Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-69, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. One of the designated phytosanitary measures is that the fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56-5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin.

Under the regulations in § 319.56-5, APHIS requires that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance with the criteria for establishing freedom from pests found in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4, “Requirements For the Establishment of Pest Free Areas.” The international standard was established by the International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and is incorporated by reference in our regulations in 7 CFR 300.5. In addition, APHIS must also approve the survey protocol used to determine and maintain pest-free status, as well as protocols for actions to be performed upon detection of a pest. Pest-free areas are subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status.

In accordance with our process, we published a notice  1 in the Federal Register on September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56730-56731, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0088), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) that evaluates the information presented by Australia in support of its request to recognize new areas of that country as being free of Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), and to recognize other areas of the country as being free of Bactrocera tryoni, the Queensland fruit fly. Specifically, the Government of Australia asked that we recognize the States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria as free of Medfly and the State of Western Australia as free of Queensland fruit fly.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on November 14, 2011. We received one comment by that date, from a State agricultural official. The comment is discussed below.

The commenter expressed concern about the expansion of fruit fly-free areas because the introduction of Medfly or Queensland fly into the commenter's State could result in costly eradication programs and possible economic losses for producers due to quarantines and market disruptions.

APHIS has recognized various areas of Australia as free of Medfly, Queensland fruit fly, and other fruit flies destructive to citrus for over 10 years, and no fruit fly problems have occurred as a result of commodities being imported into the United States from these areas. Populations of Medfly are restricted to a small part of the southwest of Western Australia and isolated communities in coastal towns in the north of the State. With the exception of the fruit fly exclusion zone consisting of parts of South Australia, northern Victoria, and southern New South Wales, populations of Queensland fruit fly are restricted to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and the Northern Territory.

Freedom from Medfly outside the State of Western Australia has been established by results from ongoing monitoring with permanent Medfly traps, as part of the national trapping grid. Australia has not trapped a Medfly in an eastern Australian State since 1953 in Melbourne. After a single Medfly was detected in the Katherine area in Northwest Australia in 1994, eradication activities were initiated and no further detections have occurred.

The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia has declared the whole State of Western Australia free of Queensland fruit fly, and although incursions have been reported, these have been successfully eradicated. The Queensland fruit fly was eradicated from the Perth metropolitan area in 1990. APHIS will continuously monitor commodities from Australia with port-of-entry inspections. We believe that this gives the United States robust protection from fruit flies.

The commenter also stated that an area should not be declared free of only select fruit flies. The commenter suggested that the fruit-fly-free designation should be applied only to areas free from all fruit flies of economic importance because recognizing areas as free from one species but not another is inconsistent and confusing.

Although APHIS is recognizing portions of Australia as free of Medfly and another portion of Australia as free of the Queensland fruit fly, host material (fruit) from these areas of Australia would still require mitigation, typically quarantine treatment, before importation into the United States. Commodities from the areas of Australia where Medfly is the only pest of concern would require only mitigations for Medfly. Likewise, commodities originating from areas in Australia where Queensland fruit fly is the only pest of concern would require only mitigations for Queensland fruit fly. The benefit of declaring these areas as free from only one of the fruit flies that may infest the commodity is that the treatment for either fruit fly is less stringent than the treatment that would be required for a commodity originating from an area where both species are present. For instance, cherries from Australia that are imported into the United States must undergo cold treatment for Queensland fruit fly and must be treated with methyl bromide for Medfly. However, with the recognition of fruit fly areas as described in this notice, no area of Australia is home to both Medfly and Queensland fruit fly. Therefore, cherries imported from Australia will only have to be treated with cold treatment if originating from an area where Queensland fruit fly is present or be treated with methyl bromide if originating from an area where Medfly is present.

The commenter asked about the trap densities in Australia, stating that the 25,000 fruit fly traps maintained by the NPPO of Australia and the Australian State and territorial governments is low compared to the more than 55,000 fruit fly traps maintained in Florida.

Australia maintains trap densities that are in line with International Atomic Energy Agency fruit fly trapping guidelines, the same guidelines that the United States follows. Australia's trapping manual specifies that the traps be deployed on a 400 km grid in urban areas and 1 km grid in horticultural production areas. The fruit fly trapping programs in Australia are concentrated in fruit-growing regions in order to provide support for fruit fly freedom for specific areas, such as the districts of Riverland, Riverina, and Sunraysia. The climate in many parts of Australia does not support the presence of fruit fly hosts or provide conditions suitable for fruit fly survival, and trapping is not required in these areas. In addition, Australia requires that their trapping systems, including trap density and placement, undergo annual audits to ensure their effectiveness.

The commenter asked about the population dynamics of Medfly and Queensland fruit fly in the specified Australian States. The commenter also asked what types of onsite assessments have been done and whether future program audits are planned.

In areas of Eastern Australia where the Queensland fruit fly can be found, it is most active in summer and fall. Cold and dry conditions, especially freezes, cause reductions in populations. The NPPO of Australia has declared the whole State of Western Australia free of Queensland fruit fly and, although incursions have been reported, these have been successfully eradicated.

Medfly is active in the summer months in Western Australia, where sterile insect technique (SIT), biocontrol, and other suppression strategies are being used. Confirmation of Medfly distribution in Western Australia is obtained and verified through specific detection surveys. Freedom from Medfly in other Australian States has been established by results from ongoing monitoring with permanent Medfly traps as part of the national trapping grid. In South Australia, any detections of Medfly from the stringent surveillance networks are rapidly followed by eradication activities. In the Northern Territory, a number of trapping and detection systems have been maintained in both urban and horticultural areas for Medfly since 1985. While there have been some detections of small numbers of Medfly in South Australia and the Northern Territory, effective detection and eradication programs have successfully maintained both South Australia and the Northern Territory as free from Medfly.

On-site assessments by APHIS were conducted for the pest-free areas in Riverland, Riverina, and Sunraysia when they were first established. Based on our experiences with the NPPO of Australia and with the importation of fruit fly host commodities from areas APHIS has previously recognized as free of fruit flies, we determined that no additional site visits were necessary here. We will inspect commodities imported from Australia for fruit flies at the port of entry and we will rely on the annual survey data from the NPPO of Australia to inform us if fruit flies are found in areas that we have recognized as free of fruit flies. We do not currently plan to conduct further site visits or formal program audits but reserve the right to do so in the future if necessary.

The commenter also expressed concern about the adequacy, in his view, of opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the initial stages of the development of these types of program proposals. The commenter requested the opportunity to participate in site visits and initial program review discussions on issues that could directly impact his State.

APHIS is committed to a transparent process and an inclusive role for stakeholders in our risk analysis process. To that end, we have put in place a stakeholder notification system  2 to provide opportunities for involvement during the initial stages of the development of pest risk assessments. However, since this comment relates to the structure of APHIS's overall risk analysis process, and not to the determination of pest-free areas in Australia, it is outside the scope of the current action.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-5(c), we are announcing the Administrator's determination that the States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria meet the criteria of § 319.56-5(a) and (b) with respect to freedom from Medfly and the State of Western Australia meets the criteria of § 319.56-5(a) and (b) with respect to freedom from Queensland fruit fly. Accordingly, we are amending the list of pest-free areas to list the States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria as free of Medfly and the State of Western Australia as free of Queensland fruit fly. A list of pest-free areas currently recognized by APHIS can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/DesignatedPestFreeAreas.pdf .

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and swine, and products from these animals, from regions where rinderpest or FMD is considered to exist.

Within part 94, § 94.1 contains requirements governing the importation of ruminants and swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists and the importation of the meat of any ruminants or swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists to prevent the introduction of either disease into the United States. We consider rinderpest and FMD to exist in all regions except those listed in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of that section as free of rinderpest and FMD.

Section 94.11 of the regulations contains requirements governing the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from regions that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. Such regions are listed in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of that section.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, § 92.2, contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region. If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a notice published in the Federal Register . At the close of the comment period, APHIS will review all comments received and will make a final determination regarding the request that will be detailed in another notice published in the Federal Register .

In accordance with that process, on January 23, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 3775-3777, Docket No. APHIS-2013-0105) a notice of availability  1 in which we announced the availability for review and comment of our evaluation of the FMD status of the areas of Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, referred to below as the Patagonia Region of Argentina. Based on this evaluation, we determined that that the animal disease surveillance, prevention, and control measures implemented by Argentina in the Patagonia Region are sufficient to minimize the likelihood of introducing FMD into the United States via imports of FMD-susceptible species or products.

However, because of the Patagonia Region's proximity to and trading relationships with FMD-affected regions, we found that it is necessary to impose certain restrictions in accordance with § 94.11 on the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from the Patagonia Region.

In the same notice we also made available an evaluation assessing the rinderpest status of South America for public review and comment. Rinderpest has never been established in South America. No South American country has ever reported the disease except Brazil, which had an outbreak in 1921 that was limited in scope and quickly eradicated. Furthermore, the global distribution of rinderpest has diminished significantly in recent years as a result of the Food and Agriculture Organization Global Rinderpest Eradication Program. The last known cases of rinderpest worldwide occurred in the southern part of the “Somali pastoral ecosystem” consisting of southern Somalia, eastern Kenya, and southern Ethiopia. In May 2011, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) announced its recognition of global rinderpest freedom.

We solicited comments on the notice of availability for 60 days ending on March 24, 2014, and extended the comment period for an additional 30 days, ending April 23, 2014. We received 33 comments by that date, from State and national livestock associations and from private citizens. The commenters raised a number of issues about our proposed action. The comments are discussed below.

Five commenters specifically addressed our proposal to recognize South America as free of rinderpest. All of those commenters expressed support for that determination.

Many commenters raised concerns about the risk analysis for FMD. These concerns included concerns about the methodology, scope, hazard identification, release assessment, exposure assessment, risk estimation, and discussion of geographical details.

Several commenters stated that the specific methodology and measurements used during the site visits to support the qualitative risk analysis are not available for review. One commenter expressed concern that such documentation was not collected or recorded. That commenter also stated that APHIS should develop a protocol to be used for site visits so that reviewers' assessments can be analyzed and summarized more objectively, and then made available with APHIS' conclusions of the risk analysis.

The purpose of the site visit is to verify and complement the information previously provided by the country. APHIS site visits consist of an in-depth evaluation of the risk factors identified by APHIS in § 92.2 as factors to consider in assessing the risk of the relevant animal disease posed by a region. 2 The animal disease risks are identified in the risk analysis from the information gathered on these factors during the site visits and APHIS' document review, and whenever mitigations are considered necessary, such mitigations are discussed in the risk analysis.

APHIS has also published guidance on our approach to implementing our regionalization process and the way in which we apply risk analysis to the decision-making process for regionalization. This document can be found on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/downloads/regionalization_process.pdf .

Site visit findings are thoroughly described throughout the risk analysis, including visits to local offices (pages 21-22), airports (pages 33-34), border controls (pages 37-38), farms (page 43), and laboratories (pages 60-64).

One commenter stated that APHIS should regard the eight factors as more than a simple checklist for reviewers and that consistent implementation of the factors should be completely verified.

APHIS agrees with the commenter. When conducting a site visit, APHIS verifies that all the factors related to the FMD control and eradication program, including prevention, controls, surveillance, and reporting, are in place and that the country has strong veterinary authority and infrastructure to carry out the FMD program.

Some commenters stated that according to the risk analysis, APHIS only conducted three site visits to the Patagonia Region. The commenters stated that APHIS should maintain a more active and robust presence in the region.

APHIS believes that its site visits to the Patagonia Region, in conjunction with the other documentation and information APHIS has reviewed, provided APHIS with sufficient information to correctly determine the region's FMD status. As a member of the OIE, Argentina must immediately notify the OIE of any suspect cases of FMD that may occur in the future. In addition, under § 92.2, a region that is granted a specific animal health status may be required to submit additional information pertaining to that animal health status, or to allow APHIS to conduct additional information collection activities in order to maintain its animal health status.

One commenter stated that the hazard identification appears to be lacking information, and that APHIS seems to consider that FMD is the only hazard of concern. The commenter also stated that the risk analysis does not provide detailed information about the different serotypes of the FMD virus, does not discuss the efficacy of the FMD vaccination programs in regions surrounding Patagonia, and does not mention virus survival in commodities of concern, such as sheep and lamb embryos and semen. The commenter stated further that the risk analysis does not provide any details regarding the onset of clinical signs for the different species or focus on subclinical disease or the species, such as sheep, that may display mild clinical signs that can go unnoticed and undetected.

APHIS notes that Argentina requested FMD status recognition; therefore the risk analysis focuses on the FMD status of the region and not on other hazards. Appendix I of the risk analysis describes the different serotypes of the FMD virus. In the risk analysis APHIS also describes the disease status of adjacent regions, including the FMD outbreaks that occurred in 2003 and 2006, and the eradication and control programs in adjacent regions.

The vaccination rates in the adjacent region of Northern Argentina reached over 99 percent between 2008 and 2012. In addition, the region of Northern Argentina has several overlapping controls to ensure compliance with vaccination calendars through matching vaccination records to movement permits and census data and through field inspections. We have updated the risk analysis to add the following to the discussion of the disease status of adjacent regions: “Vaccination of cattle is mandatory in the area north of the 42nd parallel with the exception of Patagonia North B (the area adjacent to Patagonia South, a region without vaccination) and recently, Patagonia North A and the summer pastures (zona veranadas) of Calingasta Valleys in the province of San Juan. The Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA) is the Government of Argentina's enforcement authority and regulating body for planning, implementing, and controlling actions to eradicate FMD. SENASA establishes the technical requirements for the vaccination program. Vaccination can only be performed by authorized personnel who are trained, registered, and accredited/audited by SENASA. Vaccination coverage rates have been over 97 percent in the region above the 42nd parallel (with the exception of Patagonia North B, and most recently Patagonia North A, in which vaccination is not conducted) since 2001.”

On page 71 of the risk analysis, we described embryos as presenting a negligible risk of infecting an exposed recipient with the FMD virus, as the zona pellucida is an important barrier against pathogens, and only embryos with an intact zona pellucida may be imported into the United States under the provisions of § 98.3(h). On page 72 of the document we described semen as presenting a likelihood of exposure of susceptible animals to this virus if the semen is collected from an infected animal. However, based on the conclusion of the release assessment that diseased animals are not likely to exist in the Patagonia Region or, if they do, are not likely to go undetected, APHIS considers it unlikely that U.S. animals would be exposed to infected semen from the Patagonia Region.

APHIS looked at clinical disease in all the relevant species, including those, like swine, that are not expected to be exported from the Patagonia Region. Clinical disease in sheep is discussed in Appendix I. APHIS has updated the risk assessment to add the following to the Appendix: “The incubation period in sheep is similar to that observed in bovines, and has been reported to be 1 to 12 days, with most cases appearing in 2-8 days.” We understand that subclinical disease or species-specific symptoms may result in unnoticed and undetected viral infection. However, because no vaccination is carried out in the Patagonia Region, any cattle or swine in that region exposed to the FMD virus would act as good sentinels of an outbreak.

One commenter stated that the release (entry) assessment focuses on the factors in § 92.2 rather than providing a description of all the biological pathways necessary for an importation activity to introduce the disease into the United States. The commenter stated that this section could be strengthened by a detailed chronological list of FMD outbreak information for the Patagonia Region and the bordering regions to include the year of the outbreak, epidemiological disease spread information, risk factors, maps, and the controls implemented during the outbreak.

When preparing a risk analysis, APHIS evaluates the relevant pathways as described by the scientific literature and supported by the OIE. Therefore, on page 70 of the risk analysis, APHIS has described the biological pathway that it believes is most likely to result in the release of FMD into the United States, which is exposure through the importation of FMD-infected sheep meat. APHIS also discusses the history of FMD outbreaks in the Patagonia Region and neighboring regions in sections 2 and 3 of the entry assessment. APHIS does not believe a description of all the biological pathways that could possibly introduce FMD into the United States is necessary or helpful in determining the likelihood of release because not all pathways will lead to the introduction of active virus through the importation of susceptible commodities.

In conducting an animal disease status evaluation in a foreign region, APHIS focuses on the likelihood that the region is free of the hazard(s) by evaluating, for example, the official veterinary capacity and authority, surveillance systems, and import controls, in place in the exporting country. APHIS believes that an analysis of these factors provides a robust analysis of the likelihood of release of FMD into the United States. Given that there is a very low likelihood that FMD is present in the Patagonia Region or would be introduced into Argentina without detection, the corresponding entry likelihood into the United States is considered also to be very low.

One commenter stated that the exposure assessment does not discuss the potential transmission of FMD within and from quarantine facilities.

We are confident that the exposure assessment appropriately describes the biological pathways necessary for exposure of animals and humans in the United States to FMD, and that APHIS' regulatory safeguards will provide effective protection against the risks associated with the importation of ruminants or their products from the Patagonia Region of Argentina. These safeguards include subjecting animals and animal products from the region to certain restrictions because of the region's proximity to FMD-affected countries (§ 94.11); certification that ruminants and swine have been kept in a region entirely free of FMD and rinderpest (for ruminants) for 60 days prior to export (§§ 93.405 and 93.505); and a minimum quarantine of 30 days from the date of arrival at the port of entry for most imported ruminants (§ 93.411), and 15 days for all imported swine (§ 93.510).

One commenter stated that sufficient data is lacking for the plausible risk exposure pathways mentioned in the exposure assessment.

In the risk analysis, the exposure pathways are defined for the importation of sheep meat, genetic materials, and susceptible live ruminants. We anticipate that these are the commodities that will be exported to the United States based on the information provided in Argentina's application, our knowledge of the livestock industry in the Patagonia Region, and what commodities are exported from the Patagonia Region now.

One commenter stated that there is a disparity in the risk levels for embryos in the exposure assessment with the documentation as negligible on page 71 and low on page 72.

The risk of transmission of FMD via embryos is negligible. APHIS will correct the wording on page 72.

The commenters stated that the risk analysis does not include sufficient detail for geographical landmarks outlining the Patagonia Region or maps with the necessary level of detail to be useful.

APHIS disagrees. The geographic landmarks outlining the Patagonia Region are described on page 27 of the risk analysis. This description also includes a discussion of the area and climate. Figure 1 is a map of Argentina showing different provinces (including oceans and neighboring countries) and Figure 2 shows the regionalization status as defined by the OIE after Patagonia North B was recognized as free without vaccination in May 2007.

One commenter stated that the risk analysis review and general assessment process do not seem to be completely transparent and are not documented satisfactorily for thorough outside analysis, but did not identify specific aspects of the process that seemed opaque.

APHIS is confident that the review and assessment process is appropriately explained and documented in the risk analysis document.

Several commenters stated that APHIS should prepare a quantitative risk analysis and make it available for public review. Some commenters stated that the qualitative format for the risk analysis is subjective and fails to objectively quantify the probability of risk and adequately assess the magnitude of the consequences. One commenter noted that APHIS prepared a quantitative risk analysis in 2002 for importation of beef from Uruguay and asked why APHIS chose to prepare a qualitative risk analysis for the Patagonia Region.

APHIS believes that a qualitative analysis is appropriate in this situation. APHIS' evaluations are based on science and conducted according to the factors identified in § 92.2, which include biosecurity measures, livestock demographics, and marketing practices. As explained in the risk analysis, we conducted an in-depth evaluation of the 11 factors used by APHIS to evaluate the animal health status of a region prior to 2012. The factors include: (1) The authority, organization, and infrastructure of the veterinary services organization in the region; (2) Disease status; (3) The status of adjacent regions with respect to the agent; (4) The extent of an active disease control program, if any, if the agent is known to exist in the region; (5) The vaccination status of the region; (6) The degree to which the region is separated from adjacent regions of higher risk through physical or other barriers; (7) The extent to which movement of animals and animal products is controlled from regions of higher risk, and the level of biosecurity regarding such movements; (8) Livestock demographics and marketing practices in the region; (9) The type and extent of disease surveillance in the region; (10) Diagnostic laboratory capacity; and (11) Policies and infrastructure for animal disease control in the region. Neither the regulations in 9 CFR part 92 nor APHIS guidance documents require a quantitative risk analysis or indicate that one is needed here.

Most of APHIS' risk analyses have been, and continue to be, qualitative in nature. Over time, APHIS has come to use qualitative risk assessments given the limitations of quantitative models, although APHIS recognizes that quantitative risk analysis models can be useful in cases where the risk management questions or information cannot be addressed with a qualitative model. When coupled with site visit evaluations, APHIS believes that qualitative risk analyses provide the necessary information to assess risk of disease introduction through importation. Additionally, quantitative modes are resource-intensive and take a much longer time to complete. Quantitative models also tend to be data-intensive, and the types of data needs required by such models are often not available or adequate under most circumstances. At the same time that quantitative models are data-intensive, they are also necessarily developed using a set of assumptions that may not always adequately represent the biological situation in question, thus resulting in a wide range of uncertainty in interpretation of the model outcomes. Quantitative models also require constant updating, which is dependent on availability of current research and data, and thus these models may not always represent the current state of scientific information. Finally, uncertainty in the results or outcomes of quantitative models also arises from a large number of sources, including problem specification, conceptual or computational model construction and model misspecification, estimation of input values, and other model misspecification issues.

One commenter asked what types of training programs are given to SENASA personnel stationed at the border checkpoints and patrolling in the areas along the border.

The training of SENASA border personnel is described on page 30 of the risk analysis. The border personnel are trained on a number of topics, including legal framework, national and international zoosanitary status, epidemiological characterization of the region, and import and export procedures.

Two commenters expressed concern that Argentina's border control and security between the Patagonia Region and neighboring regions have not been adequately verified.

Border control and security in the Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 27 through 37 of the risk analysis. APHIS looked at these issues during all of its site visits. Based on those visits and other documents and information that APHIS has obtained and made available with the risk analysis, APHIS is confident that Argentina's border controls with respect to the Patagonia Region are sufficient to prevent the introduction of FMD into the region.

One commenter stated that in addition to assessing the risk of disease directly from animals and animal products from the Patagonia Region, it is also important to measure and address risk due to potential economic incentives to trans-ship animals and animal products. Two additional commenters expressed concern that because Argentina consumes a large portion of the meat that is produced in the country, and because there is transit between regions for access and delivery of beef and meat products, there is a greater risk of contamination and infection across regional boundaries.

As we explained above, APHIS has assessed the border controls and security of the Patagonia Region and we are confident that these are sufficient to prevent the introduction of FMD into the region. We also note that Argentina has effective and appropriate requirements for the importation of susceptible commodities into the Patagonia Region. These are discussed on page 69 of the risk analysis.

One commenter asked what disinfection methods are used against the FMD virus at the border points.

As explained on page 38 of the risk analysis, disinfection methods include spraying vehicles with disinfectants that are effective against the FMD virus. Among other effective disinfectants, SENASA uses the following: 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite, 3 percent acetic acid, 4 percent potassium peroxymonosulfate and 1 percent sodium chloride, and 4 percent sodium carbonate.

One commenter stated that SENASA reports that all producers, animal caretakers, and transporters were well-versed in recognizing clinical signs of FMD in livestock. The commenter asked how these individuals were trained to recognize clinical and subclinical signs of FMD, and if there is any accreditation or certification process for their training. The commenter also asked if there was any verification process for their reported FMD recognition skills.

APHIS notes that “subclinical disease” means that there are no observable clinical signs of the disease. The training requirements for official and non-official veterinarians are described on page 19 of the risk analysis, and the training requirements for SENASA personnel are described on page 20. In all cases the training is in line with the main strategies in Argentina's FMD National Eradication Plan. In addition, different components of FMD outreach and awareness programs (e.g., radio advertisement, presentations to industry, etc.) remind producers of vaccination campaigns, clinical signs compatible with the disease, and compulsory reporting of suspect cases.

With respect to verification of disease recognition skills, SENASA has a training and promotion program, which includes the performance of drills. The training is carried out by the Bureau of Epidemiology. In addition, the Field General Coordination holds meetings to provide updates on the information, methodology, and standards that the local veterinarians should know. Training records are maintained by the Bureau of Human Resources and Training in which official agents get credits for the various classes they attend. The credits are added up in a score that is used towards promotions in the organization. The Bureau of Human Resources and Training coordinates the training activities of each of the National Bureaus through training consultants. In the case of the National Bureau of Animal Health, two professionals work as consultants who lead the 22 training delegates of the provinces who coordinate, audit, and guide the process of teaching official veterinarians. This training program is described in the risk analysis on page 67.

Three commenters stated that over half the sheep in Argentina reside in the Patagonia Region. The sheep are generally raised in extensive management systems and since FMD clinical signs are relatively subtle in sheep, it is important that data be collected for public review on which specific diagnostic practices and risk mitigation measures are used at border crossings to prevent FMD from entering Patagonia. One commenter asked specifically how APHIS will ensure that there are enhanced surveillance systems in place that will preclude the virus circulating in the sheep population undetected.

The commenters are correct that sheep are the predominant livestock species in the Patagonia Region. Almost 60 percent of the sheep in Argentina reside in Patagonia. The livestock density is less than one animal per hectare. Due to extensive husbandry practices and low animal density, contact between sheep and other species and with other sheep is minimized, reducing the risk of disease spread in the event that the FMD virus was introduced into the region. As we explained above, no vaccination is carried out in the Patagonia Region, so any cattle or swine in that region exposed to the FMD virus would act as good sentinels of an outbreak.

Border control and security in the Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 27 through 37 of the risk analysis. SENASA conducts serological surveillance (testing blood serum for viral activity) of sheep and cattle. This is an effective indicator of the FMD situation because the FMD susceptible species are not vaccinated against FMD. Furthermore, for sheep, premises identification is required, either by eartag, which includes the CUIG (Clave Unica de Identification Ganadera—Unique Holding Identification Code) number of the farm, or ear notch. The eartag color and shape may be selected by the farmer (the color is not specific to the FMD status of the region as in cattle). Ear notches are controlled by and registered with SENASA to ensure that they are unique. SENASA requires all premises with agricultural animal production to register with SENASA and obtain a RENSPA (Registro Nacional Sanitario de Productores Agropecuarios—National Sanitary Registry of Ag-Producers) number, an alphanumeric identifier that encodes information about individual premises. The RENSPA number is structured to identify the province, municipality, premises, and various details of the particular premises, such as ownership, rental status, or shared occupancy. In association with the RENSPA number, census information on all species on the premises and permit information showing animal movements are included in a database maintained by field officials. This information allows animals from an individual premise to be traced effectively, and we are confident that SENASA would be able to respond quickly in the event of positive or false positive results from serological testing.

Many commenters stated that Argentina has shown a trend of decreasing compliance in audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) between 2005 and 2009. One of the commenters stated that Argentina's history of compliance issues could influence their ability to consistently and successfully enforce control measures within the Patagonia Region in order to successfully mitigate the risk from the possible entry of FMD into this region from the surrounding higher-risk areas. One commenter asked if APHIS consulted with FSIS as part of our evaluation, and if so, what was FSIS' feedback.

The purpose of APHIS' evaluation was to assess the FMD situation in the Patagonia Region and to evaluate Argentina's ability to comply with the certification requirements for exporting specific FMD-susceptible commodities to the United States, including the certification requirements in § 94.11 for meat and other animal products imported from regions that are considered free of FMD and rinderpest but are subject to additional restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with regions that are not free of FMD or rinderpest. Based on its site visits and other documentation and information, APHIS concluded that Argentina's legal framework, animal health infrastructure, movement and border controls, diagnostic capabilities, surveillance programs, and emergency response capacity are sufficient to detect, prevent, control, and eradicate FMD outbreaks within the boundaries of the Patagonia Region of Argentina. Moreover, with respect to the Patagonia Region, APHIS concluded that the Argentine veterinary authority is capable of complying with our requirements.

Nevertheless, based on the comments, APHIS has reviewed the last five FSIS audits conducted in Argentina at the slaughter level. The FSIS audits concluded that ante-mortem inspection processes, which are relevant to the detection of FMD during the slaughter process, were conducted satisfactorily.

One commenter stated that reviews of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (EC FVO) audits identified points of concern in the areas of border controls, animal identification, vaccination controls, and other concerns. The audits evaluated animal health controls concerning FMD, related animal health control measures, and related certification procedures for fresh bovine and ovine meat intended for export to the European Union (EU).

The overall objective of the EC FVO audits was to assess the animal health controls in place in order to verify that guarantees provided by the competent authorities of Argentina, concerning the health status of the country with regard to FMD, continue to meet the requirements for the export of ovine and bovine meat from Argentina to the EU. In response to the comments, APHIS reviewed the latest reports. The most recent report, from 2012, concluded that the official FMD control system in place for Argentina is reliable and meets EU requirements.

One commenter stated that the 2012 EC FVO audit showed a less than satisfactory enforcement of some requirements of the sheep identification and movement registration system in the Patagonia Region. The commenter also stated that the same audit identified a weak official control system along the Bolivian border, which cannot ensure the adequate management of risks related to animal movements and sufficient verification of satisfactory implementation of vaccination campaigns for FMD. The commenter further stated that limited attention is being paid to official “on-the-spot” controls on FMD vaccination, which casts doubt on the adequate fulfillment of the vaccination coverage in all areas with an increased risk of FMD.

As discussed above, the 2012 EC FVO report concluded that Argentina meets the requirements set forth by the OIE and the EU for complying with both the EU's certification requirements for fresh bovine and ovine meat and Articles 8.5.4 and 8.5.5 of the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code recognizing an FMD zone where vaccination is not practiced and an FMD zone where vaccination is practiced. Furthermore, with regard to the commenter's concern that the lack of “on-the-spot” controls on FMD vaccination would lead to inadequate fulfillment of vaccination coverage, as we discussed on page 59 of the risk analysis, after the 2012 EC FVO audit, and in collaboration with external animal health experts, Argentina revised its surveillance sampling design in order to confirm adequate vaccination coverage in its territory. The revised sampling design focuses on the effectiveness of various vaccination campaign plans as implemented by the local offices. At the time of APHIS' November 2013 site visit, over 50 percent of samples had already been collected with only two reactors identified. APHIS notes that the reactor animals are not suspect for FMD or other diseases; the reaction could be related either to immunity as a result of vaccination or to the presence of proteins in the vaccine. On completion of the study, SENASA expects to be able to compare effectiveness of operational implementation of the National Vaccination Plan at the local level. Vaccination coverage rates in Northern Argentina have been reported at over 97 percent. In reference to the Bolivian border, APHIS recognizes that some borders in the northern part of Argentina might be porous, and that other mitigations might be required in such areas in the event Argentina would request to export a particular commodity into the United States. APHIS notes, however, that such borders are located over 2,500 miles from the region that is under consideration in this notice.

One commenter stated that the EC FVO audits showed a limited contribution of passive surveillance to the detection and notification of suspect cases of FMD. The commenter asked if the current system of passive surveillance in Argentina is really working, and asked how the system of passive surveillance could work effectively if it is not actively pursued.

The reporting of FMD suspect cases is infrequent in the Patagonia Region; APHIS believes that this is because FMD is not present in the region and other vesicular diseases are rare. As we noted on page 24 of the risk analysis, there were no reports of suspect vesicular diseases in 2012 or 2013 in the Patagonia Region. To assess the ability of veterinary officials at local offices to respond to a suspicious case of disease, the site visit team asked to view records of reports of a suspected notifiable disease (in this case, mange) during the 2009 site visit. The information shared revealed that a visit to the affected farm was made within 24 hours of the report, and all animals on the farm were inspected, with samples collected and submitted to the laboratory on the same day. The farm was immediately quarantined upon the report of the suspect case and the quarantine remained in place throughout the duration of the investigation. At the initial visit, neighboring farms were contacted to alert the owners of the disease suspicion, and the owners were told to make their animals available for inspection.

Finally, APHIS notes that the data provided in our risk analysis are more up-to-date than those provided by the EC FVO audits. Further surveillance efforts from 2001 to 2013 are described on page 57, surveillance efforts specifically in Patagonia North A are described on page 58, and other ongoing surveillance efforts on page 59. Based on those findings APHIS concluded that the design under which serological sampling is conducted in Argentina is both valid and efficient and the sampling coverage is adequate and that the serological sampling is adequate to detect disease and identify and measure viral activity (if any) in the area.

A commenter stated that the EC FVO audits present wildlife issues as a concern for the continued management of FMD risk. The commenter stated specifically that this issue required investigations to assess the risk associated with the presence of pigs and wild boars in the areas neighboring Bolivia and Paraguay, and their possible exposure to feeding practices that may carry a risk of introduction of the FMD virus.

Although several South American wild animal species are susceptible to FMD, research into FMD in South America has determined that wildlife populations, including feral swine, do not play a significant role in the maintenance and transmission of FMD. During outbreak situations, wildlife may become affected by FMD; however, as we discussed on pages 15-16 of the environmental assessment, the likelihood that they would become carriers under field conditions is rare. Therefore, it is unlikely that FMD would be introduced into the Patagonia Region through movement of infected wildlife. The active surveillance on wild boars conducted in 2013 is described on page 58 of the risk analysis. In the serological study conducted in swine, a total of 462 samples were collected from 76 establishments in Patagonia North A. The wildlife surveillance consisted of a total of 21 samples. All porcine samples were tested using the LF ELISA test with negative results.

Furthermore, feeding garbage to animals is prohibited in Argentina unless specific products undergo a cooking process guaranteeing destruction of pathogenic organisms (pages 21 and 22 of the risk analysis). In the event that these laws were circumvented, other factors evaluated in the risk analysis, including biosecurity measures and response capabilities, would mitigate disease risks.

Two commenters stated that wildlife may move across traversable national boundaries and infect other wildlife and livestock. One of the commenters stated that while the environmental assessment seeks to address wildlife issues and FMD risk, there have not been enough wildlife studies or efforts to document the natural wildlife movements in Patagonia or the surrounding regions. The commenter further stated that no ideas have been advanced to identify practical mitigation measures for wildlife species.

As we explained earlier, research into FMD in South America has determined that wildlife populations, including feral swine, do not play a significant role in the maintenance and transmission of FMD. During outbreak situations, wildlife may become affected by FMD; however, the likelihood that they would become carriers under field conditions is rare and it is unlikely that FMD would be introduced into the Patagonia Region through movement of infected wildlife.

One commenter stated that there are clear weaknesses within Argentina's standards of surveillance and management practices, specifically inadequate import controls and quarantine procedures, that could put the U.S. beef supply at risk.

APHIS disagrees with the commenter. We found no evidence of weakness in the import controls or quarantine procedures in the Patagonia Region and are confident that they provide effective protection against the introduction of FMD to the region.

One commenter stated that a November 2013 report confirmed that Brazil and Argentina were beginning a second round of vaccination for FMD. The commenter stated that this shows that Argentina had not previously made serious efforts to address its disease problem.

There is no vaccination for FMD in the Patagonia Region. APHIS does not recognize regions that vaccinate for FMD as free of the disease. The vaccination activities that occur in other regions of Argentina and in Brazil are part of the FMD control program in those regions.

One commenter asked how APHIS would monitor and verify compliance with the measures and restrictions that APHIS would place on the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The commenter stated that in addition to monitoring processing operations and sampling, and in addition to OIE reporting requirements, the responsible government agencies of the exporting region should be required to submit data and status review information regularly, as is done in the United States between APHIS and State animal health agencies. The commenter stated that these measures, in addition to follow-up site visits and risk monitoring, would further assure that the appropriate systems and procedures are being followed.

Under the provisions of § 92.2(g), regions that are granted animal health status may be required to submit additional information pertaining to animal health status or allow APHIS to conduct additional information collection activities in order to maintain that status. Specifically, we ask for additional information if they report suspect or known cases of disease to the OIE; if we receive public information about suspect or known cases of disease; if the region that was previously evaluated has been re-defined; if there are public reports stating changes in the veterinary authority, budgets, or controls in border areas; if there are outbreaks or suspect cases in border regions; or if there are changes in any of the other factors we consider when preparing a risk analysis. We do not require submission of additional information on a regular schedule because we are concerned primarily with events that could potentially affect the risk status of the region under consideration.

One commenter stated that there was no indication of ongoing verification of risk control measures other than APHIS personnel may inspect slaughter establishments periodically. The commenter stated that a more routine and rigorous system of verification should be established.

As we explained above, regions that are recognized for animal health status may be required either to provide or to allow APHIS to collect additional information in order to maintain their status if we have reason to believe that events in the region or in surrounding regions could affect the risk status of the region under consideration. We also note that APHIS uses a wide variety of sources to conduct verification activities in the Patagonia Region. These sources include the U.S. Embassy, multilateral relationships with trading partners, and the OIE.

One commenter stated that, according to APHIS reports to the U.S. Animal Health Association's Transmissible Diseases of Swine Committee, from 2009 to 2013 a number of unlicensed garbage feeders were found in the United States each year by State and Federal animal health authorities. The commenter asked if APHIS has any supporting information that estimates the number of unlicensed garbage-feeding facilities.

Searches for non-licensed garbage feeding facilities are regularly conducted using several different techniques as part of the duties of APHIS animal health staff, as well as State animal health staff and staff with other State agencies. When unlicensed garbage feeding facilities are identified, the unauthorized activity is documented and the facility is brought into compliance. Depending on the State, all swine on the premises may be quarantined and tested for foreign animal diseases. Information on the number of inspections conducted to detect unlicensed garbage feeding facilities, the number of unlicensed facilities identified, and resolution of unlicensed facilities are captured at the State level and evaluated by APHIS on a regular basis. We do not find the number of unlicensed garbage-feeding facilities to be too large or their existence to pose a risk of FMD given the regular monitoring for them.

One commenter stated that according to the risk analysis, APHIS considers the most likely pathway of exposure of domestic livestock to FMD is through feeding of contaminated food waste to swine, but that APHIS considers the likelihood of exposure of susceptible swine to the FMD virus through inadequately processed food waste to be low. The commenter stated that this position is based on a 1995 risk analysis and a 2001 survey, and that the pork industry has undergone significant changes since then. The commenter asked what confidence APHIS has that these sources adequately reflect the current risk to the U.S. pork industry, and if the 1995 work should be repeated with more current data.

APHIS acknowledges that the pork industry in general has undergone significant changes since 1995; however, the garbage-feeding industry in particular has not. APHIS is confident that the 1995 risk analysis and 2001 survey adequately reflect the current risk to the U.S. pork industry from contaminated food waste fed to swine.

One commenter stated that under the Swine Health Protection Act, licensed facilities are required to have two to four temperature checks of garbage cooking equipment every year. The commenter asked what records licensed facilities maintain in order to verify that they are meeting the time and temperature requirements on days when they are not inspected, and if those records are adequate to provide assurance to APHIS that times and temperatures are being met outside of normal inspections.

During regularly scheduled visits to licensed waste feeding operations, inspectors observe the cooking procedure to ensure the operator understands the proper procedures and is able to conduct them properly. If there are any suspicions that cooking is not being properly conducted, the inspector will make additional unscheduled visits to ensure that cooking procedures are sufficient to ensure inactivation of any pathogens, if present. APHIS believes that this approach helps to ensure proper cooking time and temperature even when inspectors are not present.

One commenter asked about APHIS' confidence that FMD would be detected early in licensed garbage feeding operations. The commenter also asked what we estimated the time for detection would be and if it would be adequate to meet the goals of the Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP) for disease detection.

Because of the routine visits of inspectors to garbage feeding facilities, which provide opportunities for education on disease signs and requirements for reporting, as well as the opportunity for direct observation of signs of illness in animals, APHIS believes that the presence of FMD or other reportable conditions would be detected more quickly in these types of premises than in other, unregulated premises.

One commenter stated that effective surveillance for vesicular diseases relies on a high level of awareness by producers and veterinarians on what clinical signs are consistent with vesicular diseases and how to report suspected cases. The commenter asked if APHIS had current demographics on the level of biosecurity, security, veterinary care, routine health observations, and knowledge of disease reporting pathways in garbage-fed populations to meet the goal of a FAD PReP. The commenter also asked what level of confidence APHIS has regarding the education provided to licensed garbage feeders, whether biosecurity and veterinary care protocols are being followed; and whether disease reporting procedures are being followed.

Licensed garbage feeders are generally provided with education during routine inspections by animal health regulatory staff on topics including the importance of proper cooking, signs of foreign animal diseases, appropriate biosecurity measures, etc. Mandatory inspections provide confidence in the ability of licensed garbage feeding operations to maintain biosecurity and reporting requirement protocols. Demonstration of adequate facilities and equipment is a requirement for obtaining and maintaining licensure.

One commenter asked what level of confidence we have that FMD would be detected in unlicensed garbage-feeding operations, and what the estimated time for detection would be.

If FMD were to occur in an unlicensed garbage feeding facility, APHIS estimates that likelihood of detection would be no different than introduction into any swine herd.

One commenter asked if budget cuts to APHIS and State animal health staffs have had a negative effect on the ability to carry out the regulatory activities outlined in the Swine Health Protection Act, and if the reduction in regulatory activities had decreased the number of inspections and searches for unlicensed garbage-feeding operations to a level lower than what was used in the 1995 risk analysis.

While budget cuts to APHIS have resulted in reorganizing priorities within the Swine Health Program (SHP), our SHP activities remain at recommended levels. The changes made have resulted in shifting of lower-yield activities in favor of allowing SHP inspectors to spend more time interacting with swine producers. For instance, APHIS no longer supports State and Federal employees conducting regular trips to restaurants to inquire about garbage disposal. Instead, this activity has been passed to other State partners, including public health and environmental health employees, who routinely frequent restaurants as part of their daily activities. These individuals report to State cooperators when they uncover suspicions of unlicensed garbage feeding, which allows APHIS inspectors and State cooperators to focus on likely violations. This, in turn, allows inspectors to spend more time on swine farms, working with producers, providing education, and performing inspections, among other duties.

One commenter stated that according to the sixth edition (2013) of the OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services, stability of structures, sustainability of policies, and operational funding are listed as critical competencies for institutional and financial sustainability. The commenter asked how confident APHIS is that the short- and long-term levels of funding for SENASA are adequate to carry out their mission related to this proposed rule.

As described on page 17 of the risk analysis, SENASA reported that its 2013 budget was 1.3 billion pesos (approximately $200.7 million). SENASA officials described the system as self-sufficient because user fees are required for almost every service SENASA provides, including slaughter surveillance, issuances of certificates, and laboratory tests. The budget for the laboratory is 60 million pesos (approximately $12 million). APHIS finds no reason to believe that the funding will change, as stable funding for the FMD control and eradication programs in Argentina has been in place for over a decade.

One commenter asked whether APHIS' funding levels are adequate to carry out the agency's mission, especially verification of practices conducted in Patagonia.

While APHIS' funding levels have decreased in recent years, we are still confident in our ability to carry out our mission successfully. As we explained above, APHIS uses a wide variety of sources to conduct verification activities in the Patagonia Region, including the U.S. Embassy, multilateral relationships with trading partners, and the OIE.

Two commenters stated that some of the supporting documentation is in a foreign language and no official translation was provided. One commenter stated that while stakeholders could shoulder the cost burden to have the material translated, it would not constitute an official translation.

In addition to the risk analysis and other supporting documents, APHIS provided the public with documents that were referred to in the risk analysis. Some of these documents were provided by the Government of Argentina and are in Spanish. These documents include presentations that were done at the local offices. For the documents that have not been officially translated for the public, APHIS verified the data when conducting the site visit. This information, including data analysis and conclusions, is thoroughly described throughout the risk analysis that was made available for public comment.

Many commenters noted that there was no economic impact analysis associated with this notice. One commenter stated that while an economic analysis is not required for risk evaluation notices, the economic analysis for the 2007 proposed rule had deficiencies. Others stated that infected beef entering the United States could have a negative impact on our domestic livestock supply and economy. The commenters stated the economic risk of an FMD outbreak to the U.S. livestock industry is too great to take any action that increases the risk to the domestic cattle herd. These commenters stated that a new economic analysis for animals and animal products should be prepared and made available to the public for review and comment.

The commenter is correct that an economic analysis is not required for risk evaluation notices. APHIS has determined that susceptible commodities imported from the Patagonia Region pose a very low risk of introducing FMD into the United States and that these products can be safely imported. This determination is based on the lack of FMD virus circulating in the Patagonia Region, the Argentine regulatory and industry safeguards that would likely arrest the spread of FMD should it be introduced into the region and prevent exports of infected commodities, and, APHIS' regulatory safeguards, including quarantine of live imported animals. As we explained above, we are confident that APHIS' regulatory safeguards will provide effective protection against the risks associated with the importation of ruminants or their products from the Patagonia Region of Argentina.

One commenter stated that even with a robust emergency management system in the United States, the mobility and demographics of susceptible livestock and products in the United States would allow for the probable spread of FMD to many States before it could be contained. The commenter further stated that the accidental introduction of FMD into the United States would cost producers, consumers, and governments billions of dollars in lost revenue, response overhead, increased retail costs, and long-term loss of consumer confidence.

While we agree with the commenter that the expected consequences of an FMD outbreak in the United States would be severe, the likelihood of such an outbreak occurring due to exposure of the domestic livestock population to FMD-susceptible animals and products imported from the Patagonia Region of Argentina is very low. Therefore, the overall risk of FMD to U.S. animal health from imports of these commodities is also very low.

The commenter stated that the United States has defended its decision to reject beef from Argentina citing general sanitary issues. The commenter stated that Argentina demanded that the U.S. market be opened to their exports but have not taken appropriate action to address their sanitary issues.

APHIS disagrees with the commenter. Our evaluation shows that Argentina, as discussed in the risk analysis, has taken the necessary action to address FMD issues.

Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in response to comments, we are recognizing the Patagonia Region of Argentina as free of FMD and rinderpest. The lists of regions recognized as free of these diseases can be found by visiting the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport and following the link to “Animal or Animal Product.” Copies of the lists are also available via postal mail, fax, or email upon request to the Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, Maryland 20737.

Title: User Access Request Form.

Form Number: FNS-674.

OMB Number: 0584-0532.

Expiration Date: 1/31/2015.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Form FNS-674 is designed to collect user information required to gain access to FNS Information Systems.

Affected Public: Contractors, State Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,700.

The respondents are State agencies, who are located in the 50 states and Trust Territories, staff contractors and Federal employees. Respondents who require access to the FNS systems are estimated at 3,600 annually (includes Federal, State and private) however, only 2,700 will account for the total public burden, excluding Federal employees. FNS estimates that it will receive an average of 300 requests per month (15 per day). Of the 300, 70 percent (or 210) of the responses are State Agency users, 5 percent (or 15) are staff contractors and 25 percent (or 75) are Federal employees which is not included in the total number of responses. Annually, that results in 2,700 respondents (210 State Agency users per month + 15 staff contractors per month × 12 months).

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.9.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 5,220.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.167 of an hour.

Each respondent takes approximately 0.167 of an hour, or 10 minutes, to complete the required information on the online form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 870 hours.

See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency. Inyo County is a designated cooperating agency in this plan revision effort.

The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for plan revision on each forest.

Ed Armenta, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest Service, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514.

Kevin Elliott, Forest Supervisor, Sequoia National Forest, 1839 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA 93257.

Dean Gould, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest Service, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611.

The purpose is to revise the forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests as guided by the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219). According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are to be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. Current plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests were approved between 1988 and 1992 and are due for revisions. Responsible officials used science-based assessments and considered public and employee input to identify needed changes to existing plans. They have identified the following areas where changes are needed:

There is a need to update plan direction to: Support the long term sustainability of forest benefits to people and contributions to local economies, which come as a result of the many uses of National Forest System lands; to encourage the use of partnerships with private and public entities and tribal stewardship opportunities; and to improve communication and outreach to the public, including underrepresented populations.

There is a need to update plan direction to move toward resilience of forests to climate change and fire, ensuring that they provide benefits to people.

There is a need to modify plan components to maintain levels of forest product and biomass production that support an economically-viable forest products industry, and to encourage local hiring.

There is a need to include plan direction regarding tribal relations and uses to: Help tribes maintain their culture and connection to the land; support economic opportunities in tribal communities; incorporate traditional ecological knowledge; and collaborate with the agency to meet restoration goals.

There is a need to update plan direction to improve recreation facilities, settings, opportunities and access and their sustainability; and to improve and protect scenic character, which contributes to people's recreation experience and sense of place.

There is a need to proactively manage cultural resources to protect and improve the conditions of these resources and help connect people to the land.

There is a need to add plan direction to improve fire management to recognize climate change.

There is a need to modify wildfire management areas and associated plan direction to increase the area where fuel reduction treatments occur, while also increasing the opportunity to use fire as a restoration tool, and to modify plan direction to maintain or restore fire as an ecosystem process, especially in riparian areas.

There is a need to include plan direction that incorporates analyzing smoke tradeoffs to communities from prescribed fire or wildfire used to meet resource objectives and large, uncontrolled wildfire.

There is a need to add plan direction to improve resilience of ecosystems to climate change.

There is a need to modify plan direction to: Increase the rate and extent of the land area where vegetation is being restored, decreasing the threat of large, undesirable fires; to sustain and increase local capacity to restore vegetation and reduce fuels; to add and modify plan direction specific to ecological integrity of eastside ecosystems that occur on the Inyo National Forest and small portions of the Sequoia National Forest; and to include plan direction for old forest, early seral habitat and subalpine and alpine systems.

There is a need to modify plan direction for terrestrial ecosystems and fire, as described above, to increase the ability of forests to store and sequester carbon.

There is a need to modify plan direction for aquatic and riparian ecosystems to maintain or improve the resilience of these ecosystems to climate change, fire, air pollution and invasive species, and to manage meadows holistically across individual resource areas, such as hydrology, soils, wildlife and vegetation.

There is a need to identify in the plans watersheds that are a priority for restoration, and to modify plan direction to improve groundwater storage and to address water shortages and climate change in riparian systems.

There is a need to modify plan direction to improve ecological conditions for the California spotted owl and to restore and maintain greater sage-grouse habitat on the Inyo National Forest. There is a need to incorporate new information and conservation practices into plan direction to contribute to the recovery of federally-listed species (including candidates and proposed) and to streamline project planning.

There is a need to modify plan direction to prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species.

There is a need to incorporate lands acquired by the Inyo National Forest through the Nevada Enhancement Act into the forest plan.

There is a need to: Review existing plan direction for existing and recommended wilderness to determine if any updates are needed; to review existing plan direction for wild and scenic rivers to determine if any updates are needed; to include a management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail corridor and associated management direction; and to include management direction for national recreation trails.

The proposed action is to revise the existing forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, as amended. Plan revision creates a new plan for the entire plan area, whether the revised plan differs to a small or large extent from the prior forest plan. In this plan revision effort, plans will be revised to meet the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule and to address the needed changes identified above. A detailed document that complements the following proposed action is available at http://tinyurl.com/r5earlyadopters. Proposed changes include the following:

Existing direction that is carried forward into revised plans would be converted to 2012 Planning Rule language. This would result in some existing standards and guidelines being changed to other plan components. Plan components that are no longer needed because compliance is already required as a matter of law, regulation, or policy, or that conflict with current national policy would be removed. Plan components that no longer apply, set tasks that have been completed, or refer to timeframes that are now past would be removed.

Changes would be made to some standards and guidelines from the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). These standards and guidelines are referenced using SNFPA and the standard and guideline number (e.g., SNFPA 4). Specific changes are discussed in the appropriate sections below.

Current land allocations, management areas and management prescriptions would generally stay the same except as described in the sections below. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, management and/or geographic areas will replace what was previously known as land allocations, management areas and management prescriptions.

The Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and Pacific Southwest Research Station have reviewed and incorporated the latest climate change research and modeling from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program to deduce likely present and future impacts to the forests of the Sierra Nevada. Their results show a general increase in temperatures, resulting in longer fire seasons and less snowpack, which melts earlier in the year. Where appropriate, plan components would be adjusted to recognize considerations of climate change.

Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be included to support the long term sustainability of forest benefits to people and forest contributions to local and tribal economies, including multiple uses. This direction includes resilience and sustainability to climate change of ecosystems that provide benefits and multiple uses to people.

A section would be added to the plan that provides management direction for interpretation and education. This does not exist in the current forest plans. Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be included for communicating and outreaching to residents and visitors.

Partnerships with private, public and tribal entities would be encouraged in the plan and associated plan components would be developed.

Desired conditions would be added to ensure that predictable forest product yields support economic stability sufficient to maintain local industry infrastructure for use in vegetation restoration, and that forest products are produced in a sustainable manner, improving forest conditions and contributing to local community stability. Standards and guidelines would be added that address reforestation and the range of purposes for which timber harvest may occur, such as timber production, salvage and ecological restoration. Other plan content would be added that encourages the use of local forest products workforces and the use of tools such as stewardship contracts to improve the economic feasibility of vegetation management projects across large landscapes and social, economic and ecological sustainability.

A section would be added to the plan that provides management direction for tribal relations and uses. This does not currently exist in the forest plans. Desired conditions and other plan content would be included that incorporate traditional tribal ecological knowledge, cultural viewpoints and considerations in forest management; that emphasize working with tribes to develop and implement projects, through stewardship contracting and other mechanisms; and that recognize the value of incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into project development and implementation. Desired conditions and other plan content would be integrated throughout other parts of the plan to incorporate tribal considerations in resource management. Direction would be added to require communication and collaboration with tribal leadership during fire incident management.

Consideration would be given to defining and designating cultural management areas for sacred sites, areas of cultural and religious sensitivity, traditional cultural properties and significant concentrations of cultural properties.

The plan would be updated to reflect the guiding principles, goals and focus areas from the Forest Service National Framework for Sustainable Recreation. This includes updating or developing plan components to guide forest management in a way that sustainably:

• Connects people with their natural and cultural heritage;

• Promotes social and economic community well-being using a place-based model for recreation planning;

• Emphasizes working with partners and volunteers to help meet public needs and expectations, including the needs of youth and underserved communities;

• Provides a diverse range of quality natural and cultural recreation opportunities and settings;

• Restores and protects the natural, cultural and scenic environment, focusing on special places that are highly valued landscapes or sites;

• Promotes citizen stewardship through interpretive services and conservation education; and

• Emphasizes effective and adaptive communication in an ever-changing world.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes would be modified, as appropriate, to represent sustainable recreation settings that reflect current management or recreation activities and conditions and future use.

The Visual Management System (VMS) used in the existing forest plan would be converted to the Scenery Management System (SMS) resulting in scenic integrity objectives. The SMS supports a place-based planning approach that recognizes the value of both natural and cultural features in the landscape.

Desired conditions and other plan content for working with partners would be incorporated to demonstrate that they are integral to program of work planning and conducting sustainable recreation activities.

Plan components would be developed to focus agency efforts on each forest's distinctive recreation roles and contributions.

Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be added or updated that emphasize the role that the forest plays in connecting people to their cultural heritage, offering cultural resource-based recreation and tourism opportunities and sustaining treasured places.

Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be added or updated that emphasize the importance of strategic partnerships to protect the sustainability of cultural resources and promote citizen stewardship.

Consideration would be given to defining and designating cultural management areas for sacred sites, areas of cultural and religious sensitivity, traditional cultural properties and significant concentrations of cultural properties.

The current management areas for wildland urban interface (WUI) defense and threat zones from the SNFPA would be changed to a risk-based protection zone approach, which would focus fuel reduction treatments on conditions that threaten communities and assets. These protection zones would be complemented by two new zones that cover the remaining adjacent National Forest System lands, where increased opportunities for managing wildfires for ecological benefits would occur. The use of fire as a restoration tool would be emphasized in inaccessible and steeper areas where mechanical fuel and restoration treatment would be difficult or is prohibited. Proposed modification of some vegetation and wildlife standards and guidelines aligned with these zones are intended to better manage the threat of wildfire impacts to communities and other at-risk natural resource values. As a risk-based approach, these zones change over time as fuels conditions change from restoration treatments and wildfires and as there are new or changed communities, assets, or natural resource values.

The four proposed zones are:

1. Community Wildfire Protection Zone: Conditions currently put communities and community assets at very high risk. This would replace the WUI defense zone. Emphasis would be placed on mechanical and hand treatments to yield desired fire behavior conducive to more effective fire suppression. Prescribed burning is also used, especially to maintain previously treated areas. The use of wildfire to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits is very limited.

2. General Wildfire Protection Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets and natural resource values at high risk of loss from wildfire. This would replace the WUI threat zone, but recognizes that fires from greater distances can threaten these areas, in part a result of climate change. This zone adds natural resource values, and the area is increased. Emphasis would be placed on mechanical and hand treatments to yield desired fire behavior conducive to more effective fire suppression and retention of desired conditions for natural resources. The use of wildfire to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits is limited.

3. Wildfire Restoration Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets, watersheds and natural resource values at moderate risk of loss from wildfire. Wildfire could be used to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits when conditions allow. Strategically located mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning, where feasible, may be a necessary precursor to the reintroduction of wildfire to achieve desired conditions. Strategically located treatments increase the opportunity to manage wildfires to achieve desired conditions.

4. Wildfire Maintenance Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets, watersheds and natural resource values at low risk of loss from wildfire, and many natural resources would benefit from wildland fire. Due to low risk, wildfires are expected to be used as often as possible to maintain ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits when conditions allow. Mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning, where feasible, are used to complement wildfire to achieve desired conditions.

Desired conditions and SNFPA 1-11 would be modified to incorporate the four zone approach. In the Protection Zones, plan components would be geared toward safe firefighting and protecting assets (e.g., structures and powerlines) and natural resources. In the Restoration and Maintenance Zones, plan components would emphasize effects of fire on natural resources and would be geared toward desired conditions for ecological resilience and integrity. New plan components would emphasize fire behavior and the effects on resources (e.g., habitat or timber) in terms of severity (e.g., the number of trees killed).

Desired conditions, guidelines, standards and other plan content would be added to allow for improved coordination with air quality regulators and with communities and to provide for a transparent analysis and clear communication regarding smoke tradeoffs from prescribed fire or wildfire used to meet resource objectives and large, uncontrolled wildfire. Other plan content would be added to consider smoke impacts to downwind communities.

Within the Community and General Wildfire Protection Zones, to reflect the intent of the new planning rule, some standards and guidelines from the SNFPA would be converted to or replaced with desired conditions and other plan content.

Current general desired conditions would be replaced with specific, quantitative desired conditions based on ecological sustainability. Prescriptive elements on vegetation management (SNFPA 1-12 and 17-19) would be replaced with desired conditions and other plan content aimed at restoring ecological integrity and sustainability. Desired conditions would incorporate references to new science (e.g., General Technical Report 220 and 237) that better reflect resilience to fire, drought and climate change and heterogeneity beneficial to wildlife. Vegetation desired conditions would be made more specific by describing ecological outcomes as a numerical range. The importance of fire as an ecological process in vegetation types adapted to fire (e.g., mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine) would be included.

A strategy would be added that emphasizes planning and implementing projects at the landscape scale (5,000 to 100,000 acres) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of restoring ecological resilience to fire, drought and climate change. Locations and types of restoration treatments (e.g. thinning or controlled burning) would occur within these larger areas to influence changes in effects of wildfires.

Plan components and other plan content would be added or updated for all major eastside vegetation types on the Inyo National Forest, and small portions of the Sequoia National Forest, including sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, desert shrub, and eastside oak.

Desired conditions and other plan content would be added that recognize the importance of perennial grasses in eastside ecosystems and the role they play in resilience to non-native grass invasion and resilience to fire.

The existing old forest emphasis area land allocation and desired conditions from the SNFPA would be removed because the desired conditions are general and lack specific information on desired levels of large and old trees. Forest-wide desired conditions for old forest would be added that describe desired large tree densities and the proportion of the landscape containing old forest characteristics.

Desired conditions would be added to recognize complex early seral habitat as an important component to ecological sustainability, describing the desired proportions on the landscape, large snag and log densities and shrub cover amounts. Desired conditions would be added that integrate all ecological components of complex early seral habitat. Plan content would be added that addresses landscape consideration of the distribution and proportion of complex early seral habitats, including connectivity. A standard that addresses retention of some areas post fire with minimal resource management intervention would be added.

Desired conditions and other plan content would be added to address ecological sustainability of subalpine and alpine ecosystems omitted in earlier plans. This includes components to address threats to high elevation white pines from blister rust and bark beetle.

Desired conditions would be added for blue oak woodlands to support existing standards and guidelines from the SNFPA.

Plan components would be added and modified to better restore, maintain and increase the resilience of aquatic and riparian ecosystems to climate change, fire, ozone and nitrogen depositions.

The term riparian conservation objective (RCO) would be dropped to avoid confusion with the 2012 Planning Rule plan component called objectives. The spirit and intent of the original RCOs would remain in other plan components. The standards and guidelines organized under RCOs would be mostly retained and reorganized. More specifically, SNFPA 91 would be modified to include the definition of riparian conservation areas, and by removing the need for a specific RCO analysis. SNFPA 92 and 93 would be removed, because they concern the RCO system and their intent is captured elsewhere in plan components and existing law.

SNFPA 109 and 111 would be replaced with other plan content to improve resilience of riparian ecosystems to fire, drought and climate change. This change would allow for increased flexibility with prescribed fire and mechanical treatment and/or hand treatments in riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges where appropriate. Although the new language would emphasize more flexibility to treat in riparian areas, activities would need to be designed considering desired conditions, ensure the protection of at-risk species, and meet all necessary protection measures for water and soil.

Desired conditions would be updated for meadows to reflect an integration of vegetation, soils, hydrology and wildlife conditions. Guidelines would be added to address the ecological integrity of meadows and their connection to groundwater. Guidelines currently in place for the Inyo National Forest have replaced SNFPA 120 and 121 to further allow for an integrated ecological approach to meadow management on that forest.

New guidelines would be included to protect the spring environment and to maintain and restore native species and the ecological integrity of these systems.

The contribution of the national forests to water quantity and quality in California would be recognized in the plans. Plan components would be added to address the effect of climate change and drought on water quantity.

Management direction would be added to ensure compliance with new proposed groundwater directives and to further address water shortages and climate change in riparian systems.

SNFPA 106 would be modified to include language that better evaluates diversion of water on National Forest System land, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing projects. The new language would promote collaboration with other entities involved in the hydropower relicensing process and other water use negotiations. These changes address public feedback and the need to account for climate change and threats to water quality. The changes would also address trends with drought.

The Watershed Condition Framework would continue to move forward. Priority watersheds have been identified and these would continue to be a focus for improving water quality, watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystem conditions.

SNFPA 53, 54, 98 and 114 which are specifically related to the three newly listed federal threatened and endangered amphibian species (Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog) would be retained but would incorporate clarifications resulting from consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Actions listed in recovery plans and conservation strategies would be considered in developing plan components that could contribute to the recovery of federally-listed species.

Existing management areas and direction for California spotted owl and northern goshawk protected activity centers and spotted owl home range core areas would be retained with clarifications and alignment of plan components. No substantive changes would be made with the following exceptions:

• Updating and clarifying the desired conditions and other plan components for these areas based on information from the California spotted owl new interim guidelines and conservation assessment, when they are available.

• Changing some standards and guidelines within the Community Wildfire Protection Zone and the General Wildfire Protection Zone to better balance the need to provide key habitat with managing the threat of wildfire impacts to communities and other values at risk. This would include minor changes to SNFPA 73 and converting and clarifying direction related to limited operating periods in SNFPA 75, 76 and 77 to guidelines.

• Adding plan content and updating and clarifying standards and guidelines to include opportunities for adaptive management related to the amount of protected activity centers that can be treated mechanically (SNFPA 80 and 81) and with prescribed burning (SNFPA 78 and 79).

Direction for the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SNFPA 90) and fisher den sites (SNFPA 85-87) would be retained with clarifications and alignment of plan components. No substantive changes would be made, pending completion of the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Strategy. These management areas and associated direction would be updated or changed considering information from the conservation strategy. Other plan components in other resource areas would be aligned as needed.

Direction for Bi-State sage-grouse management from the Inyo National Forest Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policy, portions of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment and strategies from the Rocky Mountain Research Station-led conservation strategy on habitat restoration and fire resilience would be added. Plan components and other plan content would be added to conserve sage-grouse habitat.

A list of preliminary at-risk species was identified in each forest's assessment report. During the analysis of alternatives, plan components related to ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity will be examined to determine if direction for ecological integrity and ecosystem diversity or for special habitats is sufficient or if additional, species-specific plan components are needed for federally-recognized threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species or for species of conservation concern.

The existing standards and guidelines specific to noxious weed management (SNFPA 36-49) would be clarified and reorganized into desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content that address terrestrial and aquatic invasive species, including noxious plants.

Plan components with management direction for lands acquired by the Inyo National Forest through the Nevada Enhancement Act would be added.

Wilderness: The 15,110 acres of the Moses Recommended Wilderness on the Sequoia National Forest, recommended in the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan, would continue to be managed as recommended wilderness until such time as Congress designates it as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. There may be new recommendations that result from the wilderness evaluations currently underway.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: The 66 miles of the San Joaquin, South Fork San Joaquin, North Fork San Joaquin and Middle Fork San Joaquin River segments that the Sierra National Forest found suitable in previous planning efforts would continue to be managed as suitable and recommended wild and scenic river segments until such time as Congress designates them as additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. One mile of the south Fork Kern River segment that the Sequoia National Forest found suitable in previous planning efforts will continue to be managed as a suitable and recommended wild and scenic river until such time as Congress designates it as an addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There may be new recommendations that result from the wild and scenic river evaluations currently underway. For the two newly designated wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo National Forest, the revised forest plan would include direction that is applicable to all wild and scenic rivers on the forest and would identify the process and timeline for finishing comprehensive river management plans and developing a final boundary.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT): The PCT corridor would be identified as a management area and plan components would be added to protect the recreation experience and scenery resources along the PCT. Identification of the PCT corridor and associated direction does not currently exist in forest plans.

National Recreation Trails: Desired conditions, standards, guidelines and other plan content would be added to protect the recreation experience and scenery resources along the national recreation trails on each forest. There are three national recreation trails on the Inyo National Forest, two on the Sequoia National Forest outside the Giant Sequoia National Monument and five on the Sierra National Forest. This direction does not currently exist in forest plans.

Other Designated Areas: Other designated areas would continue to be managed for their designations under current management direction. No new designation areas are being recommended at this time.

A monitoring program will be developed that meets the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule and informs evaluation the effectiveness of forest plans. The monitoring program consists of monitoring questions and associated indicators that address the following eight items: (1) The status of select watershed conditions; (2) the status of select ecological conditions, including key characteristics, of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; (3) the status of focal species, selected to assess integrity of ecological systems and effects of management on ecological conditions; (4) the status of a select set of ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery of federally-listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species and maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern; (5) the status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction and progress toward meeting recreation objectives; (6) measurable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors that may be affecting the plan area; (7) progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan; and (8) the effects of each timber management system to determine that they do not substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land. Additionally, the monitoring program may include other monitoring questions and indicators that do not address these eight items but which inform effectiveness of the plan. Monitoring programs will be designed within the financial and technical capabilities of the forests. Capability will be expanded by coordinating with partners and through the broader regional strategy currently under development.

As part of plan revision, the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests will also:

• Identify the suitability of areas for the appropriate integration of resource management and uses, including identifying lands not suitable for timber production;

• Identify the maximum quantity of timber that may be removed from the plan area;

• Coordinate with the Regional Forester to identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area;

• Describe the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape;

• Contain information reflecting proposed and possible actions that may occur on the plan area during the life of the plan;

• Consider including optional content, such as potential management approaches or strategies and partnership opportunities or coordination activities.

The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are preparing an EIS to revise their current forest plans. The EIS process will inform each Forest Supervisor's decision about which alternative best meets the need for quality land management under the 2012 Planning Rule and the sustainable multiple-use management concept, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. This concept seeks to meet the diverse needs of people while protecting forest resources.

Each Forest Supervisor will be signing a Record of Decision. Having one EIS is expected to help the agency gain efficiencies and complete plan revision within a reasonable timeframe and budget. The three forests share some landscapes, issues and stakeholders. Consolidating under one EIS will help streamline the process for some stakeholders and helps facilitate a landscape-level approach to plan revision.

The revised forest plans will describe the strategic intent of managing the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests for the next 10 to 15 years. The revised forest plans will identify management and/or geographic areas and use five plan components to guide future project and activity decision making: Desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines and suitability of lands. Each revised plan will include other required content, such as a monitoring program. Responsible officials will determine whether to make new recommendations for wilderness and other designated areas.

This decision will not authorize project-level activities on the three forests. The authorization of project-level activities on each forest occurs through subsequent project-specific decision making. The designation of routes, trails and areas for motorized vehicle travel is not considered during plan revision but addressed in separate analysis processes on each forest. Certain issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the three forests and will not be considered. In addition, some decisions and determinations, such as wild and scenic river suitability determinations, may not be undertaken at this time but will be addressed in separate processes.

The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forest plan revision team has provided multiple ways for the public, other agencies and tribes to contribute ideas about how current forest plans need to change or be improved. Public involvement began in earnest in 2012. Formal and informal meetings, letters, emails, phone calls, newspaper announcements and postings to the Pacific Southwest Region and forest Web sites were used to share and gather information and encourage participation. Plan revision team members gave presentations, went to the field and met with individuals and groups. Information collected from the public was used to identify needed changes in the current forest plans and desired conditions.

The forests will continue regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-government basis to address issues that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

The forests will continue to collaborate with interested members of the public, as well as federal and state agencies, local governments and other organizations.

Preparation of the revised forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests began with the publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Federal Register on December 26, 2013 [78 FR 78326] and was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219 (2012)).

This notice of intent initiates the 30-day scoping process which guides the development of the EIS. The purpose of this process is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. Public meetings and tribal forums to gather input on the proposed action will be held in September 2014. Additional materials, as well as the dates, times and locations of these meetings can be found at http://tinyurl.com/r5earlyadopters. It is important that reviewers provide their comments in a time and manner useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the scoping period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Reviewers should clearly identify which forest or forests each of their comments applies to. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however, see the section below concerning the objection process and the requirements for filing an objection.

The decisions to approve the revised forest plans will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR Part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to a plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.

Responsible Officials in the Eastern Region will publish legal notice regarding proposed land management plans as required under 36 CFR 219.16 and legal notice regarding an opportunity to comment on proposed projects as required under 36 CFR 218.24 in the newspapers that are listed in this section by Forest Service administrative unit. Additionally, Responsible Officials in the Eastern Region will publish legal notice of the opportunity to object to a proposed project under 36 CFR part 218 or to object to a land management plan developed, amended, or revised under 36 CFR part 219 in the legal notice section of the following newspapers. Additional notice regarding an opportunity to comment or object under the above mentioned regulations may be provided in other newspapers not listed below at the sole discretion of the Responsible Official. Legal notice published in a newspaper of record of an opportunity to object is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested it and to those who have participated in planning for the project or land management plan proposal.

The timeframe for comment on a proposed action shall be based on the date of publication of the legal notice of the proposed action in the newspaper of record. The timeframe for objection shall be based on the date of publication of the legal notice of the opportunity to object in the newspaper of record. The following newspapers will be used to provide legal notice.

Affecting National Forest System lands in the Eastern Region, in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, published daily in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Background

Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Revision Act of 1979, as amended (the Stock Piling Act) (50 U.S.C. 98, et seq. ), the Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), as National Defense Stockpile Manager, maintains a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States for national defense. Section 9(b)(2)(G)(ii) of the Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98(h)(b)(2)(G)(ii)) authorizes the National Defense Stockpile Manager to fund material research and development projects to develop new materials for the stockpile.

Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile. . . .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the U.S. Government against avoidable loss.

The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials stored in or of interest to the National Defense Stockpile Manager.

As the National Defense Stockpile Manager, the DLA must produce an Annual Materials Plan proposing the maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, or sold by the DLA in a particular fiscal year. In Attachment 1, the DLA lists the quantities and type of activity (potential acquisition, potential disposal, or potential upgrade) associated with each material in its proposed FY 2016 Annual Materials Plan (“AMP”). The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not acquisition, disposal, upgrade, or sales target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, or sold in a particular fiscal year by the DLA, as noted. The quantity of each material that will actually be acquired or offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the acquisition or offering, as well as on the quantity of each material approved for acquisition, disposal, or upgrade by Congress.

The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact associated with the proposed FY 2016 AMP as enumerated in Attachment 1. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.

The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the quantities associated with the proposed FY 2016 AMP. All comments must be submitted to the addresses indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through email must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line.

The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on September 29, 2014. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.

All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.

The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at (202) 482-1900 for assistance.

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . All submissions must be filed electronically at http://iaaccess.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding ( i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name  3 , should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2015.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

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

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 5 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. Ongoing segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011 should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. 6 All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 7 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) and section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), the Secretary and the USTR have renewed the charters of 16 ITACs and the Committee of Chairs of the ITACs. The Secretary and the USTR welcome nominations for the ITACs listed below:

Industry Trade Advisory Committees on:

Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), directed the establishment of a private-sector trade advisory system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. Section 135(a)(1) directs the President to:

The duties of the ITACs are to provide the President, through the Secretary and the USTR, with detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations regarding trade barriers, negotiation of trade agreements, and implementation of existing trade agreements affecting industry sectors; and perform other advisory functions relevant to U.S. trade policy matters as may be requested by the Secretary and the USTR or their designees. The ITACs provide nonpartisan, industry input in the development of trade policy objectives. The ITACs' efforts have assisted the United States in putting forward unified positions when it negotiates trade agreements.

The ITACs address market-access problems; barriers to trade; tariff levels; discriminatory foreign procurement practices; and information, marketing, and advocacy needs of their industry sector. Thirteen ITACs provide advice and information on issues that affect specific sectors of U.S. industry. Three ITACs focus on cross-cutting, functional issues that affect all industry sectors: Customs matters and trade facilitation (ITAC 14); intellectual property rights (ITAC 15); and standards and technical trade barriers (ITAC 16). In addition to members appointed exclusively to these three ITACs, ITACs 1-13 each may select a member to represent their ITAC as a non-voting member on each of these three cross-cutting ITACs so that a broad range of industry perspectives is represented. Other trade policy issues, e.g., government procurement, subsidies, etc., may be addressed in ad hoc working groups created by the ITACs.

Each ITAC meets an average of six times a year in Washington, DC. Some ITACS meet more often depending on the work of a particular committee.

Each Committee consists of members with experience relevant to the industry sector for ITACs 1 through 13 or the subject area for ITACs 14 through 16. The members serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of a sponsoring U.S. entity or U.S. organization and the entity's or organization's subsector (if applicable) on trade matters. In selecting members, Commerce and USTR also consider the nominee's ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee, including knowledge and expertise of the industry and of trade matters relevant to the work of the Committee, and ensuring that the Committee is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size. Because members serve in a representative capacity, they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees. Members serve at the discretion of the Secretary and the USTR.

Members serve without compensation and are responsible for all expenses incurred to attend the meetings. ITAC members are appointed jointly by the Secretary and the USTR. Each ITAC elects a chairperson from the membership of the ITAC, and that chairperson serves on the Committee of Chairs of the ITACs.

Appointments are made following the re-chartering of each ITAC and periodically throughout the four-year charter term. Appointments expire at the end of the ITACs' charter terms, in this case, on February 14, 2018.

Appointments to all ITACs are made without regard to political affiliation.

The following eligibility requirements must be met:

1. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen;

2. The applicant must not be a full-time employee of a U.S. governmental entity;

3. The applicant must not be registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;

4. The applicant must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance; and

5. The applicant must represent either:

a. A U.S. entity that is directly engaged in the import or export of goods or services or that provides services in direct support of the international trading activities of other entities; or

b. A U.S. organization that: Trades internationally; represents members that trade internationally; or, consistent with the needs of a Committee as determined by the Secretary and the USTR, represents members who have a demonstrated interest in international trade.

For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. entity” is a for-profit firm engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities that is incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated U.S. firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by other U.S. entities. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is known to be controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities.

For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, including trade associations, labor unions and organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. entity (or entities), as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. To qualify as a U.S. organization, more than 50 percent of the board of directors (or comparable governing body) and more than 50 percent of the membership of the organization to be represented must be U.S. citizens, U.S. organizations, or U.S. entities. Additionally, in order for NGOs to qualify as U.S. organizations, at least 50 percent of the NGO's annual revenue must be attributable to nongovernmental U.S. sources.

If a nominee is to represent an entity or organization known to have 10 percent or greater non-U.S. ownership of its shares or equity, non-U.S. board members, non-U.S. membership, or non-U.S. funding sources, as applicable, the nominee must certify in its statement affirming its eligibility that this non-U.S. interest does not constitute control and will not adversely affect his or her ability to serve as a trade advisor to the United States.

Historically, the Secretary and the USTR have appointed a representative of the public health or health care community to each of ITACs 3 and 15, and an environmental representative to each of ITACs 3 and 7. The Secretary and the USTR will continue to consider nominations for representatives of such viewpoints to those ITACs.

In order to be considered for ITAC membership, a nominee should submit:

(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information of the individual requesting consideration;

(2) The ITAC for which the individual is applying for appointment;

(3) A sponsor letter on the entity's or organization's letterhead containing a brief description of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the ITAC;

(4) The applicant's personal resume demonstrating knowledge of international trade issues;

(5) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all ITAC eligibility requirements; and

(6) Information regarding the sponsoring entity, including the control of the entity or organization to be represented and the entity's or organization's size and ownership, product or service line, and trade activities.

Submit applications to Ingrid V. Mitchem, Director, Industry Trade Advisory Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230.

Additional requirements exist for nominations of consultants and legal advisors. The specific requirements will vary depending on the nature of the entity or organization and interests to be represented. Interested consultants and legal advisors should contact the Industry Trade Advisory Center or consult the International Trade Administration Web site at: www.trade.gov/itac for additional information on the submission requirements.

Applicants that meet the eligibility criteria will be considered for membership based on the following criteria: The applicant's ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's and the entity's or organization's subsector's (if applicable) interests on trade matters; the applicant's ability to carry out the objectives of the particular ITAC (including knowledge and expertise of the industry and of trade matters relevant to the work of the ITAC); and whether the applicant's participation would ensure that the ITAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.

This notice is issued pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., app. 2), 19 U.S.C. 2155, and 41 CFR part 102-3 relating to advisory committees.

The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The applicant proposes research as part of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program, which is intended to benefit the U.S. fishing industry through the collection of fundamental fisheries information. Resource collection efforts support the development and evaluation of fisheries management and regulatory options.

The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622 implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The applicant requires authorization to collect limited numbers of snapper-grouper and other marine resources for scientific research activities during a 24-month period beginning October 2014, where harvest and possession is otherwise restricted or prohibited by regulations. The EFP would exempt Foundation personnel from fishery regulations such as bag limits, size limits, closures, and seasonal restrictions as specified in 50 CFR part 622, subparts A and I, for snapper-grouper in the South Atlantic. Specimens would be collected from Federal waters off the east coast of Florida and Federal waters off the coasts of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Sampling would occur during normal fishing operations of the commercial hook-and-line component of the snapper-grouper fishery. Only vessels that possess a valid Federal commercial South Atlantic unlimited snapper-grouper permit would participate in the research. The EFP would authorize Foundation observers aboard commercial hook-and-line snapper-grouper vessels to temporarily possess all necessary specimens from the catch for documentation and to permanently retain approximately 500 specimens of federally managed finfishes and invertebrates that would otherwise be prohibited from possession and retention through the duration of the EFP. All other fish collected will either be returned to the water or retained if they are able to be included as part of the legal commercial catch. Data collections for this study would support improved information about the catch, bycatch, discards, and discard mortality for species in the snapper-grouper complex. These data would provide insight on a stock's resilience to fishing, and would help provide improved estimates of long-term biological productivity of the stocks. Currently, these data are limited, and project results are anticipated to yield valuable data within this fishery.

NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. The limited sampling program and associated sampling methodology listed in the EFP is not expected to impact the fishery stocks; the estimated 500 fish to be retained in the 24-month period represents a small fraction of the average annual landings. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS will prohibit the possession of Nassau or goliath grouper, and require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water. All Foundation-associated personnel who conduct onboard sampling activities have undergone formal sea turtle handling training through NMFS, and are considered NMFS-designated agents while conducting work under the identified Cooperative Agreements.

A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the EFP is consistent with all applicable laws.

The Plan Team will review and make final 2014/15 recommendations on specifications (Over Fishing Levels (OFLs) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABCs) for 7 BSAI crab stocks as well as review developing stock assessment models, and make recommendations for the next assessment cycle.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

Agenda Items

The New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and develop overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Atlantic sea scallops for fishing years 2015-16. They will review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Groundfish PDT and develop OFL and ABC recommendations for Gulf of Maine cod for fishing years 2015-17. The committee will address other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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 Council is considering whether to prioritize time and resources to develop a Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The Council is interested in hearing from local residents and communities, as well as agencies, organizations and the general public, about the objectives and structure of the FEP, prior to decision-making. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to present their concerns and suggestions as the Council proceeds with this effort. The Council is seeking the following input from stakeholders: (1) What should be the objectives of the Bering Sea FEP? What questions should the FEP answer? (2) What kind of actions should be considered in the FEP? Should the FEP provide specific or general guidance for fishery management? (for example, strategies to respond to climate change, preserve subsistence fishing and hunting resources, maintain healthy populations of top level predators, etc.) (3) Would the FEP provide added value over existing Council documents, and if so, how? More information is posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The Committee will discuss the following issues: (1) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan; (2) Ecosystem vision statement action plan; (3) EFH 5-year review; and (4) Updates.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version is posted at http://www.npfmc.org.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The items of discussion on the agenda are: Discussion of Amendment 18, A18, (fleet diversity and accumulation limits) in regards to draft inshore/offshore alternatives with respect to fleet diversity and Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod. The panel will also discuss the development of Advisory Panel (AP) recommendations. If time permits, also on the agenda is Framework Adjustment 53, (specifications and management measures) with regard to specifications for groundfish stocks (GOM cod and haddock; GOM and Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder; pollock; GB yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock). Additionally, Management Measures (expansion of the GOM cod inshore spawning closure, roll-over provision for specifications, and other measures) are on the agenda. The AP will also be developing AP Recommendations. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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

The agenda is as follows:

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The items of discussion on the agenda are: Discussion of Amendment 18, A18, (fleet diversity and accumulation limits) in regards to draft inshore/offshore alternatives with respect to fleet diversity and Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and discuss other measures in A18. Also, the development of Advisory Panel (AP) recommendations. If time permits, also on the agenda is Framework Adjustment 53, (specifications and management measures) with regard to specifications for groundfish stocks (GOM cod and haddock; GOM and Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder; pollock; GB yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock). Additionally, Management Measures (windowpane flounder sub-annual catch limit (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), expansion of the GOM cod inshore spawning closure, roll-over provision for specifications, and other measures) are on the agenda, time permitting. They will also be developing AP recommendations. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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

The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

Review the SSC applications and develop recommendations for appointments/reappointments.

1. SEDAR activities update.

2. Provide guidance to SEDAR Steering Committee members.

Discuss the membership structure of the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and develop Committee recommendations.

1. Receive a presentation on Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan.

2. Discuss shark interactions with South Atlantic fisheries and provide guidance to staff.

1. Receive a report on the Final Determination for Coral listing, and update on American Eel status review and an update on Atlantic Sturgeon Stock Status.

2. Discuss the future role and structure of the Committee and take other Committee actions as appropriate.

1. Receive an update on the status of commercial catch versus annual catch limit (ACL) for golden crab.

2. Receive a report on public hearing comments and provide guidance to staff.

3. Review and discuss the Generic Accountability Measures and Dolphin Allocation Amendment and revise as appropriate.

Receive a report from the Information and Education Advisory Panel and a summary of the Council-hosted Science Communication Workshop.

1. Receive an update on the status of the Joint Gulf and South Atlantic Council Generic Dealer Amendment.

2. Review background and receive an update on the status of implementation of the Electronic Technology (Data Collection and Monitoring) Implementation Plan; take Committee action as appropriate.

3. Receive a presentation on the status of work in the Northeast related to bycatch reporting and take Committee action as appropriate.

4. Receive an update on the status of an implementation plan for commercial logbook electronic reporting, provide staff guidance on options, receive a demonstration of the system developed by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program, and receive an update on the status of the Logbook Pilot Program from NOAA Fisheries.

5. Review the Joint South Atlantic and Gulf Council Generic Charterboat Reporting Amendment, receive an overview of the Gulf Council's actions, status, and next steps, a report on the Technical Committee meeting, and take action as appropriate.

1. Receive updates on the status of the Calendar Year 2014 budget expenditures.

2. Address the Council Follow-up and priorities.

3. Receive an update on the Joint South Florida Committee.

4. Receive an overview of proposed Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act bills and address other issues as appropriate.

1. Receive and discuss the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) with an update on the 2014 Red Snapper Season. The committee will take action as appropriate.

2. Receive an update on the status of Snapper Grouper amendments under formal Secretarial review.

3. Receive an update on the 2014 golden tilefish commercial longline landings and overages.

4. Discuss preparation and provide staff guidance for the October 2014 Council Visioning Workshop.

5. Review Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 16 relative to removal of the current black sea bass pot seasonal closure, modify the document as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.

6. Receive an update on Snapper Grouper Amendment 22 addressing the use of tags to track recreational harvest, discuss and provide guidance to staff.

7. Receive an overview of changes to Snapper Grouper Amendment 29 addressing Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) and management measures for gray triggerfish; modify the amendment as appropriate and make recommendations to approve the amendment for formal Secretarial review.

8. Review public hearing comments for Snapper Grouper Amendment 32 addressing blueline tilefish; modify the amendment as appropriate and provide recommendation to approve for formal Secretarial review.

9. Request an extension of the Emergency Rule for blueline tilefish.

10. Review Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 20 addressing snowy grouper; modify the document as appropriate, and provide recommendation to approve for formal Secretarial review.

11. Receive an overview of public scoping comments received for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 22 addressing measures for gag and wreckfish, modify the amendment, provide guidance to staff, and recommend approval for public hearings.

12. Review the Snapper Grouper Amendment 36 scoping comments addressing the use of Special Management Zones for protection of spawning areas/aggregations, modify the amendment as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.

13. Review the Snapper Grouper Amendment 35 scoping comments addressing the removal of four species from the Snapper Grouper Management Complex, modify the amendment as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.

14. Discuss options for the commercial golden tilefish longline endorsement issue and provide guidance to staff.

1. Receive and discuss the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs for dolphin and wahoo.

2. Receive a presentation on Operator Permits from NOAA Fisheries.

3. Review public hearing comments for Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 33 regarding the issue of transport of fillets from Bahamian waters into United States waters, modify the amendments as appropriate and provide recommendations for approval for formal Secretarial review.

4. Review and discuss the Generic Accountability Measures and Dolphin Allocation Amendment, modify as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.

1. Receive an update on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs for Atlantic Group king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia.

2. Receive an update on the status of amendments under Formal Review.

3. Review the public hearing comments received for Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Framework Amendment 2 addressing Spanish Mackerel trip limits, modify the document as appropriate, and provide recommendations for approval for formal Secretarial review.

4. Receive an overview of a white paper on CMP Amendment 26 addressing separating permits for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel into separate jurisdictions and provide directions to staff.

1. Receive an update on the status of Coral Amendment 8, the Coral grant, the Council's Habitat Policy statements, and take action as appropriate.

1. Receive an update on the status of work on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, a presentation on potential projects/collaborations, an update on Ecosystem-Based management activities, and take Committee action as appropriate.

8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, approve the June 2014 minutes, and make presentations.

8:45 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and is scheduled to either approve or disapprove the following for amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan for formal Secretarial review: Amendment 29, Amendment 32, and Regulatory Amendment 20. The Council will also consider approving or disapproving Regulatory Amendment 22 for public hearings, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

9:15-9:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Joint Dolphin Wahoo and Snapper Grouper Committees and approve or disapprove Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 33 (fillets from The Bahamas) for formal Secretarial review. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the King and Spanish Mackerel Committee and is scheduled to approve or disapprove Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 2 for formal submission to the Secretary. The Council will consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

9:45 a.m.-10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Habitat Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.

10 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Protected Resources Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider Committee recommendations and will take action as appropriate.

10:45 a.m.-11 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

11 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, approve the Council Follow Up and Priorities, take action on the South Florida Management issues as appropriate, and consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from its Data Collection Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.

11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations and appoint and/or reappoint members to its SSC. The Council will consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.

11:45 a.m.-12 noon: The Council will receive a report from the HMS Committee, consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

1:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

1:45 p.m.-2 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Information and Education Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

2 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: The Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries SERO and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The Council will review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary; review agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meeting.

On February 14, 2014 notice was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 8941) that a request for a permit to conduct research on the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 18002 authorizes non-invasive research techniques including scat collection and a small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) to determine the level of individual diet specializations (prey consumption) amongst harbor seals within the Salish Sea area of Washington State. Annually, researchers may take (incidentally harass) 57,600 harbor seals during ground surveys for scat collection and 12,800 harbor seals during aerial (sUAS) surveys for counts of seals at haul-out sites. Additionally, the permit authorizes the unintentional mortality of 4 individuals during ground surveys over the life of the permit.

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

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 5/16/2014 (79 FR 28490-28491), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entity to provide the service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Control Number: Statement of Ecclesiastical Endorsement; DD Form 2088; OMB Control Number: 0704-0190.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to provide certification that a Religious Ministry Professional is professionally qualified to become a chaplain.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 118 hours.

Number Of Respondents: 157.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden Per Response: 45 minutes.

Frequency: On Occasion; Annually.

The DD Form 2088 is used to verify the professional and ecclesiastical qualifications of Religious Ministry Professionals for initial appointment or chaplains change of career status appointments as chaplains in the Military Service. This form is an essential element of a chaplain's professional qualifications and will become a part of a chaplain's military personnel record. DoD listed endorsing agents utilize the form to endorse military chaplains representing their organizations.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

Committee's Point of Contact: Alison Patz, Alternate Designated Federal Official, (703) 696-1991, Alison.m.patz.civ@mail.mil.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— http://facadatabase.gov/.

Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least five calendar days prior to the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the National Security Education Board until its next meeting.

The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the National Security Education Board and ensure they are provided to all members of the National Security Education Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Application for Establishment of Air Force Junior ROTC Unit; AFJROTC Forms 59, 102, and 200; OMB Control Number 0701-0114.

Type of Request: Extension,

Number of Respondents: 200.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 200.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 100.

Needs And Uses: Respondents are high school officials who provide information about their school. The completed application is used to determine the eligibility of the school to host an Air Force JROTC (AFJROTC) unit. Failure to submit the application renders the school ineligible for consideration to host an AFJROTC unit. Require the collection of specific information on prospective AFJROTC instructors.

Affected Public: Not-For-Profit Institutions; Individuals or Households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The September 29, 2014 DMICC meeting will focus on “Implementing the Department of Health and Human Services National Action Plan for Hypoglycemic Safety.”

Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov.

For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.

Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.

Households selected for participation in the MEPS-HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.

The MEPS-HC has the following goal:

• To provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for health care use, expenditures, sources of payment and health insurance coverage.

This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.

To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:

I. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expense and payment, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with health plans and providers, children's health, and adult preventive care. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit (RU), which is typically a family, only one person normally provides this information.

2. Adult Self Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) will be used to collect self-reported (rather than through household proxy) information on health status, health opinions and satisfaction with health care for adults 18 and older. The satisfaction with health care items are a subset of items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). The health status items are from the Short Form 12 Version 2 (SF-12 version 2), which has been widely used as a measure of self-reported health status in the United States, the Kessler Index (K6) of non-specific psychological distress, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2).

3. Diabetes Care SAQ. A brief self administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year (during rounds 3 and 5) to persons identified-as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which the pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin.

4. Permission forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for permission to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies.

The MEPS-HC was last approved by OMB on December 20th, 2012 and will expire on December 31st, 2015. The OMB control number for the MEPS-HC is 0935-0118. All of the supporting documents for the current MEPS-HC can be downloaded from OMB's Web site at. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201209-0935-001

The MEPS is a multi-purpose survey. In addition to collecting data to yield annual estimates for a variety of measures related to health care use and expenditures, the MEPS also provides estimates of measures related to health status, consumer assessment of health care, health insurance coverage, demographic characteristics, employment and access to health care indicators. Estimates can be provided for individuals, families and population subgroups of interest. Data from the MEPS-HC are intended for a number of annual reports required to be produced by the Agency, including the National Health Care Quality Report and the National Health Care Disparities Report.

AHRQ proposes to make the following changes to questions asked of respondents:

Additions:

Closing—questions pertaining to respondent email;

Reenumeration—addition of questions pertaining to educational level attainment and the determination of institutional status;

Provider Probes—determination if healthcare was received in an overnight facility; and

Health Insurance—questions were added regarding interaction with the health insurance marketplace, enrollment through state health insurance exchanges, the extent of subsidized health insurance, monthly premiums, health insurance metal plan names, and medical debt.

Preventive Care—a field test will be conducted to assess response loss through self-administration.

Deletions:

Questions were removed from the following sections: Access to Care; Closing; Medical Conditions; Charge Payment; Child Preventive Health; Disability Days; Employment, Health Status; Health Insurance; and Income.

Questions were removed to reduce burden and redundancy, additional questions were removed due to difficulty in respondent interpretation, low frequency in response or minimal variation, and limited ability of respondent to respond accurately.

There are no changes to the current burden estimates.

Estimated Annual Costs to the Federal Government There are no changes-to the current cost estimates.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Background

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

AHRQ has accepted a notification from Patient Safety Services, LLC, PSO number P0129, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Patient Safety Services, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 30, 2014.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.