide receiving establishments or retailers with information regarding the sampling and testing of beef manufacturing trimmings for STEC organisms conducted by supplier establishments.

In order for a sampled and tested claim to be truthful and not misleading, the establishment making the claim must have incorporated into its HACCP systems measures designed to control for the STEC organisms addressed in the claim, and it must use sampling and testing methodologies that are designed to verify the effectiveness of those measures.

The May 7, 2012 Federal Register notice stated that FSIS intends to conduct a study to test product from unopened containers or purge material (that is, remaining liquid, fat, and meat particles in containers or combo bins after beef manufacturing trimmings contents have been removed) from suppliers' product for E. coli O157:H7 to identify the source of E. coli O157:H7 positive raw ground beef when material from multiple suppliers was used to create the sampled ground beef that FSIS has found positive for E. coli O157:H7.

Based on research, FSIS has concluded that source traceback by testing purge material cannot be accomplished because of the insufficiency of purge material available for testing purposes. At this time, FSIS is not starting a study on unopened packages to identify the source of E. coli O157:H7 positive raw ground beef when material from multiple suppliers was used to create the positive product. However, FSIS continues to believe that there may be merit in pursuing this type of study and will further explore whether analyzing unopened packages will assist FSIS to effectively identify suppliers of STEC positive products. Based on the results of these findings and the availability of necessary resources, FSIS may conduct this study in the future. FSIS will also continue to review available data related to multiple sources of ground beef products.

The May 7, 2012 Federal Register also stated that the Agency intends to determine whether it can make better use of the results of establishment (versus FSIS) testing for E. coli O157:H7 and other microorganisms and other data that establishments may collect to evaluate their sanitary dressing procedures. FSIS requested comment on how the Agency could better evaluate this data and use it to inform establishments that problems may be developing or to advise establishments to take action to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions or the production of adulterated product in the future.

FSIS did not receive any comments on this issue. As noted in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , inspection program personnel review establishment test results on a weekly basis (FSIS Directive 5000.2). FSIS intends to issue clarifying instructions to these personnel to look for increasing positive results that should be raised to the establishment's attention. For example, FSIS intends to revise the directive to instruct inspection program personnel to review the current results of any testing that the establishment has performed and compare them to the previous 30-days' results to determine whether an adverse trend is developing. Through this review and these clarifying instructions, FSIS personnel may be better able to advise establishments that problems may be developing. Similarly, establishments need to assess their verification testing results on a regular basis to ensure that their food safety systems effectively address hazards, including the STEC organisms.

FSIS received comments from five industry and consumer organizations in response to the May 7, 2012 Federal Register notice. Some consumer groups and industry supported the HEP guidance. Following is a discussion of these comments and FSIS's responses.

Comment: Two industry organizations commented that FSIS should not take samples of ground product produced from sole source materials for E. coli O157:H7 testing. To reduce costs of recalls, commenters suggested alternative FSIS sampling schemes. For example, one commenter stated that if the grinder combines product from multiple suppliers, FSIS should sample the product at the suppliers, not the grinder. Similarly, another commenter stated that if the product to be sampled is from a single source supplier, the sample should be collected at the supplying establishment, not the grinder.

Response: The Agency conducts routine sampling and testing for E. coli O157:H7 at all establishments that produce raw ground beef in order to ensure that all such establishments implement their own procedures to control for this pathogen. FSIS intends to continue collecting and testing samples at all establishments that produce raw ground beef product to verify that they have controls necessary to address E. coli O157:H7. As is noted above, FSIS may begin analyzing ground beef samples for non-O157 STEC in the future.

In response to these comments, FSIS is assessing whether it can routinely identify which grinders grind product from sole suppliers on a consistent basis as a defined practice in their food safety system, and whether it would be appropriate to reduce Agency sampling and testing at such establishments.

FSIS will continue to collect samples at slaughter establishments that produce beef manufacturing trimmings for use in ground beef or other non-intact products and will continue to analyze these samples for E. coli O157:H7 and the adulterant non-O157 STEC. Similarly, FSIS will continue to collect samples of other raw ground beef components and to analyze them for E. coli O157:H7. In the future, FSIS may analyze samples of these products for the non-O157 STEC also. FSIS samples raw ground beef components to ensure that producers also have controls necessary to address STEC organisms. It is necessary that FSIS collect and analyze samples at both grinding processing establishments and at supplying establishments to verify that all establishments maintain adequate controls to address STEC organisms in their food safety systems.

Comment: An industry organization wanted to know how FSIS would complete the traceback review and asked what records would FSIS review to determine whether the recall criteria discussed in the Federal Register notice apply. Another industry organization stated that the EIAO's traceback methodology should be made available to all stakeholders.

Response: FSIS will review FSIS and establishment testing records, establishment lotting records, and supplier information to determine what product may be affected. FSIS will issue instructions to its field personnel on how to determine whether introduction of E. coli O157:H7 or cross-contamination likely occurred at the grinder. The instructions to the field personnel will include the criteria FSIS personnel are to use to determine whether product should be recalled. Information concerning Agency thinking for instructions to FSIS field personnel is at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/federal-register-notices/notices-2010/!ut/p/a1/jZBBC4JAEIV_Sz9AZlZF9GgLlpaKRLbtJZZabcFUVDr061PqYiU5p5nH93i8AQ4MeCnuKhedqkpRDDe3TpigRRyKQey5HvqR4aV2tCJokh44jgCHDECaxBtK0Y6Mmf6JcfGfP5gRoDchDXPgteiumiqzClgmL7IRhdbIXLWdbL4Vraw6dZYtsPei6UgQDsDHib1IhsSduQ4iA2PzE_jxkhcw3bm-7dlju3R85S6eyWLScQ!!/?1dmy&current=true&urile=wcm%3apath%3a/fsis-archives-content/internet/main/newsroom/meetings/past-meetings/ct_index202. FSIS provided this information during the March 2010 public meeting on traceback activities.

FSIS will instruct EIAOs to consider the following:

1. Was the supplier a sole supplier?

2. Was the supplied product beef manufacturing trimmings, coarse ground, or another raw ground beef component?

3. Are there data (e.g., testing results) to indicate that contamination likely did not occur at the receiving establishment?

4. Did the supplier send part of the same lot that was used to produce the positive product to another establishment?

Instructions to FSIS field personnel to conduct traceback from the grinder or bench trim establishment will include asking a series of questions designed to identify all source materials and potential suppliers of beef components used as source materials in the production of the sampled lot of ground beef or bench trim. When finalized, these instructions will be available on the FSIS Web site where the public may access the information.

Comment: While the proposed changes to the recall policy address product from a sole-source supplier, two consumer groups encouraged FSIS to continue to work towards developing improved traceback procedures for product from multiple suppliers.

Response: As is explained above, FSIS intends to further explore if analyzing unopened packages will assist FSIS to effectively identify suppliers of STEC positive products. Any such methodology likely would consider whether the grinding or bench trim establishment has its own verification program that includes testing of these source materials.

Comment: An industry organization commented that FSIS should verify that grinders maintain accurate recordkeeping, so that FSIS can identify the actual supplier of the contaminated product. This commenter stated that grinders need to maintain information that links the supplier of the raw materials to the sampled lot. This commenter also stated that the Agency should routinely verify that grinders maintain adequate records rather than wait until conducting a traceback investigation.

Response: Inspection program personnel collect information about the source materials and about the suppliers at the time they sample ground beef or bench trim at official establishments. Additionally, FSIS has made available compliance guidelines, Sanitation Guidance for Beef Grinders, that provides examples of good recordkeeping for grinders and includes recommendations that they maintain information about suppliers of source materials used in the manufacture of ground beef. The compliance guideline may be accessed at the following link: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/compliance-guides-index.

Finally, FSIS intends to publish a proposed rule to specify the information concerning suppliers and source materials that establishment and retail grinders would be required to maintain. Should this rule become final, FSIS would issue instructions to inspectors to verify that establishments maintain required records.

Comment: One industry organization commented that recall determinations should be made after intensive investigations are carried out by the establishment where the positive result occurred and by FSIS. In addition, the organization recommended that the Agency's recall policy include a provision for FSIS and an establishment to agree on what product would be implicated by a positive finding before the sample is even taken. The commenter stated that many recent recalls resulted not from the failure to hold any product, but from the failure to hold all the implicated product.

Response: Establishments are now required to maintain control of all product that FSIS samples for adulterants, including ground beef that FSIS samples and tests for E. coli O157:H7 and beef manufacturing trimmings that FSIS samples and tests for STEC organisms (77 FR 73401; Dec. 10, 2012). Therefore, FSIS verifies that establishments maintain control of raw beef product that FSIS samples and tests for STEC organisms.

Establishments are responsible for defining the sampled lot. FSIS has informed establishments that they should have a supportable basis for determining the microbiological independence of one production lot of product from another, particularly when same source materials may be included in multiple product lots. In the “Compliance Guideline For Establishments Sampling Beef Trimmings for Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Organisms or Virulence Markers,” FSIS has recommended that establishments define their lots so that if a positive result is found from one lot, the product in other lots is microbiologically independent and is not implicated.

In the guideline, FSIS goes on to explain that when FSIS requests that establishments recall product, FSIS looks at several factors to determine the scope of a recall, including the establishment's processing and sanitation procedures, and whether there is any finished product reincorporated into fresh product (rework). In these guidelines, FSIS has recommended that establishments consider all these factors when defining a lot.

Comment: One industry organization commented that FSIS should take samples from product that is routinely manufactured and representative of the establishment's process. For instance, the commenter stated that if the grinder is making ground beef and routinely uses bench trim, then FSIS should sample and test ground product from bench trim.

Response: Consistent with the instructions in Directive 10,010.1, FSIS field personnel randomly select a day, shift, and time within the sampling timeframe to collect samples from all shifts the establishment operates. These procedures provide for random FSIS sampling of the product and ensure that FSIS samples and tests all types of product the establishment produces.

Comment: Industry organizations asked whether all labels that will carry the sampled-and-tested claim need to be submitted separately to FSIS. Additionally, the organizations asked how long it takes to receive label approval with this sampled-and-tested claim.

Response: All labels bearing STEC sampled-and-tested claims need to be submitted to FSIS. The Office of Public Health Science and various staffs in the Office of Policy and Program Development will review these labels. Because reviews of these labels will involve Agency staffs besides the Labeling and Program Delivery Staff, the reviews will probably take longer than those for other types of labels bearing special claims. As FSIS explained in the May 7, 2012 Federal Register , as part of the label review process, FSIS will verify that the establishment submitted evidence that demonstrates that the establishment's HACCP measures related to the adulterant STEC organisms are effective in reducing the pathogen to non-detectable levels, and that the results of the establishment's sampling and testing demonstrate that those HACCP measures are effective (77 FR 26725). The Agency will try to ensure that the approval process is as timely as possible.

Comment: An industry organization suggested that FSIS develop labeling guidance based on the intended use of a product that contains beef manufacturing trimmings. The commenter stated that if the raw beef manufacturing trimmings have tested positive or presumptive-positive for E. coli O157:H7 and are diverted to be cooked, the beef manufacturing trimmings should be labeled “for cooking only.”

Response: FSIS reviews labels bearing instructional statements such as “for cooking only” and verifies that establishments use such labels appropriately (i.e., for product going to another Federal establishment).

It is important to recognize that a “for cooking only” label is not sufficient to move adulterated product to another establishment for cooking or other full lethality treatment (e.g., high pressure processing or irradiation). Such product is adulterated and would need to move to other Federal establishments under company control.

Comment: A consumer group suggested that FSIS require, on a label bearing a sampled-and-tested claim, a statement that further clarifies that the claim does not mean that the labeled beef manufacturing trimmings are free of E. coli O157:H7.

Response: These sampled-and-tested claims on labels are not intended for use on product sold directly to consumers. FSIS would only approve labels with these claims if they include the relevant material facts; that is, a statement of limited use such as “not for sale at retail.” Industry is aware of the limitations of the labeling terms or statements used regarding STEC organisms, and thus further explanation is not necessary.

Comment: One industry organization commented that the labeling was not feasible or practical. This commenter stated that printing out a label with the full sampled-and-tested claim and placing production lot information on each label would be costly. The organization requested that FSIS consider alternatives. For example, the commenter stated that information contained on the label could be included in sales receipts or other records received from the supplier without label approval.

Response: These labeling claims are voluntary, not required. If an establishment finds the claims to be costly or impractical, they will not use them. As is explained above, sampled and tested claims need to be submitted to FSIS for review before use on labels. Therefore, an establishment could not print sampled or tested claims that FSIS had not reviewed and approved on sales receipts or other records.

Comment: An industry association recommended that the Agency provide criteria for establishments that produce fewer than 50,000 pounds of beef manufacturing trimmings per day. One consumer group stated that, because FSIS based its HEP criteria on establishment data that already exists, FSIS should periodically review and revise its criteria, as appropriate, on the basis of industry data and performance. Another consumer asked whether the Agency would consider higher than 5 percent positive samples to be indicative of a problem in the establishment.

Response: The HEP guidance will be most useful to beef slaughter establishments that manufacture 50,000 pounds or more of beef manufacturing trimmings daily. Such establishments are likely to conduct sufficient verification testing on same source materials to be able to determine whether a HEP occurred. Through FSAs and outbreak investigations, FSIS has found that these establishments typically sample every combo bin or grouping of combo bins so that all product is subject to testing. Testing at this level is sufficient to determine whether a HEP occurred. Small volume establishments are unlikely to conduct sufficient verification testing to reliably detect the occurrence of a HEP. Through FSAs and outbreak investigations, FSIS has found that these establishments typically sample once per day or once per week. This testing frequency would most likely not detect a HEP. However, the document includes some general guidance concerning verification testing that small volume establishments will find useful and discusses, in general terms, ways for smaller volume establishments, including those that produce less than 50,000 pounds per day, to define HEPs.

When FSIS conducts traceback verification activities at establishments that do not have their own HEP criteria, FSIS will use the Agency HEP criteria in the guidance discussed above to determine whether establishments are taking appropriate actions to keep adulterated product out of commerce during a HEP. If establishments set their own appropriate HEP criteria, FSIS will also assess whether establishments are taking appropriate actions to keep adulterated product out of commerce during a HEP, based on the establishments' HEP criteria.

The Agency is concerned about beef manufacturing trimmings (including those that tested negative) and primal and subprimal products produced during the HEP when the percent positive is greater than 5 percent with a high degree of statistical confidence. If an establishment defines a HEP based on a percent positive over 5 percent, it will need to have strong support for its HEP. For example, if an establishment analyzes for more or broader indicators than those typically used to screen for E. coli O157:H7 and the six adulterant non-O157 STEC, the establishment may be able to support a HEP based on a higher percent positive. The establishment may be able to show that it is screening for additional non-O157 STEC. Therefore, the establishment may identify more HEPs in its production based on its testing than other establishments. If an establishment does not have strong support for a HEP over 5 percent, FSIS will not use the establishment's criteria in its assessment.

To develop recommendations for identifying HEPs, FSIS examined data collected in 2010 by FSIS inspection personnel from the top 33 slaughter establishments, based on production volume (heads slaughtered). Based on the results, FSIS selected a target of 5 percent. FSIS did not want to define HEP criteria that would be more rigorous than those of a large number of establishments and, therefore, did not select a lower target. Based on its analysis of outbreak-related recalls and the HEP criteria that establishments and FSIS used to identify the HEPs that led to these recalls, FSIS determined that the 5 percent target was sufficient to identify situations in which significant problems in slaughter dressing operations occurred that led to insanitary conditions. FSIS did not select a higher target (e.g., 10 percent) because, again based on the analysis of outbreak-related recalls, a higher target would not be sufficient to identify such situations.

FSIS intends to assess the effectiveness of its new traceback procedures and to assess establishment HEP criteria again in the future if necessary to ensure that the criteria remain effective in preventing illness and remain useful to establishments. For example, if new, more sensitive screening test methods or new real time confirmation test methods become available, and establishments begin using them, FSIS will assess establishment results and changes in establishment HEP criteria to determine whether to change the FSIS HEP criteria.

Comment: An industry organization asked whether the occurrence of a HEP would cause sampled-and-tested labels to be rescinded.

Response: FSIS may decide to rescind a label if it determines that the occurrence of the HEP rendered the label incorrect, and the product misbranded. FSIS would consider all circumstances before rescinding a label.

The policy discussed in this notice does not have Tribal Implications that preempt Tribal Law.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp.

FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

On May 14, 2010, FSIS announced the availability of a guidance document on pre-harvest management to reduce STEC shedding in cattle and requested comment on the guidance (75 FR 27288). The guidance provided beef slaughter establishments with an informational resource on pre-harvest management controls and interventions for reducing the shedding of STEC in feces during cattle production. The document provided an overview of the status of pre-harvest control and intervention strategies discussed in the scientific literature to reduce STEC shedding in cattle. The document covered the intervention strategies, state of findings, and links to additional scientific references for the strategies discussed.

The guidance explained that STEC shedding by cattle is a hazard that occurs at pre-harvest and in the holding pens at the establishment. STEC shedding may result in contamination of the hides and transfer of STEC to the carcass during carcass dressing. Establishments may address this hazard by incorporating into their HACCP plans or prerequisite programs purchase specifications, other programs, or agreements that require that their suppliers implement certain pre-harvest management controls.

As the guidance also explained, FSIS recommends pre-harvest interventions as the first control steps in an integrated beef products safety system. FSIS recommends that slaughter establishments receive their cattle from beef producers that implement one or more documented pre-harvest management practices to reduce STEC shedding.

In September 2011, FSIS declared six STEC strains—O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145—in addition to O157:H7, as adulterants in beef (76 FR 58157). FSIS has updated the guidance document to address the additional adulterant STEC. In addition, in response to comments, FSIS removed statements from the document that may have recommended a particular pre-harvest intervention or practice over another.

On November 9, 2011, FSIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) hosted a public meeting seeking input on pre-harvest pathogen control strategies designed to reduce the likelihood that beef will be contaminated with pathogens of public health concern, such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and Salmonella, during the slaughter process. One of FSIS's goals for the public meeting was to obtain information that it could use to improve the pre-harvest guidance (76 FR 63901) that it had issued.

At the public meeting, presentations were made on “The Control of Foodborne Pathogens in Cattle: Efficacy, Adoption, and Impact on Public Health” and “Public Health and Pre-Harvest Interventions—What is the potential.” Additionally, round table discussions were held on “What factors influence the shedding of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and other STEC (e.g., age of cattle, stress conditions),” “What effective and practical mitigations are available to reduce the pathogen load in general, and Salmonella and STECs specifically, in cattle before slaughter,” and “How can producers, processors, and government work together to promote adoption of pre-harvest food safety mitigations.” Individuals from all three Federal Agencies, industry, and industry associations were present. (See links to the meeting records later in this document.)

Meeting participants sought clarification of what super shedders are, and how they would be identified during production. They felt strongly that the United States should build upon successful mitigations used in foreign countries; allow the market to drive the value of any particular mitigation technology, including vaccines; and streamline the regulatory approval process. They recommended also that there be sustained discussions among Federal, industry, and academic partners to identify and put into practice pre-harvest mitigations for reducing foodborne hazards and beef.

FSIS has reviewed the comments from the public meeting, and based on its review, it has developed the updated guidance document whose availability FSIS is announcing. The updated document sets out innovative ways to control pathogens in beef at pre-harvest and pre-harvest pathogen control strategies for animals presented for slaughter.

FSIS received four comments in response to the May 2010 announcement of the availability of the guidance document. In adddition, the Agency received three comments in response to the October 2011 notice “Pre-harvest Food Safety for Cattle Public Meeting” (76 FR 63901), and five comments at the November 2011 public meeting. The comments were from consumer groups and industry trade associations. Following is a summary of the comments in response to the guidance and the public meeting and FSIS's responses.

Comment: Industry trade associations expressed concern that the guidance document established requirements. One commenter was especially concerned that FSIS' inspection program personnel would use the guidance to take regulatory action.

Response: This guidance document, like all FSIS guidance documents, represents the Agency's current thinking on pre-harvest intervention strategies and does not establish requirements. There are no regulatory requirements for establishments embodied in the intervention and management practices outlined in this document. The Agency removed from the pre-harvest guidance document any statements that could indicate a preference for one pre-harvest intervention over another. An establishment is not required to use the interventions or management practices outlined in the guidance document and may take an alternative approach to reduce STEC shedding in cattle for slaughter.

Comment: Several comments stated that USDA should be more involved in pre-harvest food safety research. An advocacy group suggested that bacterial isolates collected from a statistically valid and nationally representative sample of cattle entering slaughter could provide information about the bacterial load on the animals. A University professor asked that the Agency consider a research exemption to study STEC in industry environments to overcome the reluctance of packers to permit scientists to carry out studies in their facilities.

Response: FSIS recognizes the importance of determining the incoming bacterial load on cattle presented for slaughter, and of giving researchers access to the industry environment. However, FSIS does not advocate the introduction of pathogens into official establishments. Raw non-intact beef or intact beef intended to be used to produce raw non-intact beef is adulterated if contaminated with the STEC that FSIS has identified as adulterants. Therefore, establishments would have to take steps to effectively address any STEC detected during research that could contaminate raw non-intact product.

FSIS food safety research priorities include pre-harvest research initiatives, such as research on the effect of pre-harvest interventions on finished products; on the effectiveness of integration of one or more pre-harvest or post-harvest interventions as a control strategy; and identification or development of pre- and post-harvest interventions to reduce pathogen and chemical hazards in veal.

See FSIS Web site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/science/food-safety-research-priorities.

Comment: Several commenters recognized that FSIS does not have authority to approve or regulate vaccines but encouraged the Agency to collaborate with APHIS' Center for Veterinary Biologics to provide a comprehensive view of the steps required for vaccine approval, one that covers foodborne illness pathogens as well as animal disease pathogens. Commenters underscored the need for industry to use new technologies and best practices, such as developed vaccines or the sanitary care of animals. An animal health care company noted that any of the interventions used on the farm would show increasing benefit the longer they are used on the live animal. A trade group representing meat packing and processing establishments recommended that the above-mentioned agencies collaborate with beef stakeholders through the E. coli Coalition and other industry efforts focused on beef safety.

Response: Hosting the public meeting is a clear example of successful collaboration among the three agencies. Additionally, the guidance document provides innovative ways to control pathogens in beef pre-harvest and when presented for slaughter. FSIS disagrees that any intervention used on the farm would show increasing benefit the longer it is used on the live animal. The effectiveness of select interventions may increase, e.g., husbandry practices, but not all the interventions described in the guidance document will provide an increasing benefit over time.

Additionally, FSIS's Office of Policy and Program Development provided updates to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) on Salmonella and pre-harvest initiatives based on a NACMPI committee 2013 recommendation, which included that FSIS will continue to have discussions on pre-harvest issues among the federal government, industry, and academia and to re-issue the pre-harvest guidance document and respond to comments on the previous Federal Register Notice (78 FR 77643 and http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/past-meetings ).

Regarding working with external partners, FSIS is bringing together the groups that actually review the submissions that come to them on pre-harvest interventions along with ARS, which develops a lot of the research, to see whether FSIS and ARS could facilitate an expedited process. FSIS has met with the Food and Drug Administration on the pre-harvest intervention submissions that have been received by that agency and on the criteria that it uses to review them. Additionally, FSIS is in contact with APHIS regarding vaccines. Finally, FSIS is working with industry and academic partners to identify and incorporate pre-harvest mitigation strategies for reducing foodborne hazards in beef and poultry into guidance documents.

Comment: Two advocacy groups expressed concern about the use of antibiotics in cattle that may lead to antibiotic resistance and requested that FSIS take a more active role in promoting pre-harvest steps aimed at reducing the selection from and spread of antimicrobial resistance. One commenter suggested that current production practices, involving dependence on the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and overcrowding in feedlots, create conditions that are ideal for the development and spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

Response: FSIS recognizes the complexity of the antimicrobial resistance issue. Given this complexity, and the limits on FSIS's ability to address this issue, in the guidance document, FSIS discusses studies that focus on the effects of various strategies to reduce STEC shedding in cattle. These strategies include the use of medications, such as antibiotics, as well as non-medicinal approaches. The guidance document discusses the use of antibiotics, such as ionophores, neomycin sulfate, tetracycline, and oxytetracycline, in cattle and their effect on STEC shedding.

FSIS participates in the National Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) sampling program, which is a surveillance sampling program that provides FSIS, FDA, and other interested agencies with data on the presence of selected enteric microorganisms in food animal species. The sampling for antibiotic residues is conducted as part of NARMS.

Comment: A consumer advocacy group stated that, while the pre-harvest meeting discussions focused mainly on the control of E. coli, FSIS should recognize that there are significant pre-harvest issues related to the control of Salmonella. The commenter noted that it has petitioned FSIS to declare four strains of Salmonella to be adulterants when antibiotic resistant and when found in FSIS-regulated products, considering it to be within FSIS' authority to declare these antimicrobial resistant strains to be adulterants.

Response: FSIS is reviewing the group's petition and expects to respond to the petition in the coming months and will post the response on the FSIS Web site.

More broadly, FSIS's focus for the guidance document is to provide beef slaughter establishments with an informational resource on pre-harvest management controls and interventions for reducing STEC shedding in beef cattle production. In regards to Salmonella, FSIS announced an action plan posted at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/aae911af-f918-4fe1-bc42-7b957b2e942a/SAP-120413.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

Pre-harvest contamination can affect the level of Salmonella on FSIS-regulated products. Synthesizing information on pre-harvest interventions from previous and on-going FSIS activities, and other information available from industry, could help decrease the prevalence or levels of Salmonella on FSIS-regulated products. As stated in the action plan, FSIS will continue to work with industry members to identify best practices for pre-harvest. FSIS will also organize and host a meeting to focus on pre-harvest issues for poultry. FSIS will then use the information gathered at that meeting to inform future policies and best-practice guidelines.

Comment: An animal health care company encouraged the public meeting organizers to follow-up with participants by communicating potential results or implications of the meeting.

Response: The Agency agrees that stakeholders should be kept informed. The transcript of the meeting is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/past-meetings/past-meetings-2011. Notes from the round table discussions held at the meeting are available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2091b3b8-2d81-4531-81b7-f05369a9a16f/Pre-Harvest_FS_Notes.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. An outgrowth of the meeting is the Agency's updated guidance document. FSIS fully considered the comments made during and in response to the meeting in updating the guidance.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the May 2010 guidance document lacked scientific rigor, was inconsistent in the recommendations, and generally included practices that did not work. For example, a trade association disagreed that antibiotics would be effective in preventing shedding of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle. One commenter felt there would be confusion in the use of both scientific and trade names for antibiotics.

Response: It is important that establishments, particularly small and very small establishments, have access to a full range of scientific and technical information to assist them in establishing safe and effective HACCP systems, including information on pre-harvest management strategies that an establishment may choose to incorporate to reduce the incoming bacterial load into their process. For example, the guidance draws on a number of studies on feed types, feed additives, fasting, and their effects on E. coli O157:H7 shedding, with some studies showing a decrease in E. coli O157:H7 shedding, while others showed an increase or no difference in E. coli O157:H7 shedding. In some studies, ractopamine was shown to decrease E. coli O157:H7 shedding, while in other studies it was shown to increase E. coli O157:H7 shedding. The Agency's intent in re-issuing the guidance document is to provide industry with a review of the literature on, and the current status of, pre-harvest interventions, management practices, and ongoing research. FSIS has removed statements from the document that may have recommended any particular pre-harvest intervention or practice over another one.

As stated above, there is no regulatory requirement for establishments to use the interventions or management practices outlined in the guidance document.

FSIS regards the use of both scientific and trade names for antibiotics as justified because the use of both is common in the scientific literature on pre-harvest interventions and management practices.

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe.

Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

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

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

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

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

(202) 690-7442.

program.intake@usda.gov.

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

Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.446.

Dates: The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, November 12, 2014. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX) and postage due applications will not be accepted.

Congress, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76) authorized the RCDI to develop the capacity and ability of qualified private, nonprofit community-based housing and community development organizations, low-income rural communities, and federally recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas.

Congress appropriated $5,967,000 in FY 2014 for the RCDI program. Qualified private, nonprofit and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs will be eligible to receive the funding. The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant.

The respective minimum and maximum grant amount per intermediary is $50,000 and $250,000.

The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to a private, nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized tribe.

1. Qualified private, nonprofit, (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic foundations), in accordance with 7 CFR part 16, and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed below.

2. RCDI grantees that have an outstanding grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, will not be eligible to apply for this round of funding. Grant and matching funds must be utilized in a timely manner to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are met.

Agency—The Rural Housing Service (RHS) or its successor.

Beneficiary—Entities or individuals that receive benefits from assistance provided by the recipient.

Capacity—The ability of a recipient to implement housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects.

Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

Federally recognized tribes—Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on the current notice in the Federal Register published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribally Designated Housing Entities are eligible RCDI recipients.

Financial assistance—Funds, not to exceed $10,000 per award, used by the intermediary to purchase supplies and equipment to build the recipient's capacity.

Funds—The RCDI grant and matching money.

Intermediary—A qualified private, nonprofit (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic organizations), or public (including tribal) organization that provides financial and technical assistance to multiple recipients.

Low-income rural community—An authority, district, economic development authority, regional council, or unit of government representing an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, or borough whose income is at or below 80 percent of either the state or national Median Household Income as measured by the 2010 Census.

Matching funds—Cash or confirmed funding commitments. Matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period.

Recipient—The entity that receives the financial and technical assistance from the Intermediary. The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized Tribe.

Regional Collaboration—Multi-jurisdictional areas typically within a State, territory, or federally-designated Tribal land but which can cross State, territory, or Tribal boundaries. The Regional Collaboration approach is intended to combine the resources of the Agency with those of State and local governments, educational institutions, and the private and nonprofit sectors to implement regional economic and community development strategies.

Rural and rural area—Any area other than (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and (ii) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.

Technical assistance—Skilled help in improving the recipient's abilities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

Matching funds are cash or confirmed funding commitments and must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period. These funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities. Matching funds must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program.

In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

Grant funds and matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean funds have to be used equally by line item.

The request for advance or reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of matching funds used.

Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, as applicable. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application.

The intermediary is responsible for demonstrating that matching funds are available, and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period to the RCDI proposal. Matching funds may be provided by the intermediary or a third party. Other Federal funds may be used as matching funds if authorized by statute and the purpose of the funds is an eligible RCDI purpose.

RCDI funds will be disbursed on an advance or reimbursement basis. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

No reimbursement will be made for any funds expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement unless the intermediary is a non-profit or educational entity and has requested and received written Agency approval of the costs prior to the actual expenditure.

This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement.

The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditures prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

1. The recipient and beneficiary, but not the intermediary, must be located in an eligible rural area. The physical location of the recipient's office that will be receiving the financial and technical assistance must be in an eligible rural area. If the recipient is a low-income community, the median household income of the area where the office is located must be at or below 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. The applicable Rural Development State Office can assist in determining the eligibility of an area.

A listing of Rural Development State Office contacts can be found via http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf. A map showing eligible rural areas can be found at the following link: http://eligibility.test.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do?pageAction=RBSmenu&NavKey=property@13 .

2. The recipient must be a nonprofit, which may include a faith-based organization, philanthropic foundation, community-based housing and development organization, low-income rural community, or federally recognized tribe based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.

3. Documentation must be submitted to verify recipient eligibility. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of recipient. Private nonprofit, faith or community-based organizations must provide a certificate of incorporation and good standing from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other similar and valid documentation of nonprofit status. For low-income rural community recipients, the Agency requires evidence that the entity is a public body and census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and technical assistance is located is at, or below, 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher.

For federally recognized tribes, the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding services (see the definition of federally recognized tribes in this Notice for details on this list).

4. Individuals cannot be recipients.

5. The intermediary must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application. Matching funds must be committed for a period equal to the grant performance period.

6. The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to the recipient.

7. The intermediary organization must have been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years and have at least 3 years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

8. Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant funds within 3 years from the date of the award.

9. Each applicant, whether singularly or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI funds under this Notice. This restriction does not preclude the applicant from providing matching funds for other applications.

10. Recipients can benefit from more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the recipient can only benefit from multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and technical assistance the recipient will receive is not duplicative. The services described in multiple RCDI grant applications must have separate and identifiable accounts for compliance purposes.

11. The intermediary and the recipient cannot be the same entity. The recipient can be a related entity to the intermediary, if it meets the definition of a recipient, provided the relationship does not create a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved to Rural Development's satisfaction.

12. A nonprofit recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.

13. If the recipient is a low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and technical assistance will be provided, e.g., town council or village board. The financial and technical assistance must be provided to the organized unit of government representing that community, not the community at large.

14. If a grantee has an outstanding RCDI grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, it is not eligible to apply for this round of funding.

15. The indirect cost category in the project budget should be used only when a grant applicant has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate. A copy of the current rate agreement must be provided with the application.

16. Grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting a pre-application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in SAM at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under construction by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation in accordance to 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).

Fund uses must be consistent with the RCDI purpose. A nonexclusive list of eligible grant uses includes the following:

1. Provide technical assistance to develop recipients' capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development, e.g., the intermediary hires a staff person to provide technical assistance to the recipient or the recipient hires a staff person, under the supervision of the intermediary, to carry out the technical assistance provided by the intermediary.

2. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education or training for business entrepreneurs.

3. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct development initiatives, e.g., programs that support micro-enterprise and sustainable development.

4. Develop the capacity of recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.

5. Develop the capacity of recipients to provide the technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.

6. Assist recipients in completing pre-development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services, e.g., architectural, engineering, or legal.

7. Improve recipient's organizational capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.

8. Purchase of computers, software, and printers, limited to $10,000 per award, at the recipient level when directly related to the technical assistance program being undertaken by the intermediary.

9. Provide funds to recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.

The following is a list of ineligible grant uses:

1. Pass-through grants, capacity grants, and any funds provided to the recipient in a lump sum that are not reimbursements.

2. Funding a revolving loan fund (RLF).

3. Construction (in any form).

4. Salaries for positions involved in construction, renovations, rehabilitation, and any oversight of these types of activities.

5. Intermediary preparation of strategic plans for recipients.

6. Funding prostitution, gambling, or any illegal activities.

7. Grants to individuals.

8. Funding a grant where there may be a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, involving any action by the Agency.

9. Paying obligations incurred before the beginning date without prior Agency approval or after the ending date of the grant agreement.

10. Purchasing real estate.

11. Improvement or renovation of the grantee's, or recipient's office space or for the repair or maintenance of privately owned vehicles.

12. Any purpose prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, or 3019, as applicable.

13. Using funds for recipient's general operating costs.

14. Using grant or matching funds for Individual Development Accounts.

15. Purchasing vehicles.

The purpose of this initiative is to develop or increase the recipient's capacity through a program of financial and technical assistance to perform in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development. Strengthening the recipient's capacity in these areas will benefit the communities they serve. The RCDI structure requires the intermediary (grantee) to provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients.

The recipients will, in turn, provide programs to their communities (beneficiaries). The following are examples of eligible and ineligible purposes under the RCDI program. (These examples are illustrative and are not meant to limit the activities proposed in the application. Activities that meet the objectives of the RCDI program and meet the criteria outlined in this Notice will be considered eligible.)

1. The intermediary must work directly with the recipient, not the ultimate beneficiaries. As an example:

The intermediary provides training to the recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community—the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The intermediary is providing technical assistance that will build the recipient's capacity by enabling them to conduct homeownership education classes for the public.

This is an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the recipient would be bypassed.

2. If the intermediary is working with a low-income community as the recipient, the intermediary must provide the technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council.

If the intermediary provides technical assistance to the Board of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose.

The recipient's capacity is built by learning skills that will enable them to support sustainable economic development in their communities on an ongoing basis.

3. The intermediary may provide technical assistance to the recipient on how to create and operate a revolving loan fund. The intermediary may not monitor or operate the revolving loan fund. RCDI funds, including matching funds, cannot be used to fund revolving loan funds.

4. The intermediary may work with recipients in building their capacity to provide planning and leadership development training. The recipients of this training would be expected to assume leadership roles in the development and execution of regional strategic plans. The intermediary would work with multiple recipients in helping communities recognize their connections to the greater regional and national economies.

5. The intermediary could provide training and technical assistance to the recipients on developing emergency shelter and feeding, short-term housing, search and rescue, and environmental accident, prevention, and cleanup program plans. For longer term disaster and economic crisis responses, the intermediary could work with the recipients to develop job placement and training programs, and develop coordinated transit systems for displaced workers.

Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-RCDI_Grants.html .

Application information for electronic submissions may be found at http://www.grants.gov .

Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State office contacts can be found via http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf .

If the applicant is ineligible or the application is incomplete, the Agency will inform the applicant in writing of the decision, reasons therefore, and its appeal rights and no further evaluation of the application will occur.

A complete application for RCDI funds must include the following:

1. A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following: (This information should not be presented in narrative form.)

a. Applicant's name,

b. Applicant's address,

c. Applicant's telephone number,

d. Name of applicant's contact person and telephone number,

e. Applicant's fax number,

f. County where applicant is located,

g. Congressional district number where applicant is located,

h. Amount of grant request, and

i. Number of recipients.

2. A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.

3. A project overview, no longer than five pages, including the following items, which will also be addressed separately and in detail under “Building Capacity” of the “Evaluation Criteria.”

a. The type of technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and how it will be implemented.

b. How the capacity and ability of the recipients will be improved.

c. The overall goals to be accomplished.

d. The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program. Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable.

4. Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and a current good standing certification from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of non-profit status, from the intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years as the applicant entity.

5. Verification of source and amount of matching funds, e.g., a copy of a bank statement if matching funds are in cash or a copy of the confirmed funding commitment from the funding source.

The verification must show that matching funds are available for the duration of the grant performance period. The verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application or the application will be considered incomplete.

The applicant will be contacted by the Agency prior to grant award to verify that the matching funds provided with the application continue to be available. The applicant will have 15 days from the date contacted to submit verification that matching funds continue to be available.

If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible. The applicant must maintain bank statements on file or other documentation for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.

6. The following information for each recipient:

a. Recipient's entity name,

b. Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different),

c. County where located,

d. Number of Congressional district where recipient is located,

e. Contact person's name and telephone number, and

f. Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” If the Form RD 400-4 is not submitted for a recipient, the recipient will be considered ineligible. No information pertaining to that recipient will be included in the income or population scoring criteria and the requested funding may be adjusted due to the deletion of the recipient.

7. Submit evidence that each recipient entity is eligible:

a. Nonprofits—provide a current valid letter confirming non-profit status from the Secretary of the State of incorporation or the IRS, a current good standing certification from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other valid documentation of nonprofit status of each recipient.

b. Low-income rural community—provide evidence the entity is a public body, and a copy of the 2010 census data to verify the population, and evidence that the median household income is at, or below, 80 percent of either the State or national median household income. We will only accept data and printouts from http://www.census.gov .

c. Federally recognized tribes—provide the page listing their name from the Federal Register list of tribal entities published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26384) or from the 2014 list which can be found at http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc006989 .

8. Each of the “Evaluation Criteria” must be addressed specifically and individually by category. Present these criteria in narrative form. Documentation must be limited to three pages per criterion. The “Population” and “Income” criteria for recipient locations can be provided in the form of a list; however, the source of the data must be included on the page(s).

9. A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.

10. A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and matching funds. This should be a line-item budget, by category. Categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs that pertain to the proposed project must be clearly defined. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included. The budget should be dated: Year 1, year 2, year 3, as applicable.

11. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” (Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in No. 13 of this section.)

12. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.”

13. Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

14. Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

15. Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”

16. Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities.

17. Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

18. Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” for the applicant.

19. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees. (A statement acknowledging whether or not a relationship exists is required).

20. For grants, the applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering Systems (DUNS) number and registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applications must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at 1-866-705-5711 or via Internet at http://www.dnb.com/us/ . Additional information concerning this requirement can be obtained on the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov . Similarly, applicants may register for SAM at https://www.sam.gov or by calling 1-866-606-8220.

The DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Since there are no specific fields for a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date, they may be identified anywhere on the Form SF 424. If the applicant does not provide the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in the application, it will not be considered for funding. The required forms and certifications can be downloaded from the RCDI Web site at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-RCDI_Grants.html .

Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, OMB No. 1894-0010 (applies only to nonprofit applicants only—submission is optional).

The original application package must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located. A listing of Rural Development State Offices can be found via http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf . Applications will not be accepted via FAX or electronic mail.

Applicants may file an electronic application at http://www.grants.gov . Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing, and software. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. If a system problem or technical difficulty occurs with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

Technical difficulties submitting an application through Grants.gov will not be a reason to extend the application deadline. If an application is unable to be submitted through Grants.gov, a paper application must be received in the appropriate Rural Development State Office by the deadline noted previously.

First time Grants.gov users should carefully read and follow the registration steps listed on the Web site. These steps need to be initiated early in the application process to avoid delays in submitting your application online.

In order to register with System for Award Management (SAM), your organization will need a DUNS number. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID (MPID) and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the SAM registration process.

These are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Additional application instructions for submitting an electronic application can be found by selecting this funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

Meeting expenses. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. RCDI grant funds cannot be used for these meeting-related expenses. Matching funds may, however, be used to pay for these expenses.

RCDI funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting.

RCDI funds cannot be used for meetings; they can, however, be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for program-related training and technical assistance purposes. Any training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses (including meals and incidental expenses) will be similar to those paid to Agency employees.

Rates are based upon location. Rate information can be obtained from the applicable Rural Development State Office. When lodging is not available at the government rate, grantees and recipients may exceed the Government rate for lodging by a maximum of 20 percent.

Grantees and recipients will be restricted to traveling coach class on common carrier airlines. Mileage and gas reimbursement will be the same rate used by Agency employees. This rate may be obtained from the applicable Rural Development State Office.

Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria and weights:

The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity, through a program of financial and technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes.

Capacity-building financial and technical assistance should provide new functions to the recipients or expand existing functions that will enable the recipients to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. Capacity-building financial and technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: training to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education, or the establishment of minority business entrepreneurs, cooperatives, or micro-enterprises; organizational development, e.g., assistance to develop or improve board operations, management, and financial systems; instruction on how to develop and implement a strategic plan; instruction on how to access alternative funding sources to increase leveraging opportunities; staffing, e.g., hiring a person at intermediary or recipient level to provide technical assistance to recipients.

The program of financial and technical assistance provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application.

All applications will be competitively ranked with the applications providing the most improvement in capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest.

a. The narrative response must:

i. Describe the nature of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and the activities that will be conducted to deliver the technical assistance;

ii. Explain how financial and technical assistance will develop or increase the recipient's capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively;

iii. Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: Housing, community facilities, or community and economic development; and

iv. Describe how the results of the technical assistance will be measured. What benchmarks will be used to measure effectiveness? Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable.

b. The maximum 60 points for this criterion will be broken down as follows:

i. Type of financial and technical assistance and implementation activities. 35 points.

ii. An explanation of how financial and technical assistance will develop capacity. 10 points.

iii. Identification of the RCDI purpose. 5 points.

iv. Measurement of outcomes. 10 points.

The applicant must demonstrate that it has conducted programs of financial and technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas.

Provide the name, contact information, and the type and amount of the financial and technical assistance the applicant organization has provided to the following for the last 3 years:

a. Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.

b. Low-income communities in rural areas (also include the type of entity, e.g., city government, town council, or village board).

c. Federally recognized tribes or any other culturally diverse organizations.

Population is based on the average population from the 2010 census data for the communities in which the recipients are located. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, or census-designated place where the recipient's office is physically located.

The applicant must submit the census data from the following Web site in the form of a printout of the applicable “Fact Sheet” to verify the population figures used for each recipient. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder,” fill in field and click “Go”; the name and population data for each recipient location must be listed in this section.

The average population of the recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows:

The average of the median household income for the communities where the recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Applicants may compare the average recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $51,914.

The applicant must submit the income data in the form of a printout of the applicable information from the following Web site to verify the income for each recipient.

The data being used is from the 2010 census. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder,” fill in field and click “Go”; the name and income data for each recipient location must be listed in this section. Points will be awarded as follows:

The applicant can receive up to 50 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion. Applicants must list the page numbers in the application that address these factors.

The maximum 50 points for this criterion will be broken down as follows:

a. The ability to provide the proposed financial and technical assistance based on prior accomplishments has been demonstrated. 10 Points.

b. The proposed financial and technical assistance program is clearly stated and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented. The plan for implementation is viable. 10 Points.

c. Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and matching funds should be utilized to maximize capacity building at the recipient level. 15 points.

d. The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited. 15 points.

The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity to carry out activities related to the development of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

The Agency encourages applications that promote substantive economic growth, including job creation, as well as specifically addressing the circumstances of those sectors within the region that have fewer prospects and the greatest need for improved economic opportunity.

A Regional Collaboration project should implement goals, objectives or actions identified in a Regional Strategic Plan which addresses priorities specified at a regional scale. Applications should demonstrate:

a. Clear leadership at the Intermediary level in organizing and coordinating a regional initiative;

b. Evidence that the Recipient's region has a common economic basis that supports the likelihood of success in implementing its strategy; and

c. Evidence that technical assistance will be provided that will increase the Recipient's capacity to assess their circumstance, determine a long term sustainable vision for the region, and implement a comprehensive strategic plan, including identifying performance measures and establishing a system to collect the data to allow assessment of those performance measures.

Intermediaries must be physically located in an eligible rural community and must include evidence of investment in the community. The intent is to ensure that RCDI funds are expended in the rural community.

Grant applicants demonstrating a technical assistance plan to help boost investing in manufacturing communities will be awarded a maximum of 25 additional points.

The applicant must demonstrate how their efforts will attract manufacturers and their supply chain of local innovators, producers, and distributors to create new jobs and strengthen the local economy. Applicant must demonstrate how it will support the redevelopment of manufacturing communities that have had major plant closings, in partnership with local leaders, workers and businesses. The maximum 25 points for this criterion will be awarded as follows:

a. Demonstrates how this project will attract manufacturing to the region. (10 points)

b. The ability to provide technical assistance to develop and implement long term strategies to orient the communities' and regions' economies for innovation, job creation, and export promotion. (5 Points)

c. Emphasizes some combination of public-private partnership, including higher education collaboration. (5 Points)

d. Demonstrates how this project will lead to further development of the region's industrial ecosystem. (5 points)

a. This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant.

b. Up to 20 points may be awarded by the Rural Development State Director to any application that benefits their state regardless of whether the applicant is headquartered in their state.

c. When an intermediary submits an application that will benefit a state that is not the same as the state in which the intermediary is headquartered, it is the intermediary's responsibility to notify the State Director of the state which is receiving the benefit of their application. In such cases, State Directors awarding points to applications benefiting their state must notify the reviewing state in writing.

d. State Directors have a maximum of 20 points per state that may be awarded to one or more applications.

e. The total points that may be awarded to any application may not exceed 20.

f. Assignment of any points under this criterion requires a written justification and must be tied to and awarded based on how closely the application aligns with the Rural Development State Office's strategic goals.

This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant. The Agency Administrator may award up to 20 points to any application to the extent that the application supports Strategic Goal One in the USDA Strategic Plan 2014-2018. This plan can be found at the following link: www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf.

Applicants can receive 20 points if their project is based in or serving StrikeForce, Promise Zones or census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent and are eligible under this RCDI program. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and our commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.

USDA's StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity Initiative is part of the Agency's commitment to growing economies, increasing investments and creating opportunities in poverty-stricken rural communities. The Promise Zone Initiative designates a number of high poverty urban, rural and tribal communities as Promise Zones, where the federal government will partner with and invest in communities to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, expand educational opportunities, and improve public safety. For a listing of StrikeForce areas and designated Promise Zones, click on the following link: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=STRIKE_FORCE, then click the StrikeForce or Promise Zones button from the left menu. For a mapping tool identifying census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent, click on the following link: http://rdgdwe.sc.egov.usda.gov/rdpoverty/index.html.

The maximum 20 points for this criterion will be awarded for any of the following:

a. StrikeForce—The project serves a StrikeForce area. Identify the StrikeForce area and clearly demonstrate to what extent the project will support the StrikeForce area.

b. Promise Zones—The project serves a Promise Zone, and eligible applicant provides evidence of partnership with a Promise Zone Lead Applicant organization. Identify the specific Promise Zone, the expected benefits of the project to the Promise Zone strategy, and a statement expressing the nature of the partnership with the Promise Zone Lead Applicant organization. Or,

c. Poverty greater than or equal to 20 percent—At least 50 percent of the combined recipient(s) service area includes census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. Must provide the address and census tract in which the recipient will conduct or deliver approved project activity.

Applications will be rated and ranked on a national basis by a review panel based on the “Evaluation Criteria” contained in this Notice.

If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for “Building Capacity” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until one highest score can be determined.

The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are examples of reasons for rejection from previous funding rounds. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent the majority of the applications previously rejected.

a. Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in this Notice.

b. Applicants failed to provide evidence of recipient's status, i.e., documentation supporting nonprofit evidence of organization.

c. Applicants failed to provide evidence of committed matching funds or matching funds were not committed for a period at least equal to the grant performance period.

d. Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an intermediary and recipients.

e. Recipients were not identified in the application.

f. Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least 3 years as the applicant entity.

g. Applicants failed to address the “Evaluation Criteria.”

h. The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.

i. Inappropriate use of funds (e.g., construction or renovations).

j. The applicant proposed providing financial and technical assistance directly to individuals.

k. The application package not received by closing date and time.

Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of the Agency shall make grants in ranked order to eligible applicants under the procedures set forth in this Notice.

Applicants will be notified of selection by letter. In addition, selected applicants will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed at the time of selection and on the award obligation date, if requested by the Agency.

The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification including appeal rights by mail.

Grantees will be required to do the following:

1. Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement.

2. Execute Form RD 1940-1.

3. Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements. Provide receipts for expenditures, timesheets and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement.

4. Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.

5. Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.

6. Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant funds and matching funds. Receipts for expenditures will be included in this documentation.

7. Provide annual audits or management reports on Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal funds expended and the outstanding balance.

8. Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

9. Provide a final project performance report.

10. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.

11. The intermediary and recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 12250, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

12. The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable OMB Circulars and Code of Federal Regulations:

a. OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Government);

b. OMB Circular A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations);

c. OMB Circular A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations);

d. 7 CFR part 3015 (Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations);

e. 7 CFR part 3016 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments);

f. 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement);

g. 7 CFR part 3019 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-profit Organizations); and

h. 7 CFR part 3052 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations).

Reporting requirements can be found in the Grant Agreement.

Contact the Rural Development office in the State where the applicant's headquarters is located. A list of Rural Development State Offices is included in this Notice.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form.

You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email.

If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

All adverse determinations regarding applicant eligibility and the awarding of points as part of the selection process are appealable pursuant to 7 CFR part 11. Instructions on the appeal process will be provided at the time an applicant is notified of the adverse decision.

In the event the applicant is awarded a grant that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify its application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the grant agreement. The Agency reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardee within 15 working days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application.

On June 27, 2014, the Department of Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records entitled Commerce/Department-1, Attendance, Leave, and Payroll Records of Employees and Certain Other Persons (79 FR 124). No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective August 13, 2014.

On March 24, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), and Villares filed case briefs on April 22, 2014 and April 23, 2014, respectively. The petitioners filed a rebuttal brief on April 28, 2014.

As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days. 2 Pursuant to the Tolling Memo, the deadline for the final results of this review was revised with a due date of July 22, 2014. On July 15, 2014, we extended the deadline for the final results to August 12, 2014. 3

The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. 4 The written description is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding are listed in the appendix to this notice. Parties' rebuttal comments and the Department's response to these issues are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov . The signed and the electronic versions of the memorandum are identical in content.

For these final results we changed the quantity variable referenced in the margin-calculation program and, consequently, the results of the differential pricing analysis changed for Villares from the Preliminary Results. 5 Thus, we revised our comparison method to calculate Villares' final weighted-average dumping margin.

As a result of this review, we determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.64 percent exists for Villares for the period February 1, 2012, through January 31, 2013.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales for each importer in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(l). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Villares for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 6

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSB from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash deposit rate for Villares will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 19.43 percent, the all-others rate established in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, 59 FR 66914 (December 28, 1994). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1), provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. Thereafter, following the public comment period, EPA may approve such a request.

This order amends the registrations of certain products registered under FIFRA section 3, 7 U.S.C. 136a, in order to terminate certain uses. The amendments were specifically requested by the registrants. The amended registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit, which also identifies the product names and terminated uses. These products are not the last products containing these pesticide active ingredients that are registered for use in the United States.

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

In the Federal Register of May 9, 2014 (79 FR 26754) (FRL-9909-95), EPA announced and sought public comment on requests from the registrants to voluntarily amend their registrations to terminate uses of the products as listed in Table 1 of Unit III. In the May 9, 2014 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the requested amendments to terminate uses, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments concerning that notice; nor did the registrants subsequently withdraw their requests.

Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested amendments to terminate uses of iprodione, pendimethalin, and permethrin registrations as identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III., are amended to terminate the uses as identified in Table 1 of Unit III. The effective date of the amendments that are subject to this order is August 13, 2014. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III., in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. The existing stocks provision for the products subject to this order is as follows.

Now that EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested amendments to terminate uses, registrants are permitted to sell or distribute products listed in Table 1 of Unit III., under the previously approved labeling until February 15, 2016, a period of 18 months after publication of this order in the Federal Register , unless other restrictions have been imposed. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products whose labels include the terminated uses identified in Table 1 of Unit III., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.

Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products whose labels include the terminated uses until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the products with terminated uses.

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Agenda Items

The SSC Peer Review Panel will meet to review an updated assessment for the Gulf of Maine cod stock prepared by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The panel will prepare a report of its review, although the panel may not complete the report at this meeting, for consideration by New England Fishery Management Council in developing management measures for Gulf of Maine cod. The review panel may close the meeting to the public at some time to work on drafting a report.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The subject permit modification is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 17364 was issued March 14, 2013 (78 FR 17640) with the Permit Holder's objectives stated as to refine propagation and culture techniques of captive Atlantic sturgeon held in refugia at the USFWS's Northeast Fisheries Center, providing a source of research animals for studies related to tagging, tracking, behavior, physiology, genetics, health, cryopreservation, and other methods for population conservation, recovery, or enhancement of the species in the wild.

The Permit Holder now proposes including five captive holding facilities of Atlantic sturgeon located in the state of Maryland, as well as co-investigators, to conduct similar scientific research on life stages of captive Atlantic sturgeon. Study objectives would include nutrition, physiology, propagation, contaminants, genetics, fish health, cryopreservation, tagging, and refugia. Additionally, studies would examine abiotic factors (e.g., pH, temperature, salinity dissolved oxygen, etc) influencing distribution and abundance in the wild. The modifications would be valid until expiration of the permit on March 13, 2018.

10 U.S.C. 2533a, popularly known as the “Berry Amendment”, prohibits the Department of Defense (DoD) from using funds appropriated or otherwise available to it for the procurement of certain items if those items are not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. Articles of clothing, such as athletic shoes, are normally covered by the prohibition if procured on a Department of Defense (DoD) contract using appropriated funds. See DoD policy with respect to athletic shoes offered to recruits at basic training at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/docs/OSD004508-14%20FOD.pdf. This industry meeting will provide information relating to this policy and is open to representatives of athletic shoe manufacturers (Federal Supply Classification (FSC) Code: 84—Clothing, Individual Equipment, and Insignia; National American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 316—Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing/316210—Footwear Manufacturing; Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: 3149).

Special accommodations: The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for reasonable accommodations, sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Jeff Grover at 703-697-9352, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

The Army examined the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from implementing multiple, related, and interconnected proposed projects that could be taken to implement Net Zero energy, water, and waste initiatives, comply with federal and Army energy mandates, and meet the Army's energy and water security objectives. Not all projects identified in the ROD would be implemented to the full extent discussed in the FEIS. Technological advancements, legislative changes, and other factors may result in revisions to the proposed projects.

The selected action alternative consists of six action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 7): implementation of conservation policies and procedures (Alternative 2); construction of a water reclamation pipeline (Alternative 3); construction and operation of a waste-to-energy plant (Alternative 4); construction and operation of a geothermal energy facility (Alternative 5); and construction of dry-cooled concentrating solar power technology (Alternative 6). Alternative 7 proposes implementation of other renewable energy technologies and projects that are compatible with installation planning criteria and address potential future renewable energy, water, and waste technology actions at a programmatic level. Alternative 4, waste-to-energy plant, was analyzed from a programmatic perspective only. The Army will conduct further analysis of specific sites, should it consider pursuing this type of technology in the future. As warranted, additional site-specific analyses will occur for other projects, as well.

The ROD incorporates analyses contained in the FEIS for the Implementation of Energy, Water, and Solid Waste Sustainability Initiatives, including comments provided during formal comment and review periods. As a result of comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), changes in the FEIS included the removal of site-specific locations for a proposed waste-to-energy plant, with analysis of the alternative now from a programmatic perspective only. The ROD contains a commitment to identify new potential sites and conduct further analysis, should the Army consider pursuing this type of technology in the future.

Implementation of this decision is expected to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to Fort Bliss. Environmental impacts are expected as a result of construction and operation of renewable energy technologies and conservation policies and procedures. The potential for significant environmental impacts is greatest for air quality, vegetation, archeological sites, soils, land use, and traffic. Of these, all but land use (as a result of converting training land to developed land) and soils (disturbance of up to 300 acres for construction of concentrating solar power arrays) are anticipated to be mitigable to less than significant. Potentially beneficial impacts are projected for air quality, energy demand and generation, socioeconomics, water supply sources, water demand, and wastewater reuse. To minimize the potential adverse impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action, the Army will mitigate these potential effects through a variety of strategies, as described in the ROD. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternatives have been adopted.

The selected alternative provides the necessary policies, procedures, and infrastructure upgrades to meet DoD requirements. The decision provides the proper balance of initiatives for the protection of the environment and supports the U.S. Army's Net Zero initiatives in concert with supporting on-going and future mission requirements.

The ROD contains a summary of the environmental impacts and rationale for the Army's decision.

The Galveston District published the original Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Baryonyx offshore wind farm (SWG-2011-00511) in the Federal Register on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15088). After the initial public scoping process in March 2012, the Corps received 1156 substantive comments related to the applicant's proposal construction of approximately 300 offshore turbines in the Gulf of Mexico offshore Willacy and Cameron Counties, TX. Common concerns with the proposed project included potential impacts to migratory birds/bats, threatened and endangered species, marine resources (including essential fish habitat), navigation/transportation, terrestrial wildlife, socioeconomics, wetlands/submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), other, including viewshed, water and sediment quality, terrestrial and marine cultural, resources, offshore and onshore corridor analysis, coastal processes, recreation, storm surge, hazardous materials, air quality, noise, land use, geology, and coastal zone management. Based on comments submitted during this scoping process, the Corps began drafting an EIS in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard; however, a draft EIS has not been published. By letter dated May 12, 2014, Baryonyx Corporation, Inc. requested withdrawal of their Department of the Army permit application. The applicant stated that their intent is to redefine the project and resubmit at a future date. Therefore, the Corps officially determined that it is appropriate to terminate the EIS. The Corps' neutral role in the EIS process was to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed project under the authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The preparation of the EIS was being conducted by a third-party contractor directed by the Corps, and funded by the applicant, which is typical of the Corps Regulatory EIS studies. Withdrawal of the permit application and termination of the EIS process will not prevent Baryonyx Corporation, Inc. from reapplying at a later date.

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: State Plan of Assistive Technology.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0664.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Federal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,144.

Abstract: Section 4 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, requires states to submit an application in order to receive funds under the state grant for assistive technology program. This information collection will be used by states to meet their application requirements and annual data reports. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) calls this application a State Plan for Assistive Technology. RSA has eliminated the reporting of Telework activities under State Financing activities and reduced burden to grantees by setting the performance measure targets in section H of the State Plan.

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 Progress Report for the Access to Telework Program under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0687.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 19.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 219.

Abstract: Nineteen states currently have Access to Telework programs that provide financial loans to individuals with disabilities for the purchase of computers and other equipment that support teleworking for an employer or self-employment on a full or part-time basis. These grantees are required to report annual data on their programs to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. This information collection provides a standard format for the submission of those annual performance reports and a follow-up survey to be administered to individuals who receive loans.

The proposed instrument eliminates an entire section of optional information that is not required for submission by the Telework grantees, further reducing the burden from approximately 12.5 hours to 11 hours per state. Section C. Telework Optional Data Elements, which are not annual reporting requirements for the Telework grantees, has been proposed for removal from the current instrument. The information collected in this optional data section includes: 1. Types of Telework programs (partnership loans or revolving loans), 2. Interest Rates (lowest and highest interest rates established by policy), 3. Loan Amounts (lowest and highest loan amounts established by policy), 4. Repayment Terms (shortest and longest repayment terms established by policy), and Loan Guarantee Requirement, the percentage of the loans that must be repaid by the alternative financing program (AFP) to the lender in case of default as established by the agreement with the lender. Since the data reported under C. Telework Optional Data Elements of the current instrument is not required, grantees did not report this information uniformly across programs. If every grantee doesn't report in this section, then the data can't be reported in aggregate form. This optional section contains information about program features and descriptions that may or may not change on an annual basis. Since there is limited utility to the annual reporting of this optional information, the decision was made to further reduce the burden to all grantees by eliminating this section from the current instrument in the Management Information System (MIS).

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: National Evaluation of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 130.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,507.

Abstract: This submission requests approval to collect data in support of the National Evaluation of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program. The i3 Program is designed to support school districts and nonprofit organizations in expanding, developing, and evaluating evidence-based practices and promising efforts to improve outcomes for the nations' students, teachers, and schools. Each i3 grantee is required to fund an independent evaluation. The National Evaluation of i3 (NEi3) requires data collection to assess the strength of the evidence produced under the grantees independent evaluations as well as provide a cross-site summary of the findings. Specifically, the data collected for the NEi3 will be used to support reviews and reports to ED that: describe the intervention implemented by each i3 grantee; assess the strength of the evidence produced by each i3 evaluation; present the evidence produced by each i3 evaluation; identify effective and promising interventions; and, assess the results of the i3 Program. The NEi3 will collect data from the universe of all 117 i3 projects funded under the i3 Program through FY 2013.

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 Progress Reporting Form for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0655.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 85.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,063.

Abstract: The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will use this data collection form to capture the annual performance report data from grantees funded under the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) program. RSA and ED will use the information gathered annually to: (a) Comply with reporting requirements under Section 75.118 of the Education Department General Administration Regulations (EDGAR), (b) provide annual information to Congress on activities conducted under the program, (c) measure performance on the program in accordance with the program indicators identified in the Government Performance Result Act (GPRA), and (d) collect information that is consistent with the common measures for federal job training programs.

The proposed changes to the existing form will improve user friendliness, clarity of data questions, and accuracy of data reported. These revisions are not of a substantial manner nor significantly different from the original collection, but are proposed to provide clarity and consistency. In many areas, the data element language has been modified with direct language instead of passive terminology.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-4100; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Procurement Requirements; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: Under 48 CFR part 952 and Subpart 970.52, DOE must collect certain types of information from those seeking to do business with the Department or those awarded contracts by the Department. This package contains information collections necessary for the solicitation, award, administration, and closeout of procurement contracts. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,529; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 7,529; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 896,199; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $71,695,920.

Applicants. Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership and a wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport LNG Development, L.P. Its principal place of business is in Houston, Texas.

FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC, and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC are Delaware limited liability companies and wholly owned subsidiaries of Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. They also have their principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

The ultimate FLEX parent company, Freeport LNG Development, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership. It owns and operates the Freeport LNG Terminal located on Quintana Island, southeast of the City of Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas.

Procedural History. FLEX's Application concerns the indirect control of four export authorizations issued by DOE/FE, beginning in 2011. The detailed procedural history of these authorizations and related amendments is summarized in DOE/FE Order Nos. 3282-B and 3357-A. 1 Below, we provide a brief overview of each of the four authorizations:

On January 9, 2014, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum —Establishing a Quadrennial Energy Review. To accomplish this review, the Presidential Memorandum establishes a Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force to be co-chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council. Under the Presidential Memorandum, the Secretary of Energy shall provide support to the Task Force, including support for coordination activities related to the preparation of the Quadrennial Energy Review Report, policy analysis and modeling, and stakeholder engagement. The DOE, as the Secretariat for the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, will hold a series of public meetings to discuss and receive comments on issues related to the Quadrennial Energy Review.

The initial focus for the Quadrennial Energy Review will be our Nation's infrastructure for transporting, transmitting, storing and delivering energy. Our current infrastructure is increasingly challenged by transformations in energy supply, markets, and patterns of end use; issues of aging and capacity; impacts of climate change; and cyber and physical threats. Any vulnerability in this infrastructure may be exacerbated by the increasing interdependencies of energy systems with water, telecommunications, transportation, and emergency response systems. The first Quadrennial Energy Review Report will serve as a roadmap to help address these challenges.

The Department of Energy has a broad role in energy policy development and the largest role in implementing the Federal Government's energy research and development portfolio. Many other executive departments and agencies also play key roles in developing and implementing policies governing energy resources and consumption, as well as associated environmental impacts. In addition, non-Federal actors are crucial contributors to energy policies. Because most energy and related infrastructure is owned by private entities, investment by and engagement of the private sector is necessary to develop and implement effective policies. State and local policies; the views of nongovernmental, environmental, faith-based, labor, and other social organizations; and contributions from the academic and non-profit sectors are also critical to the development and implementation of effective energy policies.

An interagency Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, which includes members from all relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies), will develop an integrated review of energy policy that integrates all of these perspectives. It will build on the foundation provided in the Administration's Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future of March 30, 2011, and Climate Action Plan released on June 25, 2013. The Task Force will offer recommendations on what additional actions it believes would be appropriate. These may include recommendations on additional executive or legislative actions to address the energy challenges and opportunities facing the Nation.

August 21, 2014 Public Meeting: Infrastructure Siting.

On August 21, 2014, the DOE will hold a public meeting in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The August 21, 2014 public meeting will feature facilitated panel discussions, followed by an open microphone session. Persons desiring to speak during the open microphone session at the public meeting should come prepared to speak for no more than five minutes and will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis, according to the order in which they register to speak on a sign-in sheet available at the meeting location, on the morning of the meeting.

In advance of the meeting, DOE anticipates making publicly available a briefing memorandum providing useful background information regarding the topics under discussion at the meeting. DOE will post this memorandum on its Web site: http://energy.gov.

Submitting comments via email. Submitting comments by email to the QER email address will require you to provide your name and contact information in the transmittal email. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). Your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to the QER email address ( QERcomments@hq.doe.gov ) information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted to the QER email address cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the email address will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section, below.

If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Confidential information should be submitted to the Confidential QER email address: QERConfidential@hq.doe.gov .

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the Nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast . PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

Type of Meeting: Open.

Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to hold a conference call in open session on August 28, 2014 from 11:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Eastern Time (ET).

During the conference call, PCAST will discuss its education information technology and nanotechnology reports. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast .

Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

The public comment period for this meeting will take place on August 28, 2014 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast . This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, August 21, 2014. Phone or email reservations to be considered for the public speaker list will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 10 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee as described below.

Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, August 26, 2014, so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to the meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Dr. Ford at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Hoover Dam, authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057, December 21, 1928), sits on the Colorado River along the Arizona and Nevada border. The Hoover Dam powerplant has 19 generating units (two for plant use) and an installed capacity of 2,078,800 kilowatts (kW) (4,800 kW for plant use). High-voltage transmission lines and substations connect BCP power to consumers in southern Nevada, Arizona, and southern California. BCP electric service rates are adjusted annually using an existing rate formula established on April 19, 1996. The rate formula requires the BCP contractors to pay a Base Charge (expressed in dollars), rather than a rate, for their power. The Base Charge is calculated to generate sufficient revenue to cover all annual costs and to repay investment obligations within allowable time periods. The Base Charge is allocated to each BCP Contractor in proportion to its allocation of Hoover power. A BCP composite power rate, expressed in mills per kilowatt-hour (mills/kWh), can be inferred by dividing the Base Charge by energy sales in the year; however, the rate is not used to determine customers' bills.

Rate Schedule BCP-F8, Rate Order No. WAPA-150, effective October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2015, allows for an annual recalculation of the Base Charge and Rates. 1 This notice sets forth the recalculation for FY 2015. Under Rate Schedule BCP-F8, the existing composite rate, effective on October 1, 2013, is 20.18 mills/kWh. The current Base Charge is $76,108,019, the energy rate is 10.09 mills/kWh, and the capacity rate is $1.87 per kilowatt-month (kW-month).

The recalculated Base Charge for BCP electric service, effective October 1, 2014, is $61,008,518, an approximate 20 percent decrease from the FY 2014 Base Charge. The major contributing factor to the decrease is from the FY 2012 costs being lower than expected allowing additional funds to be carried over into FY 2013. FY 2013 costs were also lower than anticipated and other revenues from the Hoover Dam Visitor Center and Ancillary Services, which are used to offset costs to be recovered from power customers, were higher than expected. In addition, the BCP Contractors paid off the Visitor Facilities and Air Slots capitalized investment debt in FY 2014, which allowed additional funds from interest savings to be carried over into FY 2015, thus making it possible for the FY 2015 Base Charge to be reduced significantly from the current level. The FY 2015 composite rate of 16.28 mills/kWh is a decrease of approximately 19 percent compared to the FY 2014 BCP composite rate of 20.18 mills/kWh. The FY 2015 energy rate of 8.14 mills/kWh is a decrease of approximately 19 percent compared to the existing energy rate of 10.09 mills/kWh. The FY 2015 capacity rate of $1.61/kW-month is a decrease of approximately 14 percent compared to the existing capacity rate of $1.87/kW-month. FY 2015 Energy and Capacity sales have decreased compared with FY 2014, due to a forecast of continued poor hydrological conditions resulting in lower lake elevation. Although the energy and capacity sales for FY 2015 are decreasing, the significant decrease in the revenue requirement for FY 2015 results in a decrease to the composite and energy and capacity rates. The proposed rates were calculated using Western's FY 2014 Final Master Schedule, which provides the FY 2015 projections for energy and capacity sales.

The following summarizes the steps taken by Western to ensure involvement of all interested parties in determining the Base Charge and Rates:

1. A Federal Register notice was published on February 5, 2014 (79 FR 6896), announcing the proposed rate adjustment process, initiating a public consultation and comment period, announcing public information and public comment forums, and presenting procedures for public participation.

2. Discussion of the proposal was initiated at an informal BCP Contractor meeting held March 5, 2014, in Phoenix, Arizona. At this informal meeting, representatives from Western and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) explained the basis for the estimates used to calculate the Base Charge and Rates and held a question and answer session.

3. At the public information forum held on March 26, 2014, in Phoenix, Arizona, Western and Reclamation representatives explained the proposed Base Charge and Rates for FY 2015 in greater detail and held a question and answer session.

4. A public comment forum held on April 16, 2014, in Phoenix, Arizona, provided the public with an opportunity to comment for the record. Two individuals commented at this forum.

5. Western received one comment letter during the 90-day consultation and comment period. The consultation and comment period ended May 6, 2014. The written comments were received from the following interested party representing various customers of the BCP Contractors:

• Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.

Comments and responses, paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statements, are presented below.

Comment: A commenter expressed an on-going concern regarding requests for clarity and a better understanding of how Western's Corporate Service Office (CSO) costs are allocated to Western's projects, including the BCP, and requests further discussions on the subject. The commenter also expressed disquiet for the escalation in system-wide expenses, how it is calculated and allocated to BCP. The commenter requests Western provide an explanation of how these costs are allocated to BCP.

Response: The process for allocating CSO costs (overhead) to Western's projects is basically accomplished through two primary methods. The first method is through General Western Allocation (GWA) overhead costs which are distributed to the regions through a percentage calculation by individual regional full time equivalent (FTE) count divided by total regional FTE count. Then Desert Southwest Customer Service Region (DSW) distributes that portion to its individual projects through a percentage calculation determined by number of direct labor hours charged to each individual project divided by total direct labor hours. In addition to the method GWA is allocated, Western's other overhead costs are allocated to projects through various burden rates (administrative, construction, and operation and maintenance). The burden rates are allocated to each project through direct labor charges which are calculated based on which customers benefit from the work being performed. Western's CSO Chief Finance Office gave a presentation on May 21, 2014, at the BCP Engineering and Operation Committee quarterly meeting demonstrating the process mentioned above and how CSO's costs are allocated to Western's regions. Western's goal was to give the customers another opportunity to clarify any questions and give a better understanding of this cost allocation process.

Regarding the escalation of system-wide expenses, primarily two budget items contribute to the increases, system operations and load dispatching and power marketing costs. In 2011, a re-evaluation of the workload in Western's dispatch centers was undertaken to more accurately reflect the work being performed. The study results changed the budget allocation method for system operation and load dispatching to Western's power systems. During the period of September 10-20, 2011, Western presented to its customers the revised cost allocation methodology that impacted system-wide costs for all Western projects, including BCP, beginning in FY 2014. The revised allocations, based on nameplate generator capacity or transmission line miles, did not cause an increase in total costs, but the re-allocation resulted in some projects, including BCP being allocated a larger percentage of those costs than they had in the past. From a total regional perspective, DSW's share of the system operation and load dispatch costs remained relatively stable. The power marketing costs are increasing due to the post-2017 remarketing process which Western has addressed in its annual rate process.

BCP Base Charge and the resulting calculated Rates for electric service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes operation and maintenance expenses, payments to states, visitor services, the uprating program, replacements, investment repayment, and interest expense. Western's power repayment study (PRS) allocates the projected annual revenue requirement for electric service equally between capacity and energy.

Information about this Base Charge and Rate adjustment, including the PRS, comments, letters, memorandums, and other supporting material developed or maintained by Western and used to develop the FY 2015 BCP Base Charge and Rates is available for public review at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85009. The information is also available on Western's Web site at www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP/RateAdjust.htm.

BCP electric service rates are developed under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352), through which the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved, were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy, acting by and through Western.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00A, effective October 25, 2013, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop long-term power and transmission rates on a non-exclusive basis to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Existing Department of Energy procedures for public participation in electric service rate adjustments are located at 10 CFR part 903, effective September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835). Department of Energy procedures were followed by Western in developing the rate formula approved by FERC on December 9, 2010, at 133 FERC ¶ 62,229. 2

The Boulder Canyon Project Implementation Agreement (BCPIA) requires that Western determine the annual base charge and rates for the next fiscal year before October 1 of each rate year. The rates for the first rate year, and each fifth rate year thereafter, become effective provisionally upon approval by the Deputy Secretary and subject to final approval by FERC. For all other rate years, the rates become effective on a final basis upon approval by the Deputy Secretary. Because FY 2015 is an interim year, these rates become effective on a final basis upon approval by the Deputy Secretary.

Western will continue to provide annual rates to the BCP Contractors by October 1 of each year using the same rate-setting formula. In accordance with 10 CFR part 904, effective June 1, 1987 (57 FR 43154), and the BCPIA, the rates are reviewed annually and adjusted upward or downward to assure sufficient revenues are collected to achieve payment of all costs and financial obligations associated with the project. Each fiscal year, Western prepares a PRS for the BCP to update actual revenues and expenses, including interest, estimates of future revenues, operating expenses, and capitalized costs.

The BCP rate-setting formula includes a base charge, an energy rate, and a capacity rate. The rate-setting formula was used to determine the BCP FY 2015 Base Charge and Rates.

Western proposed a FY 2015 Base Charge of $61,008,518, an energy rate of 8.14 mills/kWh, and a capacity rate of 1.61/kW-month.

Consistent with procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 903 and 904 and 18 CFR part 300, Western held a consultation and comment period. The notice of the proposed FY 2015 Base Charge and Rates for electric service was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2014 (79 FR 6896).

Under Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00A and 00-001.00C, and in compliance with 10 CFR part 903, I hereby approve the FY 2015 Base Charge and Rates for BCP Electric Service on a final basis under Rate Schedule BCP-F8 through September 30, 2015.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. EPA File Symbol: 524-ARO. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0456. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. Active Ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins and the genetic material (Vector PV-GMIR13196) necessary for their production in MON 87751 soybean. Product Type: Plant-incorporated protectant. Proposed Use: Control of lepidopteran soybean pests. (BPPD)

2. EPA File Symbols: 100-RUAT, 100-RUAE, 100-RUAG, 100-RUAA, 100-RUAL. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0355. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active Ingredient: Bicyclopyrone. Product Type: herbicide. Proposed Uses: Technical and End-Use products intended for use in or on field corn, seed corn, silage corn, sweet corn and yellow popcorn. (RD)

3. EPA File Symbol: 524-ARI. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0293. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. Active Ingredients: Double-stranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA) transcript comprising a DvSnf7 inverted repeat sequence derived from western corn rootworm ( Diabrotica virgifera virgifera ) and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic materials (vector PV-ZMIR10871) necessary for their production in MON 87411 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-87411-9). Proposed Uses: Plant-incorporated protectant. (BPPD)

4. EPA File Symbol: 89850-R. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0376. Applicant: J&T Associates, LLC, 4061 North 156th Dr., Goodyear, AZ 85395 on behalf of SemioBio Technologies, Inc. 320-887 Great Northern Way, Vancouver, BC V5T 4T5. Canada. Active Ingredient: Furfuryl Propionate. Product Type: Bed Bug Repellent. Proposed Uses: Application by general public, first responders and pest control operators when applied to uniforms, clothing, luggage and other surfaces against bed bugs. (BPPD)

5. EPA File Symbols: 71512-ER, 71512-EE, and 71512-EG. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0138. Applicant: ISK Biosciences, 7470 Auburn Rd., Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active Ingredient: Isofetamid. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Turf. Turf was not included on the previous NOR for isofetamid which published on 4/9/13. (RD)

6. EPA File Symbols: 83623-R, 83623-G and 83623-E. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0375. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number 4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 on behalf of BetaTec Hop Products, Inc., 5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20016. Active Ingredient: Potassium Salts of Hop Beta Acids (Hop beta acids resin). Product Type: Miticide. Proposed Uses: Manufacturing-Use Products to be formulated into end-use products for the management of Varroa mite in bee hives. (BPPD)

7. EPA File Symbol: 88958-R. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0358. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number 4, IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, on behalf of CAI America LLC, 309 Fairwinds Dr., Cary, NC 27518. Active ingredient: Propylene Glycol Alginate. Product Type: Nematocide, Insecticide, and Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Manufacturing-use product to be formulated into end-use products for Preharvest applications to crops and turf. (BPPD)

8. EPA File Symbol: 88958-E. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0358. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number 4, IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, on behalf of CAI America LLC, 309 Fairwinds Dr., Cary, NC 27518. Active ingredient: Propylene Glycol Alginate. Product Type: Nematocide, Insecticide, and Fungicide. Proposed Uses: End-use product for preharvest, in-furrow, soil drench and foliar applications to crops and turf. (BPPD)

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

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

During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the June 4, 2014 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is August 13, 2014. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of June 4, 2014 (79 FR 32288) (FRL-9910-97). The comment period closed on July 7, 2014.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

The registrants have indicated to the Agency via written response that there are no existing stocks of technical or end use products. Therefore, no existing stocks date is necessary. Registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

The registrant has indicated to the Agency via letter that all registrations for the active ingredient vinclozolin will be phased out. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, EPA is allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until December 31, 2016. Thereafter, registrants, and persons other than registrants, are prohibited from selling or distributing existing stocks of products containing vinclozolin identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Existing stocks of products containing vinclozolin already in the hands of users can be used legally until such stocks are exhausted, provided that the use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled products.

Registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until August 13, 2015, which is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register . Thereafter, registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides listed in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

The EEOC has collected information annually from private employers on the Form 100 since 1966.

Collection Title: Employer Information Report (EEO-1).

OMB Number: 3046-0007.

Frequency of Report: Annual.

Type of Respondent: Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal government contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees.

Description of Affected Public: Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal government contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees.

Reporting Hours: 987,394.

Respondent Cost: $11.4 million.

Federal Cost: $2.1 million.

Number of Forms: 1.

Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records, and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order. Accordingly, the EEOC issued regulations prescribing the EEO-1 reporting requirement. Employers in the private sector with 100 or more employees and some federal contractors with 50 or more employees have been required to submit EEO-1 reports annually since 1966. The individual reports are confidential. EEO-1 data is used by EEOC to investigate charges of employment discrimination against employers in private industry and to provide information about the employment status of minorities and women. The data is shared with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor, and several other federal agencies. Pursuant to § 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-1 data is also shared with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).

Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents included in the annual EEO-1 survey is 70,000 private employers. The annual number of responses is approximately 290,410. The form is estimated to impose 987,394 burden hours annually or 3.4 hours per response. In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically whenever possible.

The FDIC is requesting comment on the following revision of an information collection:

Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act  1 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires certain financial companies, including state nonmember banks and state savings associations, to conduct annual stress tests  2 and requires the primary financial regulatory agency  3 of those financial companies to issue regulations implementing the stress test requirements. 4 A state nonmember bank or state savings association is a “covered bank” and therefore subject to the stress test requirements if its total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion. Under section 165(i)(2), a covered bank is required to submit to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and to its primary financial regulatory agency a report at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the primary financial regulatory agency may require. 5 On October 15, 2012, the FDIC published in the Federal Register a final rule implementing the section 165(i)(2) annual stress test requirement. 6 The final rule requires covered banks to meet specific reporting requirements under section 165(i)(2). In 2013, the FDIC first implemented the reporting templates for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion to $50 billion and provided instructions for completing the reports. 7 This notice describes revisions by the FDIC to those reporting templates, the information required, and related instructions. This information collection will be given confidential treatment to the extent allowed by law (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Consistent with past practice, the FDIC intends to use the data collected through these revised templates to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered banks and to provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered bank's capital adequacy. The FDIC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered bank. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.

The FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion to $50 billion are part of a holding company that is also required to submit relevant Dodd-Frank Annual Stress Test (DFAST) reports to the Board (FR Y-16, OMB No. 7100-0356). The FDIC, Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and Board have coordinated the preparation of stress testing templates in order to make the templates as similar as possible and thereby minimize the burden on affected institutions. These agencies have coordinated in a similar manner regarding these proposed modifications to the stress testing templates. Therefore, the revisions by the FDIC to its reporting requirements will remain consistent with the modifications that the Board proposes to make to the FR Y-16.

The FDIC DFAST 10-50 reporting form collects data through two primary schedules: (1) The Results Schedule (which includes the quantitative results of the stress tests under the baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios for each quarter of the planning horizon) and (2) the Scenario Variables Schedule. In addition, respondents are required to submit a summary of the qualitative information supporting their quantitative projections. The qualitative supporting information must include:

• A description of the types of risks included in the stress test;

• A summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test;

• An explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios, and

• The use of the stress test results.

For each of the three supervisory scenarios (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse), data are reported on two supporting schedules: (1) The Income Statement Schedule and (2) the Balance Sheet Schedule. Therefore, two supporting schedules for each scenario (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse) are completed. In addition, the Results Schedule includes a Summary Schedule, which summarizes key results from the Income Statement and Balance Sheet Schedules.

Income statement data are collected on a projected quarterly basis showing projections of revenues and losses. For example, respondents project net charge-offs by loan type (stratified by twelve specific loan types), gains and losses on securities, pre-provision net revenue, and other key components of net income (i.e., provision for loan and lease losses, taxes, etc.).

Balance sheet data are collected on a quarterly basis for projections of certain assets, liabilities, and capital. Capital data are also collected on a projected quarterly basis and include components of regulatory capital, including the projections of risk weighted assets and capital actions such as common dividends and share repurchases.

To conduct the stress tests, an institution may choose to project additional economic and financial variables beyond the mandatory supervisory scenarios provided to estimate losses or revenues for some or all of its portfolios. In such cases, the institution would be required to complete the Scenario Variables Schedule for each scenario where the institution chooses to use additional variables. The Scenario Variables Schedule collects information on the additional scenario variables used over the planning horizon for each supervisory scenario.

The proposed revisions to the FDIC DFAST reporting templates for covered banks with assets of $10 billion to $50 billion or more are described below.

On July 9, 2013, the FDIC approved an interim final rule that will revise and replace the FDIC's risk-based and leverage capital requirements to be consistent with agreements reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (Basel III). 8 The final rule was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2014. 9 The revisions include implementation of a new definition of regulatory capital, a new common equity tier 1 minimum capital requirement, a higher minimum tier 1 capital requirement, and, for banking organizations subject to the Advanced Approaches capital rules, a supplementary leverage ratio that incorporates a broader set of exposures in the denominator measure. In addition, the rule will amend the methodologies for determining risk weighted assets. All banking organizations that are not subject to the Advanced Approaches Rule must begin to comply with the revised capital framework on January 1, 2015.

Due to the timing of the Dodd-Frank Act stress test and the capital rulemaking, the FDIC considered several options for the timing and scope of this proposal to collect information related to the capital rulemaking. After careful consideration of the various options, the FDIC determined that the following revisions would enable the FDIC to collect these data while minimizing the burden to the industry.

The FDIC proposes to revise the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Summary Schedule by adding a common equity tier 1 capital data item and the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Balance Sheet Schedules (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios) by adding a common equity tier 1 risk based capital ratio data item in order to reflect the requirements of the revised capital framework. These revisions would be effective for the 2015 stress test cycle (with reporting in March 2015).

In addition, the FDIC proposes to clarify the FDIC DFAST 10-50 reporting form instructions to emphasize that a covered bank should transition to the revised capital framework requirements in its bank-run stress test projections in the quarter in which the requirements become effective. Specifically, a covered bank would be required to transition to the revised capital framework and begin including the common equity tier 1 capital data item and common equity tier 1 risk based capital ratio data item in projected quarter 2 (1st quarter 2015) through projected quarter 9 (4th quarter 2016) for each supervisory scenario for the 2015 stress test cycle.

The FDIC also proposes several clarifications to the FDIC DFAST 10-50 reporting form instructions, including: Indicating that the Scenario Variables Schedule would be collected as a reporting form in Reporting Central (instead of as a file submitted in Adobe Acrobat PDF format); clarifying what covered banks should include in line items 32 and 33 (retail and wholesale funding) on the Balance Sheet Schedule, with reference to relevant Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) line items; and finally, clarifying how the supporting qualitative information should be organized. The current instructions do not clearly indicate where a covered bank should place this supporting qualitative information, which includes a description of the types of risk included in the stress test, a summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test, an explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios, and the use of the stress test results. The proposed modifications to the instructions would direct covered banks to place this information in the summary and governance section of the summary of qualitative information document.

The FDIC estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Number of Respondents: 22.

Annual Burden per Respondent: 464 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 10,208 hours.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 22.

Estimated Annual Burden per Respondent: 469 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10,318 hours.

The burden for each $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank that completes the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Results Template and FDIC DFAST 10-50 Scenario Variables Template is estimated to be 469 hours. The burden to complete the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Results Template is estimated to be 440 hours, including 20 hours to input these data and 420 hours for work related to modeling efforts. The burden to complete the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Scenario Variables Template is estimated to be 29 hours. The total burden for all 22 respondents to complete both templates is estimated to be 10,318 hours, or an increase to the total burden of 110 hours.

Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed changes to the information collection, particularly:

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

(b) The accuracy of the FDIC's estimate 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 of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;

(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information; and

(f) The ability of FDIC-supervised banks and savings associations with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion to provide the requested information to the FDIC by March 31, 2015.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's R-value Rule, 16 CFR Part 460 (OMB Control Number 3084-0109).

The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. All comments must be received on or before October 14, 2014.

The R-value Rule establishes uniform standards for the substantiation and disclosure of accurate, material product information about the thermal performance characteristics of home insulation products. The R-value of an insulation signifies the insulation's degree of resistance to the flow of heat. This information tells consumers how well a product is likely to perform as an insulator and allows consumers to determine whether the cost of the insulation is justified.

Estimated annual hours burden: 129,656 hours.

The Rule's requirements include product testing, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosures on labels, fact sheets, advertisements, and other promotional materials. Based on information provided by members of the insulation industry, staff estimates that the Rule affects: (1) 150 insulation manufacturers and their testing laboratories; (2) 1,615 installers who sell home insulation; (3) 125,000 new home builders/sellers of site-built homes and approximately 5,500 dealers who sell manufactured housing; and (4) 25,000 retail sellers who sell home insulation for installation by consumers.

Under the Rule's testing requirements, manufacturers must test each insulation product for its R-value. Based on past industry input, staff estimates that the test takes approximately two hours. Approximately 15 of the 150 insulation manufacturers in existence introduce one new product each year. Their total annual testing burden is therefore approximately 30 hours.

Staff further estimates that most manufacturers require an average of approximately 20 hours per year regarding third-party disclosure requirements in advertising and other promotional materials. Only the five or six largest manufacturers require additional time, approximately 80 hours each. Thus, the annual third-party disclosure burden for manufacturers is approximately 3,360 hours [(144 manufacturers × 20 hours) + (6 manufacturers × 80 hours)].

While the Rule imposes recordkeeping requirements, most manufacturers and their testing laboratories keep their testing-related records in the ordinary course of business. Staff estimates that no more than one additional hour per year per manufacturer is necessary to comply with this requirement, for an annual recordkeeping burden of approximately 150 hours (150 manufacturers × 1 hour).

Installers are required to show the manufacturers' insulation fact sheet to retail consumers before purchase. They must also disclose information in contracts or receipts concerning the R-value and the amount of insulation to install. Staff estimates that two minutes per sales transaction is sufficient to comply with these requirements. Approximately 2,000,000 retrofit insulations (an industry source's estimate) are installed by approximately 1,615 installers per year, and, thus, the related annual burden total is approximately 66,667 hours (2,000,000 sales transactions × 2 minutes). Staff anticipates that one hour per year per installer is sufficient to cover required disclosures in advertisements and other promotional materials. Thus, the burden for this requirement is approximately 1,615 hours per year. In addition, installers must keep records that indicate the substantiation relied upon for savings claims. The additional time to comply with this requirement is minimal—approximately 5 minutes per year per installer—for a total of approximately 134 hours.

New home sellers must make contract disclosures concerning the type, thickness, and R-value of the insulation they install in each part of a new home. Staff estimates that no more than 30 seconds per sales transaction is required to comply with this requirement, for a total annual burden of approximately 7,700 hours (an estimated 924,000 new home sales per year  1 × 30 seconds). New home sellers who make energy savings claims must also keep records regarding the substantiation relied upon for those claims. Staff believes that the 30 seconds covering disclosures would also encompass this recordkeeping element.

The Rule requires that the approximately 25,000 retailers who sell home insulation make fact sheets available to consumers before purchase. This can be accomplished by, for example, placing copies in a display rack or keeping copies in a binder on a service desk with an appropriate notice. Replenishing or replacing fact sheets should require no more than approximately one hour per year per retailer, for a total of 25,000 annual hours, industry-wide.

The Rule also requires specific disclosures in advertisements or other promotional materials to ensure that the claims are fair and not deceptive. This burden is very minimal because retailers typically use advertising copy provided by the insulation manufacturer, and even when retailers prepare their own advertising copy, the Rule provides some of the language to be used. Accordingly, approximately one hour per year per retailer should suffice to meet this requirement, for a total annual burden of approximately 25,000 hours.

Retailers who make energy savings claims in advertisements or other promotional materials must keep records that indicate the substantiation they are relying upon. Because few retailers make these types of promotional claims and because the Rule permits retailers to rely on the insulation manufacturer's substantiation data for any claims that are made, the additional recordkeeping burden is de minimis. The time calculated for disclosures, above, would be more than adequate to cover any burden imposed by this recordkeeping requirement.

To summarize, staff estimates that the Rule imposes a total of 129,656 burden hours, as follows: 150 recordkeeping and 3,390 testing and disclosure hours for manufacturers; 134 recordkeeping and 68,282 disclosure hours for installers; 7,700 disclosure hours for new home sellers; and 50,000 disclosure hours for retailers. The estimated total burden is approximately 129,656 burden hours.

Estimated annual cost burden:

$2,571,000 (solely related to labor costs and rounded to the nearest thousand).

The total annual labor cost for the Rule's information collection requirements is approximately $2,571,000, derived as follows: Approximately $810 for testing, based on 30 hours for manufacturers (30 hours × $27 per hour for skilled technical personnel); $3,976 for manufacturers' and installers' compliance with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, based on 284 hours (284 hours × $14 per hour for clerical personnel); $47,040 for manufacturers' compliance with third-party disclosure requirements, based on 3,360 hours (3,360 hours × $14 per hour for clerical personnel); and $2,519,640 for disclosure compliance by installers, new home sellers, and retailers (125,982 hours × $20 per hour for sales persons). 2

There are no significant current capital or other non-labor costs associated with this Rule. Because the Rule has been in effect since 1980, members of the industry are familiar with its requirements and already have in place the equipment for conducting tests and storing records. New products are introduced infrequently. Because the required disclosures are placed on packaging or on the product itself, the Rule's additional disclosure requirements do not cause industry members to incur any significant additional non-labor associated costs.

You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your any comment does not include sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 3 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/rvaluerulepra1 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 14, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

For over forty-five years, the FTC has published periodic reports containing data on domestic cigarette sales and marketing expenditures by the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers. The Commission has published comparable reports on smokeless tobacco sales and marketing expenditures for over twenty-five years. Originally, both reports were issued pursuant to statutory mandates. After those statutory mandates were terminated, the Commission continued to collect and publish information obtained from the cigarette and smokeless tobacco industries pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(b). As noted above, the current PRA clearance to collect this information is valid through January 31, 2015 (OMB Control No. 3084-0134).

The Commission plans to continue sending information requests annually to the ultimate parent company of several of the largest cigarette companies and smokeless tobacco companies in the United States (“industry members”). The information requests will seek data regarding, inter alia: (1) The tobacco sales of industry members; (2) how much industry members spend advertising and promoting their tobacco products, and the specific amounts spent in each of a number of specified expenditure categories; (3) whether industry members are involved in the appearance of their products or brand imagery in television shows, motion pictures, on the Internet, or on social media; (4) how much industry members spend on advertising intended to reduce youth tobacco usage; (5) the events, if any, during which industry members' tobacco brands are televised; and (6) for the cigarette industry, the “tar”, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of their cigarettes. The information will again be sought using compulsory process under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the proposed collection of information.

The Commission invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Commission also specifically invites comment on whether it should require submission of “tar,” nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields for all cigarettes sold by the companies. The Commission did require submission of all such data for many years, but most recently has only required the companies to submit those data if they possess them—i.e., if a company does not have yield data on a particular cigarette variety, it does not have to conduct testing on that variety.

The Commission uses the data provided by the cigarette manufacturers to prepare its Cigarette Report, which, in addition to data on cigarette sales and marketing expenditures, includes information on, among other things, the market share of cigarettes filtered versus unfiltered cigarettes, and of regular versus menthol cigarettes. 1 The Report has also included for many years data analyzing sales-weighted “tar” yields: Specifically, Tables 4 and 4A present the Domestic Market Share of Cigarettes by “Tar” Yield, identifying the market share of cigarettes having “tar” yields of 15 mg. or less, 12 mg. or less, 9 mg. or less, 6 mg. or less, and 3 mg. or less. 2 The percentage of cigarette varieties for which “tar” yields have been provided has fluctuated in recent years: Yields were provided for 717 of the 752 varieties of cigarettes (95 percent) sold in 2012, but for only 645 of the 807 varieties (80 percent) the companies reported selling in 2011. Continuing to permit the companies to report “tar,” nicotine, and carbon monoxide yield data only to the extent they possess those data could render the data in those tables less useful for purposes of analysis within a specific year or over time.

The Commission therefore requests comment on the following:

(1) Whether the market share data in Tables 4 and 4A is still relevant and useful;

(2) Whether the Commission should continue to require the major cigarette manufacturers only to provide yield in their possession, or return to its previous approach of requiring the companies to provide yield data on all varieties of cigarettes they sell;

(3) The additional burden on the companies that would be associated with requiring the companies to provide yield data on all varieties of cigarettes they sell; and

(4) Whether the relevance of the data in Tables 4 and 4A outweighs the additional costs to the manufacturers of conducting the testing necessary to provide data on every variety they sell.

Estimated hours burden: The FTC staff's estimate of the hours burden is based on the time required each year to respond to the Commission's information request. Although the FTC currently anticipates sending information requests each year to the five largest cigarette companies and the five largest smokeless tobacco companies, the burden estimate is based on up to 15 information requests being issued per year to take into account any future changes in these industries. These companies vary greatly in size, in the number of products they sell, and in the extent and variety of their advertising and promotion.

The companies have not taken issue with the staff's burden estimates in prior requests for PRA reauthorization, 3 suggesting that the time most companies would require to gather, organize, format, and produce their responses would range from 30 to 80 hours per information request for the smaller companies, to as much as hundreds of hours for the very largest companies. As an approximation, staff continues to assume a per company average of 180 hours for the ten largest recipients of the Commission's information requests to comply—cumulatively, 1,800 hours per year.

Staff anticipates that if the Commission decides to issue information requests to any additional companies, those companies would be smaller than the primary ten recipients and that the response burden per additional recipient would be less than for the larger companies. Staff believes that the burden should not exceed 60 hours per entity for the smaller recipients of the information requests. Cumulatively, then, the total burden for five additional respondents should not exceed 300 hours per year. Thus, the overall estimated burden for a maximum of 15 recipients of the information requests is 2,100 hours per year. These estimates include any time spent by separately incorporated subsidiaries and other entities affiliated with the ultimate parent company that has received the information request.

Estimated cost burden: Commission staff cannot calculate with precision the labor costs associated with this data production, as those costs entail varying compensation levels of management and/or support staff among companies of different sizes. The staff assumes that paralegals and computer analysts will perform most of the work involved in responding to the Commission Orders, although in-house legal personnel will be involved in reviewing the actual submission to the Commission. The staff continues to use a combined hourly wage of $100/hour for the combined efforts of these individuals. 4 Using this figure, staff's best estimate for the total labor costs for up to 15 information requests is $210,000 per year. Staff believes that the capital or other non-labor costs associated with the information requests are minimal. Although the information requests may necessitate that industry members maintain the requested information provided to the Commission, they should already have in place the means to compile and maintain business records.

Request for comment: You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 14, 2014. Write “Tobacco Reports: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P054507” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential . . . , ” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information, such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/tobaccoreportspra, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Tobacco Reports: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P054507” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 14, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

This webcast is an opportunity for the affected community (i.e., academic institutions and biomedical centers; commercial manufacturing facilities; federal, state, and local laboratories, including clinical and diagnostic laboratories; research facilities; exhibition facilities; and educational facilities) and other interested individuals to obtain specific guidance and information regarding the import permit program. The webcast will also provide assistance to those interested in applying for an import permit.

Representatives from the Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and HHS/CDC will be present during the webcast to address questions and concerns from the web participants.

Individuals who want to participate in the webcast must complete their registration online by October 1, 2014. The registration instructions are located on this Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/od/eaipp/ . This is a 100% webcast; therefore, no accommodations exist for in-person participation.

The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities. The PCPID Executive Order stipulates that the Committee shall: (1) Provide such advice concerning intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may request; and (2) provide advice to the President concerning the following for people with intellectual disabilities: (A) Expansion of educational opportunities; (B) promotion of homeownership; (C) assurance of workplace integration; (D) improvement of transportation options; (E) expansion of full access to community living; and (F) increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies.

The technology identifies a set of non-invasive metabolic biomarkers in urine samples that are mechanistically associated with colorectal carcinogenesis in a mouse model. In addition, pathways related to the production of these metabolites are also found to be dys-regulated in human colorectal cancer tissues. These indicate that changes in urinary metabolites may be helpful in screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancers. Furthermore, the mechanistic association of these pathways with proliferation suggests that these biomarkers may also be helpful in evaluating and monitoring therapeutic response, remission and relapse in colorectal cancer patients.

This technology is intended for use as an adjunctive screening test for the detection of colorectal tumor or adenoma. A positive result may indicate the presence of colorectal cancer or premalignant colorectal neoplasia (adenoma). This urine based screen would not replace colonoscopy but would assist in the recommendation for additional testing or intervention. Compared to colonoscopy, the currently most commonly used colorectal cancer screening/diagnostic test, the test based on this new technology is non-invasive, cost effective and safer. This technology would be intended for patients who are typical candidates for colorectal cancer screening, adults of either sex, 50 years or older, who are at average risk of developing colorectal cancer.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.

Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

Abstract

The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

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

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

Below we provide the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) projected average annual estimates for the next three years:

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: No Agency Form Number; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals and households, businesses and organizations.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 30,000 Respondents × (.50) 30 minutes per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 15,000 annual burden hours.

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Filing Instructions for V Nonimmigrant Status Applicants.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Supplement A to Form I-539; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V nonimmigrant classification.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Supplement A to Form I-539 is 200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 30 minutes (.50 hours).

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 100 hours.

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

Comments Note:

The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Free Training for Civics and Citizenship of Adults; Civics and Citizenship Toolkit.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: G-1190, OMB-58; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information is necessary to register for civics and citizenship of adults training and to obtain a civics and citizenship toolkit.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Civics and Citizenship Toolkit: 1,200 responses at 10 minutes (.166 hours) per response. Training for Civics and Citizenship of Adults: 1,100 responses at 10 minutes (.166 hours) per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 383 annual burden hours.

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2134; Telephone 202-272-8377.

This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (79 FR 31962) on June 3, 2014, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 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 costs 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: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).

OMB Number: 1651-0125.

Form Number: None.

Abstract: On August 5, 2004, the United States entered into the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (also known as CAFTA-DR) with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Agreement was approved by Congress in section 101(a) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 109-53, 119 Stat. 462) (19 U.S.C. 4001) and provides for preferential tariff treatment of certain goods originating in one or more of the CAFTA-DR countries. It was signed into law on August 2, 2005.

In order to ascertain if imported goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under CAFTA-DR, CBP collects a certification that contains information such as the name and contact information for importer and exporter; information about the producer of the good; a description of the good; the HTSUS tariff classification; and the applicable rule of origin. This collection of information is provided for by 19 CFR 10.583 through 19 CFR 10.592. Guidance on filing claims under CAFTA-DR may be found at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/us_dominican.pdf.

Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the burden hours based on recent estimates of the number of CAFTA-DR claims filed. There are no changes to the information collected.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 2,400.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,800.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 that Customs and Border Protection has cancelled the accreditation of ST Laboratories Group, LLC, 1404 S. Houston Rd., Pasadena, TX 77502, to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the reasons set forth below. ST Laboratories Group, LLC had been accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products as of September 12, 2013. See 79 FR 2680 (January 15, 2014). On July 11, 2014, CBP was notified that Nexeo Solutions, LLC purchased ST Laboratories Group, LLC, which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the purchasing company. Further, the bond registered with CBP by ST Laboratories Group, LLC was subsequently terminated. Therefore, due to the fact that ST Laboratories Group, LLC no longer exists as a business in the form previously accredited by CBP, the accreditation as a commercial laboratory is cancelled.

Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories .

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Department of Homeland Security hereby announces the meeting of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport Inspections User Fee Advisory Committee (UFAC). The User Fee Advisory Committee is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters related to the performance of airport and seaport inspections coinciding with the assessment of an agriculture, customs, or immigration user fees. The teleconference meeting of the User Fee Advisory Committee will be held on the date and time specified above. During the meeting, the User Fee Advisory Committee will create two new subcommittees: The Financial Assessment and Options Subcommittee and the Processes Subcommittee. The Financial Assessment and Options Subcommittee will be responsible for providing Customs and Border Protection an overview of current worldwide user fees being paid by industry, mapping how industry collects and transmits user fees to Customs and Border Protection, and discussing the option of having a third party study that would improve the committee and Customs and Border Protection's understanding of the universe of Customs and Border Protection's budget, costs, and funding sources. The Processes Subcommittee will be responsible for developing advice that would enhance Customs and Border Protection operational efficiencies.

Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public; however, participation in User Fee Advisory Committee deliberations is limited to committee members and Department of Homeland Security officials. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. Members of the public may register online to attend this User Fee Advisory Committee teleconference meeting as per the instructions set forth above.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate as soon as possible.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Land Survey Report for Insured Multifamily Projects.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0010.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-92457.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information collected on the “Certificate of Actual Cost” form provides HUD with information to determine whether the sponsor has mortgage insurance acceptability and to prevent windfall profits. It provides a base for evaluating housing programs, labor costs, and physical improvements in connection with the construction of multifamily housing.

Respondents: Non-profit business.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 216.

Estimated Number of Responses: 432.

Frequency of Response: 2.

Average Hours per Response: 216.

Total Estimated Burdens: 216.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Progress Report and Improvement Plan (IP).

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0237.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-53336-A, 53336-Bi, 53336-B, 53337, 53337i and 53338.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: A Public Housing Agency (PHA) that is designated troubled or substandard under the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) must enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with HUD to outline its planned improvements. Similarly, a PHA that is a standard performer, but receives a total PHAS score of less than 70% but not less than 60% is required to submit an Improvement Plan (IP). These plans are designed to address deficiencies in a PHA's operations found through the PHAS assessment process (management, financial, physical, or resident related) and any other deficiencies identified by HUD through independent assessments or other methods.

Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 142.

Estimated Number of Responses: 627.

Frequency of Response: Monthly or quarterly reports.

Average Hours per Response: Approximately 20 hours per response.

Total Estimated Burdens: 12,366 total hours.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: Citizens wishing to make oral comments on the business of the MHCC Technical Systems Subcommittee are encouraged to register by or before September 11, 2014, by contacting Home Innovation, 400 Prince Georges Blvd., Upper Marlboro, MD 20774; Attention: Kevin Kauffman, email to: MHCC@HomeInnovation.com; phone number 1-888-602-4663. Written comments are encouraged. The MHCC strives to accommodate citizen comments to the extent possible within the time constraints of the meeting agenda. Advance registration is strongly encouraged. The MHCC will also provide an opportunity for public comment on specific matters before the MHCC Technical Systems Subcommittee.

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) will hold a meeting.

The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.

• Designated Federal Officer (DFO) updates,

• TMC Chair report,

• Executive Director's report,

• TRRP workgroups update,

• Discussion TRRP Program Goals,

• Discussion Follow up from May 15 Joint TMC/TAMWG Meeting,

• Flow update,

• Discussion Vision of a Restored River to Help Guide Restoration,

• Presentation on proposed cuts in Central Valley Project Improvement Act funding for TRRP,

• Presentation Discussion Watershed Work Including the Trinity South Fork,

• Presentation TMC Phase 1 Review Workshop, and

• Public Comment.

The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/arcata .

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in “Public Input,” so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).

Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.

Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The minutes will be available for public inspection within 90 days after the meeting, and will be posted on the TAMWG Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arcata .

On August 4, 2014, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. All six Commissioners concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and that the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls information collection. MSHA regulations require records to be kept on the examination, testing, calibration, and maintenance of covered atmospheric monitoring systems, electric equipment, grounding offtrack direct-current machines and enclosures of related detached components, circuit breakers, electrical work, and devices for overcurrent protection. The records are intended to verify that examinations and tests were conducted and give insight into the hazardous conditions that have been encountered and those that may be encountered. These records greatly assist those who use them in making decisions during accident investigations to establish root causes and to prevent similar occurrences. These decisions will ultimately affect the safety and health of miners. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 section 103(h) authorizes this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 813(h).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0116.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19386).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0116. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls.

OMB Control Number: 1219-0116.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,195.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 550,280.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 97,336 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) Housing Occupancy Certificate information collection. Any person who owns or controls a facility or real property to be used for housing migrant agricultural workers cannot permit any such worker to occupy the housing unless a copy of a certificate of occupancy from the State, local, or Federal agency that conducted the housing safety and health inspection is posted at the site of the facility or real property. The certificate attests that the facility or real property meets applicable safety and health standards. The housing provider must retain original copy of the certificate for three years and make it available for inspection. Form WH-520 is the form used when the WHD inspects and approves such housing. MSPA section 203(b)(1) authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1823(b)(1).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1235-0006.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2014 (79 FR 15556).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1235-0006. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-WHD.

Title of Collection: Housing Occupancy Certificate—Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

OMB Control Number: 1235-0006.

Affected Public: Private Sector—farms.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 100.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 7 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

The NRC published a notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS in the Federal Register on January 16, 2014 (79 FR 2913). The NRC staff received one set of comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The NRC staff considered all comments which resulted in some changes to the RIS. Its evaluation of these comments and the resulting changes to the RIS are discussed in a publicly available document, which is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14071A434.

On September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55118), the NRC staff published SRP section 3.7.4 for public comment. Additionally, on September 13, 2013 (78 FR 56749), the NRC staff published SRP sections 2.5.1-2.5.5 for public comment. The NRC staff received no comments on the proposed revisions. This guidance is being issued as final for use. Details of specific changes between current SRP guidance and the final guidance being issued here are included at the end of each of the revised sections themselves, under the “Description of Changes” subsections.

These SRP section revisions provide guidance to the staff for reviewing applications for a construction permit and an operating license under part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) with respect to site characteristics and parameters, and deigns of structures, components, equipment, and systems. The SRP also provides guidance for reviewing an application for a standard design approval, a standard design certification, a combined license, and a manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52 with respect to those same subject matters.

Issuance of these SRP section revisions does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) nor is it inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following considerations.

1. The SRP positions would not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff.

The SRP provides internal guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.

2. The NRC staff has no intention to impose the SRP positions on existing licensees either now or in the future.

The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the SRP to existing licenses and regulatory approvals. Hence, the issuance of this SRP—even if considered guidance within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—does not need to be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

3. Backfitting and issue finality do not—with limited exceptions not applicable here—protect current or future applicants.

Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions—were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The NRC staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the SRP in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP section in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.