Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Employment and Training Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that suspended the handling regulations and inspection requirements prescribed under the marketing order for apricots grown in designated Counties in Washington (order). The interim rule suspended the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, and inspection requirements of the order for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule is expected to reduce overall industry expenses and increase net returns to growers and handlers.
Effective March 21, 2014.
Manuel Michel, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order and agreement regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 132 and Order No. 922, both as amended (7 CFR Part 922), regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.
The handling of apricots grown in designated Counties in Washington is regulated by 7 CFR part 922. The order's handling regulation contains minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements of apricots handled under the order. The objective of the handling regulation has been to ensure that only acceptable quality apricots enter fresh market channels to foster consumer satisfaction, increase sales, and improve returns to producers.
Due to the evolving nature of fresh fruit marketing, many wholesale and retail apricot buyers have developed their own specific criteria that their suppliers are required to meet to ensure a high quality product. Many of these buyer standards are higher than those in effect under the order. For this reason, the Committee believes that buyer standards now override the minimum standards of the order and that the order's regulations are no longer necessary.
In addition, the Committee believes that the cost of complying with the order's handling regulations, when such regulations are in effect, may exceed the benefits. Because handlers must comply with both their buyer's requirements and the order regulations, two sets of compliance expenses are incurred. Because the buyer requirements are more stringent than the order's, the Committee believes that the cost of complying with them does not result in any additional benefit to producers or handlers.
Therefore, this rule continues in effect the interim rule that suspended the handling regulations prescribed in § 922.321 for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods.
The order contains provisions for handlers to apply for waivers from mandatory inspection when such inspection is not readily available from the Inspection Service. With the suspension of the regulation, such waivers are no longer necessary. Therefore, consistent with the suspension of § 922.321, this rule also continues in effect the action that suspended § 922.111 for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 94 growers of Washington apricots in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports that the 2012 total production and utilization (including both fresh and processed
This rule continues in effect the action that suspended the handling regulations specified in §§ 922.111 and 922.321 for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. The suspension of these handling regulations allows the Washington apricot industry to market apricots without regard to the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, and inspection requirements prescribed under the order. Authority for this action is provided in § 922.53.
This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order requirements. Rather, this action allows handlers to decrease their costs during the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods by eliminating the expense associated with mandatory inspection. However, this rule does not impede handlers from seeking inspection on a voluntary basis if they find inspection desirable. The opportunities and benefits of this rule are equally available to all Washington apricot handlers and producers, regardless of their size.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large apricot handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington apricot industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in the Committee's deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 13, 2013, meeting was a public meeting. All entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before December 23, 2013. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101), as well as the findings in the interim rule that the regulatory requirements no longer tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Apricots, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of withdrawal of approval.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) and two abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) for three-way, fixed-ratio combination drug Type A medicated articles containing chlortetracycline, sulfathiazole, and penicillin. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
Withdrawal of approval is effective March 31, 2014.
David Alterman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6843.
Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the following NADA and two ANADAs because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:
The NADAs listed were identified as being affected by guidance for industry (GFI) #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209”, December 2013.
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the withdrawal of approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) and two abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) for three-way, fixed-ratio combination drug Type A medicated articles containing chlortetracycline, sulfathiazole, and penicillin. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
This rule is effective March 31, 2014.
David Alterman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6843.
Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the following NADA and two ANADAs because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:
The NADAs listed were identified as being affected by guidance for industry (GFI) #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209”, December 2013.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a direct final rule in the
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461–1599. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a direct final rule published in the
Under the direct final rule procedures that were described in 78 FR 62441 and 78 FR 63143, the direct final rule became effective on December 23, 2013, because no comments were received within the comment periods. In a companion document in this issue of the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 11, 2014, for publication.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (the Department) is amending the Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) to include a contract clause on minority and women inclusion, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act).
Lorraine Cole, Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, 202–927–8181 (this is not a toll-free number) or
Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5452, established an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) within certain agencies, including the Departmental Offices of the Department of the Treasury. Section 342(c)(2) provides that covered agencies shall require contractors to provide a written statement that the “contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor, and as applicable, subcontractors.” This rule will implement the statement required by the Dodd-Frank Act through a contract clause.
The contract clause, which is similar to those adopted by other OMWI agencies, requires that a contractor make good faith efforts to include minorities and women in its workforce. This standard is derived from section 342(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides for remedies, including termination, against a contractor that fails to make good faith efforts to include minorities and women in its workforce. Treasury interprets “good faith efforts” to mean efforts consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 11246, as amended, such as the identification and elimination of employment barriers, the widespread publication of employment opportunities, and other forms of outreach to minorities and women.
Section 342 applies to “all contracts . . . for services of any kind,” but the section does not define the term “contract.” Treasury applies the clause to all service contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold. Further, as noted above, section 342 applies to Treasury Departmental Offices (DO). DO does not currently include an office responsible for operational procurement; acquisitions in support of DO are performed primarily by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Treasury Procurement Services. The clause will be included in all service contracts in support of requirements originating from DO, regardless of the Treasury component performing the acquisition.
In its August 21, 2012, proposed rule, the Department solicited public comments on all aspects of the proposal. This comment period closed on October 22, 2012, and eight comment letters were received. Comments were received from interest groups, private citizens, and law students. This section sets out significant comments raised by the commenters and the Department's response to these comments. As set forth below, the Department has considered the comments and is adopting the proposed rule with two minor changes in response to comments received, which are noted below.
One commenter suggested that the clause should apply only to subcontracts subject to reporting under FAR clause 52.204–10. The Department declines to adopt this suggestion. It is, however, the Department's intent that the clause should be required only in subcontracts that are awarded to support a covered contract. To clarify this point, Treasury has modified the language of the clause to require flow-down only to “subcontracts awarded under” the contract.
One commenter suggested inserting the language “including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act” after ”To implement this commitment, the Contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce.” The commenter contends that, without the insertion, there is a danger of discrimination against men and non-minorities.
The Department does not believe that a specific reference to Title VII is necessary. The Department believes that its contractors are aware of their obligations under that statute. Further, our contracts contain a separate clause, FAR 52.222–26, Equal Opportunity, that expressly prohibits discrimination.
Several commenters suggested that the Department require specified documentation to demonstrate a “good faith effort.” These suggestions are not adopted. The clause provides Treasury with the authority to obtain
Two commenters suggested that the clause be modified to provide 60 days for contractors to provide information requested by the contracting officer. The suggestion is not adopted. Section 342 and the clause require contractors to engage in good faith efforts at all times during contract performance, not merely in the 60 days preceding a contracting officer's review. Because a good faith efforts plan should be in place at all times during contract performance, 10 days will normally be sufficient to forward a copy to the contracting officer. The other data contemplated by the clause are factual in nature, and it is reasonable for contractors to be prepared to provide them. Moreover, the clause requires that information be provided within 10 business days of a written request “or such longer time as the contracting officer determines.” Contracting officers have a duty to act in good faith in administering contracts. Thus, if unusual circumstances existed or if there was a need for information not listed in the clause and not immediately available, the contracting officer would be required to provide the contractor a reasonable period of time in which to respond to the request.
One commenter suggested that the rule be modified to expressly provide that completion of the EEO–1 form and compliance with applicable Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) rules are sufficient to establish compliance with the requirements of the clause. The Department declines to adopt this suggestion. With respect to the EEO–1 form, item (1) of the clause provides that one type of information the contracting officer may request is the total number of the contractor's employees and the number of women and minority employees by race, ethnicity, and gender. The EEO–1 form contains this information; there is no need for an explicit statement that providing the form will provide the information contemplated by this element of the clause. With respect to a contractor's plan to make good faith efforts, addressed by item (4) of the clause, the clause is drafted to provide the contractor wide discretion to determine what efforts should be made to remove barriers to the employment and of women and minorities. In most instances, a contractor that establishes an affirmative action program compliant with the OFCCP regulations will not need to take any additional steps to comply with the good faith requirement. However, expressly incorporating compliance with the OFCCP regulations as a standard for meeting the good faith effort requirement would place Treasury in the position of evaluating compliance with the OFCCP regulations, something it has neither the expertise nor the authority to do. Accordingly, the Department does not adopt the suggested change. To clarify the relationship between compliance with OFCCP regulations and the good faith requirement contained in the clause, however, the Department does add language to the clause to the effect that compliance with the clause neither satisfies contractors' obligations under Executive Order 11246, as amended, nor precludes OFCCP evaluations or enforcement actions undertaken pursuant to that Order.
One commenter suggested that the clause should be modified to expressly state that it applies only to contracts with the Department of the Treasury. As the commenter acknowledges, the prescription at 48 CFR 1022.7000 requires that the clause be inserted only in contracts in support of Treasury Departmental Offices. As with all FAR clauses, the clause will apply only to the contracts in which it is inserted. Language expressly providing that the clause does not form part of contracts in which it does not appear (and in which its insertion is not required by regulation) is unnecessary and would be potentially confusing.
Two commenters suggested that the proposed rule only require information from subcontractors to the extent that it is available. The Department declines to adopt this suggestion. Treasury cannot fulfill its statutory responsibilities without information concerning subcontractors. Moreover, the flow down provision of the clause establishes a required mechanism for ensuring that subcontractors are contractually bound to provide necessary information to the prime contractor.
One commenter suggested that the clause should not be limited to contracts above $150,000, and asserted that interpreting the statutory language to apply only to such contracts “could place treasury in noncompliance with the Dodd-Frank Act.” Section 342 does not define the term “contract.” While we are aware that the term is defined in some contexts to include any legally binding procurement instrument, we do not believe that Congress intended the good faith efforts requirement to apply regardless of contract dollar value. The burden imposed by the clause is proportionate to the size of the contractor's workforce, not to the value of the contract in which the clause is inserted. Thus, absent a contract value threshold, the clause could impose a burden that is large in relation to the contract price and make it difficult or impossible to retain contractors to perform smaller requirements. Requiring the clause only in contracts above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, currently $150,000 in the FAR, represents an appropriate balance between making the clause broadly applicable and not including it where doing so would create a disproportionate burden. Treasury has determined that it is appropriate to interpret the statutory language to apply only to contracts above that threshold.
One commenter suggested that there should be remedies for non-compliance with the clause other than termination for default. Because the clause will be a requirement of the contract in which it is included, standard contractual remedies will be available in the event of non-compliance. The specific remedies available will depend on the nature of the underlying contract, but may include such options as downward equitable adjustments, lowered or negative contractor performance ratings, discontinuance or curtailment of new task order awards, or non-exercise of options, withholding of progress payments, termination of contracts, and debarment from receiving future contracts. Termination for default remains the ultimate contractual sanction in the event of an uncured failure to comply with the requirements of the clause.
One commenter suggested that the definition of “minorities” in the clause should be expanded. The clause incorporates the definition set forth in section 342, from which Treasury declines to depart.
Two commenters noted that the term “fair inclusion” is not defined in the statute or proposed contract language. One commenter also noted that there appears to be no consequences “for not reporting or for poor numbers in a report.” Treasury has considered providing a more specific definition of good faith efforts, but determined that doing so would not be feasible. The actions that might be appropriate to
One commenter suggested that the clause should be revised so as to list examples of information a contractor could choose to submit in order to establish that it has engaged in good faith efforts. This suggestion is not adopted. Treasury has an obligation under section 342 to determine whether a contractor is in compliance with the applicable good faith efforts requirements. While the information necessary to demonstrate such compliance will vary significantly depending on a contractor's organization and its approach to the requirement, Treasury must have the ability to obtain the information it determines necessary under the circumstances. Permitting a contractor to unilaterally determine what information is necessary for Treasury's determination would not accomplish the purpose of the clause.
One commenter suggested that there should be a cutoff beyond the $150,000 threshold to limit the number of subcontractors to which the clause applies. The commenter asserts that there may be many tiers of subcontractors, “hundreds (and possibly thousands) of subcontracts” under a contract that exceed the threshold. We do not accept the suggestion. First, the commenter's concern as to the number of possibly affected subcontracts appears to be overstated. In Fiscal Year 2012, only two contracts supporting Treasury Departmental Offices exceeded $10 million. Given the relatively modest value of Departmental Offices contracts, few if any will involve “hundreds” of subcontracts. More importantly, we consider it appropriate that a firm accepting $150,000 in funds to perform a subcontract be subject to the good faith effort requirement, regardless of the tier of its subcontract. While this will result in prime contractors with larger contracts and more subcontractors bearing a larger compliance burden, such a burden will be roughly proportionate to the contract value.
One commenter suggested that the regulation should include provisions concerning the protection of sensitive data provided to the government. As with all other sensitive data received in contract administration, sensitive data provided under the clause is protected by the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. Proprietary information received from a contractor is protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. We do not see a need to promulgate special procedures for contract administration data provided under this specific clause. Further, Treasury lacks authority to issue a regulation that would restrict the availability of information under the FOIA.
One commenter asserted that the clause would expand OFCCP's jurisdiction. The regulation does no more than echo the provision of section 342 setting forth referral to OFCCP as one option in the event a contractor fails to comply with the good faith effort requirement. Any effect section 342 may have on OFCCP's jurisdiction is beyond the scope of Treasury's authority and this regulation.
One commenter asserted that the Department's Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis does not provide an adequate factual basis to support the certification in this proposal. Treasury believes that the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is fully supported. While application of the clause to small business subcontractors will extend its reach somewhat, the total number will remain small. Of those small businesses affected, most will already be subject to OFCCP requirements. Finally, the clause only applies to contracts above $150,000, ensuring that compliance costs will not be disproportionate to the contract value and will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule does not increase contract spending by the agency with diverse owned businesses. Increasing Departmental Offices' spend with specific businesses is beyond the scope of the rulemaking, which concerns only the requirement of section 342 that firms awarded contracts make good faith efforts to include minorities and women in their workforces.
A commenter supported the $150,000 threshold as applied to contracts with small businesses, but suggested that the clause should apply to all contracts with large firms, regardless of dollar value. To minimize the burden on all contractors, Treasury will apply this requirement to service contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, $150,000.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and thus no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
First, this rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities. While this rule will affect all contracts for services above the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000), it will not affect a substantial number of small entities because it will only apply to those entities that actually contract with Departmental Offices. In Fiscal Year 2011, DO contracted with 370 small businesses.
Additionally, the rule's economic impact is not expected to be significant. The rule satisfies the statutory requirement that contractors affirm a commitment to the fair inclusion of minorities and women in the workforce, but does so in a way that minimizes burden on contractors. The rule provides maximum flexibility for contractors in implementing the statutory requirement because it does not impose any specific requirements on contractor hiring. Further, most contractors are already subject to and have implemented other FAR requirements that will satisfy this rule's requirements. Essentially all contracts for services to which this requirement applies are subject to FAR Clause 52.222–26, Equal Opportunity, which requires, among other things, that contractors complete the EEO Form 1 containing workforce demographic data. Thus, contractors are already required to compile and retain much of the data
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The information collections contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 1505–0080. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), an agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Government procurement.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 48 CFR Chapter 10 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5452.
Insert the clause at 1052.222–70, Minority and Women Inclusion, in all solicitations and contracts in support of Departmental Offices for services that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
12 U.S.C. 5452(c)(2).
As prescribed in 1022.7000, insert the following clause:
“Contractor confirms its commitment to equal opportunity in employment and contracting. To implement this commitment, the Contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce. The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause in all subcontracts awarded under this Contract whose dollar value exceeds $150,000. Within ten business days of a written request from the contracting officer, or such longer time as the contracting officer determines, and without any additional consideration required from the Agency, the Contractor shall provide documentation, satisfactory to the Agency, of the actions it (and as applicable, its subcontractors) has undertaken to demonstrate its good faith effort to comply with the aforementioned provisions. For purposes of this contract, “good faith effort” may include actions by the contractor intended to identify and, if present, remove barriers to minority and women employment or expansion of employment opportunities for minorities and women within its workforce. Efforts to remove such barriers may include, but are not limited to, recruiting minorities and women, providing job-related training, or other activity that could lead to those results.
“The documentation requested by the contracting officer to demonstrate “good faith effort” may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
1. The total number of Contractor's employees, and the number of minority and women employees, by race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., an EEO–1);
2. A list of subcontract awards under the Contract that includes: dollar amount, date of award, and subcontractor's race, ethnicity, and/or gender ownership status;
3. Information similar to that required in item 1, above, with respect to each subcontractor; and/or
4. The Contractor's plan to ensure that minorities and women have appropriate opportunities to enter and advance within its workforce, including outreach efforts.
“Consistent with Section 342(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111–203) (Dodd-Frank Act), a failure to demonstrate to the Director of the Agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion such good faith efforts to include minorities and women in the Contractor's workforce (and as applicable, the workforce of its subcontractors), may result in termination of the Contract for default, other contractual remedies, or referral to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Compliance with this clause does not, however, necessarily satisfy the requirements of Executive Order 11246, as amended, nor does it preclude OFCCP compliance evaluations and/or enforcement actions undertaken pursuant to that Order.
“For purposes of this clause, the terms “minority,” “minority-owned business” and “women-owned business” shall have the meanings set forth in Section 342(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act.”
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible producers of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos produced in the production area.
The referendum will be conducted from April 7 through April 25, 2014. To vote in this referendum, producers must have produced oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, or tangelos within the designated production area in Florida for the fresh market during the period of August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the referendum agents at 799 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, FL 33884, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR Part 905), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by producers. The referendum shall be conducted from April 7 through April 25, 2014, among Florida fresh citrus producers in the production area. Only fresh citrus producers that were engaged in the production of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, or tangelos grown in the production area, during the period of August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013, may participate in the continuance referendum.
USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether producers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. USDA would consider termination of the order if less than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum and less than two-thirds of the volume of Florida fresh citrus represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to producers, handlers, and consumers in determining whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the ballot materials to be used in the referendum have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 750 producers of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after April 25, 2014, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Corey E. Elliott and Christian D. Nissen of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400–900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all producers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents, or from their appointees.
Grapefruit, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tangerines, and Tangelos.
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
The last date for submitting comments to the NPRM (79 FR 7098, February 6, 2014) remains March 24, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149.
On January 29, 2014, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 7098, February 6, 2014) for certain Airbus Model A330–200 and –300 series airplanes, and Model A340–200 and –300 series airplanes. The NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–007–AD, currently proposes to require repetitive draining of any fluid from the retraction actuator piston rod internal volume and sealing of the vent hole; repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the upper end of the piston rods, and corrective actions if necessary; a one-time ultrasonic inspection (longitudinal and circumferential) of the full-length of the piston rod, and corrective actions if necessary; and a terminating modification of the left-hand and right-hand main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuators.
As published, the NPRM (79 FR 7098, February 6, 2014) specifies an incorrect docket number throughout the preamble and regulatory text. We have been informed that a duplicate docket number was inadvertently assigned to us for the NPRM. The correct docket number is FAA–2014–0132.
Commenters who submitted comments to the original (incorrect) docket number should check Docket No. FAA–2014–0012 and Docket No. FAA–2014–0132 on
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the NPRM (79 FR 7098, February 6, 2014) is being published in the
The last date for submitting comments to the NPRM (79 FR 7098, February 6, 2014) remains March 24, 2014.
In the
On page 7098, in the first column, on line four of the headings section, correct “Docket No. FAA–2014–0012” to read “Docket No. FAA–2014–0132.”
On page 7098, in the second column, on line four under “Examining the AD Docket,” correct “Docket No. FAA–2014–0012” to read “Docket No. FAA–2014–0132.”
On page 7098, in the third column, on line five under “
On page 7099, in the second column, on line fifteen, correct “Docket No. FAA–2014–0012” to read “Docket No. FAA–2014–0132.”
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011–0178R1, dated March 6, 2012 (corrected March 7, 2012); and 2011–0179R1, dated March 6, 2012; for related information. These MCAIs may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). 44 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)(A). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Wage and Hour Division is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collection: Housing Occupancy Certificate—Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235–0006, by either one of the following methods:
Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693–0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is withdrawing VA's proposed rule, published in the
The proposed rule published on October 23, 2013, 78 FR 63143, is withdrawn as of March 20, 2014.
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461–1599. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a proposed rule published in the
Because no comments were received within the comment period, VA is
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 11, 2014, for publication.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces that the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection “Laboratory Approval Programs”.
Comments received by May 19, 2014 will be considered.
To ensure that a laboratory is capable of accurately performing the specified analyses, it must adhere to certain good laboratory practices and show technical proficiency in the required areas. Checklists and forms have been developed that ask the laboratory for information concerning procedures, the physical facility, employees, and their training. The laboratory must also provide Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the analyses and quality assurance. Most of the laboratory programs will include an on-site laboratory review. AMS will not approve a laboratory unless there is assurance that the laboratory is capable of performing accurate analyses.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to examine laboratories for entrance into the following programs:
(1) Analyst and Laboratory Certification Program for the Detection of Trichinae in Pork (An export program requested by Food Safety and Inspection Service).
(2) Laboratory approval program for Poultry and Pork Exported from the United States to Russia (An export program requested by Food Safety and Inspection Service).
This program contains the possibility of performing 12 different analyses in support of the exportation of poultry and pork to Russia. Laboratories choose how many and which analyses for which they wish to be approved. Each of microbiological/chemical analyses has its own methodology and time necessary to perform the analyses.
(3) Beta Agonists Program (An export program requested by Food Safety and Inspection Service). This is a new program, which has been added to the laboratory approval programs, since the last submission.
This program permits qualified laboratories to analyze meat and meat products to confirm that Beta Agonists drug residues are not present in product samples.
(4) Aflatoxin in Pistachios Program (A High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) method for exporting pistachios to European Union (developed for the California Pistachio Committee) and the domestic program using HPLC or a test kit analysis method (7 CFR part 983); Aflatoxin in Peanuts Program (7 CFR part 996); and Aflatoxin in Almonds Program (developed for the Almond Board of California).
These programs are single analyte, single substrate programs, but the domestic pistachio, peanut, and almond programs have the option of using two different methods. The export pistachio program and export almond program must use the specified method.
(5) Any additional programs which may be requested in the future to facilitate the marketing of U.S. agricultural products.
All laboratory approval programs will follow the same general pattern. There would be a letter of intent, a form for identification of the analyses they intend to perform, an on-site laboratory review, analysis of known samples, and analysis of proficiency samples. The length of time required would depend on the complexity of the analysis, and the time necessary to perform the analysis.
The burden hours incurred for these laboratories to submit the initial letter requesting entrance, completion of a general laboratory checklist, and correctly analyzing the test samples is a one-time occurrence. Once a laboratory is accepted, the burden will decrease and is then based on the various laboratories analyzing test samples throughout the year to maintain its program status.
Form ST–212 (Alternate Payment Form) is an option for applicant/approved laboratories to pay for the services. Interested parties can obtain a copy of the form (ST–212) by calling or writing to the point of contact listed above. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to examine laboratories for entrance into the programs.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jane Ho, Laboratory Approval and Testing Division, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0272, Washington, DC 20250–0272; Phone 202–690–0621, Fax 202–720–4631. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new collection under the Farmers' Market and Local Food Promotion Program. The Farmers' Market and Local Food Promotion Program, includes two AMS competitive grant programs: Farmers' Market Promotion Program (FMPP) and Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP). This new collection establishes forms and documentation under the Local Food Promotion Program.
Comments received by May 19, 2014 will be considered.
Contact James Barham, Marketing Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 4509-South Building, Washington, DC 20250; 202/720–8317, or fax 202/690–0031.
Comments should AMS–TM–14–0029, TM–14–02 and be sent to James Barham at the above address or via the Internet at
The 2014 Farm Bill makes seven (7) additional changes under the “Farmers' Market and Local Food Promotion Program”:
1. There is a new emphasis on the development and expansion of local and regional food business enterprises (not including farmer-to-consumer direct marketing entities). Under the 2008 Farm Bill, authority was only provided to support farmer-to-consumer direct marketing activities. The 2014 Farm Bill establishes a more holistic approach for strengthening the local and regional food distribution system and essentially establishes two separate functions under this grant program: Fund direct marketing projects through FMPP grants, and fund local and regional food business enterprise projects through LFPP grants.
2. The purposes of the program are expanded by including such activities as “. . . providing outreach, training, and technical assistance to, or assisting in the development, improvement and expansion of” . . . “local and regional food business enterprises . . . that process, distribute, aggregate, or store locally or regionally produced food products.”
3. The eligibility of applicants is expanded. New language expands an agricultural cooperative to “an agricultural cooperative or other agriculture business entity (including a community supported agriculture network or association).”
4. A 25 percent “cash or in kind” match has been introduced for projects that will be submitted under the local and regional food business enterprise component of the Program. No match is required under FMPP grant program.
5. New priorities for annual awards have been established. Priority is to be given to “projects that benefit underserved communities, including communities that (1) are located in areas of concentrated poverty with limited access to fresh locally or regionally grown foods; and (2) have not received benefits from the Program in the recent past.”
6. The requirement to provide not less than 10 percent of the funds used to carry out projects that support the use of electronic benefits transfers for Federal nutrition programs at farmers' markets has been eliminated.
7. There is a new funding level of $30 million per fiscal year (2014 through 2018), or approximately $15 million per year (includes administrative costs) for each of the FMPP and LFPP grant programs.
The grants authorized under the LFPP are purposed to increase domestic consumption of agricultural products and to develop market opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets, by developing, improving, expanding, and providing outreach, training, and technical assistance to, or assisting in the development, improvement and expansion of local and regional food business enterprises (including those that are not direct producer-to-consumer markets) that process, distribute, aggregate, and store locally or regionally produced food products.
Two types of applications will be accepted under LFPP. The first type of application will be for planning grants and the second type of application will be for implementation grants. Applicants can apply for either but will receive one grant in the same grant cycle.
The following are LFPP forms and information required during the LFPP application submission, application review, and post-award processes:
1. “Registration with the System for Awards Management (SAM)”—mandatory for applicants and reviewers.
2. “LFPP Announcement and Guidelines”—mandatory for applicants.
3. Form SF–424, “Application for Federal Assistance”—mandatory for applicants.
4. Form SF–424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs,”—mandatory for applicants.
5. “LFPP Grant Narrative”—mandatory for applicants.
6. “LFPP Project Budget and Match Request”—mandatory for applicants.
7. “Written Proof of Eligibility”—mandatory for applicants.
8. “LFPP Verification Letter(s) of Matching Funds”—mandatory for applicants.
9. “LFPP Grant Reviewer Qualifications”—mandatory for reviewers.
10. Form “AMS–34, AMS Conflict-Of-Interest and Confidentiality Statement For Grant Reviewers”—mandatory for reviewers.
11. “LFPP Grant Program, General Terms and Conditions”—mandatory for awardees.
12. Grant Agreement—Form AMS–33, “United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Agreement Face Sheet”—mandatory for awardees.
13. Form SF–270, “Request for Advance and Reimbursement”—mandatory for awardees.
14. “LFPP Interim Performance Reports”—mandatory for awardees.
15. “LFPP Final Performance Report”—mandatory for awardees.
16. Form SF–425, “Federal Financial Report” and “Final Federal Financial Report”—mandatory for awardees.
17. “Grant Recordkeeping”—mandatory for awardees.
1. “
All eligible entities applying for assistance awards from the Federal government via Grants.gov, and (application) reviewers receiving a stipend under LFPP, are required to register with SAM.gov in order to be awarded or receive funds by the Federal government.
The type of information requested by SAM.gov includes, but is not limited to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Registrants are required to complete the annual SAM.gov registration to provide information relevant to procurement and financial transactions. SAM.gov shares the data received from registrants with the Federal government. AMS uses this information in establishing its electronic (direct deposit) payment system. Note that the SAM.gov registration does not guarantee business with the AMS/LFPP or any other Federal government agency.
2. “
3.
4.
5.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Given that this program will be established for the first time, AMS may review and revise the form annually.
6.
a. List each under the following categories: Personnel, Contractors, Travel, Equipment ($5,000 or more per unit), Supplies (includes equipment less than $5,000), Other, and Indirect Costs.
b. Be itemized, listing separately each item, its costs, and use.
c. Correlate to the purpose/goals of the project and demonstrate that the budget is reasonable and adequate for the proposed work.
d. Be substantiated in a written budget justification.
AMS may review and revise the form annually. For complete information on how to complete the LFPP budget spreadsheet, refer to the LFPP Announcement and Program Guidelines by visiting
7. “
8. “
AMS requests potential grant reviewers to read and complete the following form:
9. “
The form contains a checklist for potential reviewers to identify their employment and voluntary work experience. Boxes are provided for potential reviewers to indicate (a) their area of experience or expertise and (b) whether the person is a current or retired nonprofit, for-profit, or Federal/State government employee. The form is not signed, but submitted via email along with a copy of their resume.
AMS will review and may revise the form annually. AMS may also request additional information or clarification from potential reviewers. The reviewer qualifications are used to determine whether a reviewer is qualified to serve as part of the grant review process.
AMS also requires anyone serving as a grant reviewer to comply with and sign the following:
10. “
Peer reviewers will not be eligible to serve as a reviewer if they are (a) employed by, volunteer for, or serve as a board member or other type of committee/team member for an organization that submitted an application that same year under LFPP; or (b) a proposed subcontractor or financial beneficiary in a budget from any organization submitting an application that same year under LFPP.
Before grant funds are dispersed, applicants that are selected (awardees) must comply with the terms and conditions of the grant and sign the grant agreement. The terms and conditions are provided under form:
11. “
The LFPP Grant Program General Terms and Conditions may be updated annually to reflect mandatory additions and other changes made by regulatory or Office of Management and Budget grant requirements. This document, which is currently being developed, does not require a signature. As such, this information collection includes a similar document, “FMPP General Terms and Conditions,” to serve as an example.
12.
The grant agreement face sheet includes a document which outlines the award terms and conditions. By signing the agreement face sheet, applicants agree to adhere to the term and conditions of the grant award.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes funding for grants under LFPP, allocating mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, with $15 million for each year from 2014 through 2018.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether this information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of this collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received by AMS will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, at the same address; and can be viewed via the Internet at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The Ashley Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Vernal, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the meetings is to review and recommend projects for 2014 Title II funds.
The meetings will be from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the following dates:
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.
The meeting will be held at the Ashley National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 355 North Vernal Avenue, Vernal, Utah.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Ashley National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Louis Haynes, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 435–781–5105, or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or procedings by contacting the person listed above.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (RE&EEAC) will meet on April 8, 2014 to further the development of recommendations related to the financing renewable energy and energy efficiency exports. Each of the Committee's four subcommittees will discuss its progress today, with specific attention given to U.S. Government financing, the development of new financial products, and international or multilateral financing.
April 8, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the headquarters of the Solar Energy Industries Association located at 505 9th Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
Ryan Mulholland, Office of Energy and Environmental Technologies Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482–4693; email:
Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the RE&EEAC pursuant to his discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) on June 19, 2012. The RE&EEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. RE&EE industries. The RE&EEAC held its first meeting on February 20, 2013 and several subsequent meetings throughout 2013. The Committee's charter expires June 18, 2014.
The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Ryan Mulholland at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, April 4, in order to pre-register their attendance. Please specify any request for reasonable accommodation by Friday, April 4. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the RE&EEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to
To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, April 4, 2014, to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members, but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of RE&EEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) is organizing a Trade Mission to Panama
Panama has historically served as the crossroads of trade for the Americas. Its strategic location as a bridge between two oceans and the meeting of two continents has made Panama not only a maritime and air transport hub, but also an international trading, banking, and services center. Panama's global and regional prominence is being enhanced by recent trade liberalization and privatization, and it is participating actively in the hemispheric movement toward free trade agreements. Panama's dollar-based economy offers low inflation in comparison with neighboring countries and zero foreign exchange risk. Its government is stable and democratic and actively seeks foreign investment in all sectors, especially services, tourism and retirement properties. Panama and the U.S. recently implemented a Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) that has had the effect of eliminating some 90% of tariffs and duties on U.S. exports to Panama. But even before the implementation of the TPA, the U.S. was Panama's most important trading partner, with about 30% of the import market, and U.S. products have enjoyed a high degree of acceptance in Panama. In 2013, U.S. exports to Panama increased 10% to $10.8 billion—in no small part due to the fact that Panama's economy grew 7.5%. U.S. exports to Panama have increased every year since 2009, growing by more than two and half times over that period. However, international competition for sales is strong across sectors including telecommunications equipment, automobiles, heavy construction equipment, consumer electronics, computers, apparel, gifts, and novelty products.
Panama now enjoys investment grade rating status, granting the Government of Panama international recognition for recent tax reforms and its record of steady GDP growth while keeping its deficits under control (even in 2009, a dismal year for the world economy, Panama's economy grew 2.9% and the Government of Panama's deficit was only 1% of GDP). Not only does the investment-grade rating lower the cost of borrowing for the Government of Panama, but it sends a strong market signal that Panama, even while carrying a debt ratio that is relatively high, is one of only five Latin American countries to achieve this distinction.
Panama's economy is based primarily on a well-developed services sector, accounting for about 75% of GDP. Services include the Panama Canal, banking, the Colon Free Zone, insurance, container ports, and flagship registry. Panama is currently engaged in the Panama Canal expansion project. This project, in conjunction with the expansion of the capacities of its ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, will solidify Panama's global logistical advantage in the Western Hemisphere.
This logistical platform has aided the success of the Colon Free Zone (CFZ), the second largest in the world after Hong Kong, which has become a vital trading and transshipment center serving the region and the world. CFZ imports—a broad array of luxury goods, electronic products, clothing, and other consumer products—arrive from all over the world to be resold, repackaged, and reshipped, primarily to regional markets. Because of this product mix, U.S. brand market share is significant, even if most of those products are made in Asia.
The outlook for the Panamanian safety and security market is positive, with total market size in 2013 estimated to grow to $74 million. Local production of safety and security equipment is minimal and there is a marked preference for U.S. products due to their reliability, innovation, and diversity, as well as the close geographic proximity and favorable conditions for air and sea freight from the United States. The demand for safety and security products and systems is driven by ever-increasing concerns over personal safety, more stringent work-related regulations and growth in the tourism, construction, real estate, banking, gambling, maritime, and duty free zone. While the crime rate is still relatively low, particularly by Latin American standards, it has risen in the last few years and there is increasing public awareness of the need to respond.
Commercial institutions and households are usual targets for armed assaults. There is also an increasing need for security equipment in residential areas and public places. Because of raising labor costs, many businesses and households are automating security. Additionally, the boom in the construction sector and the expansion of the Panama Canal is generating strong demand for safety equipment. Port expansion, new airports, new mall development, the Metro transportation system, and the Panama Canal expansion will provide excellent opportunities for U.S. safety and security equipment exporters.
The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), which entered into force on May 15, 2012, creates market opportunities for U.S. firms in a number of sectors. The U.S.-Colombia TPA provides duty-free entry for over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports to Colombia, with remaining tariffs to be phased out over the next 10 years and provides greater protection for intellectual property rights (IPR). Colombia's traditional acceptance of U.S. brands as well as U.S. and international standards provide a solid foundation for U.S. firms seeking to do business there.
Colombia is the third largest market in Latin America, after Mexico and Brazil, and is ranked 22nd globally as a market for U.S. exports. Over the past 10 years, Colombia has become one of the most stable economies in the region. Improved security, sound government policies, steady economic growth, moderate inflation and a wide range of opportunities make it worthwhile for U.S. exporters to consider Colombia as an export destination. With more than 45 million people, an improved security environment, an abundance of natural resources, and an educated and growing middle-class, business opportunities are booming in Colombia. The country's last two governments implemented policies that took Colombia on the path to global competitiveness, opening it up to global
By 2011, Colombia's total international trade surpassed US$111 billion; exports reached US$56 billion while imports reached a historic US$55 billion. After implementing free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States and with Canada, Colombia continues to move aggressively in opening up to trade, seeking to quickly implement FTAs negotiated with the European Union and South Korea, as well as moving ahead in negotiations with countries such as Japan, Turkey, Costa Rica, and Israel.
The safety and security market in Colombia is a very dynamic sector, growing at an estimated rate of 5 to 10% per year. In addition, Colombian defense spending increased from US$14.7 billion in 2012 to US$15.1 billion in 2013, providing opportunities for U.S. defense technologies, equipment, and services that overlap into the safety and security sector. Market opportunities exist for safety and security industry products such as CCTV cameras, telephones for security, reproduction and record devices for security, data processing equipment, radio transmission, biometric equipment, and communication jammers, among others. Opportunities exist in the security and defense sector for trucks and light armored vehicles (LAV–4x4 and 8x8), engines and turbines military apparel and footwear, fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft helmets, anti-IEDs (improvised explosive devices), IED and mine detectors, body armor and personal body armor equipment, handheld navigation systems, Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV), GPS, modern communication systems (MCS), IT-structure platforms, logistics software solutions and software applications, flight simulators, air cruise control, flat bottom aluminum river boats, and marine and coastal surveillance systems and equipment. In regards to services, there is a significant need for security assistance, maintenance and assistance to the Army, Police, and Air Force. Helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft maintenance and repair services are especially in need—in 2014 Colombia's fleet of Sikorsky AH 60L will most likely be undergoing overhauls. The Colombian military has potential in the fields of specialized training for all new communications systems, medical training, and environmental training for hazardous material (HAZMAT) management, transport, process and dispose of HAZMAT, expertise in demolition, technical support for reconnaissance and analysis, and security operations.
Colombia's internal and external defense and security structure includes the Army, Navy (Marines and Coast Guard), Air Force, and the National Police. Real military spending increased from US$ 14.7 billion in 2012 to US$ 15.1 billion in 2013
Through the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) provides equipment and training to the Colombian military and police through military assistance programming. The Department of State (DOS), military sales, and the international narcotics control program are other sources of funding. The Office of Aviation and Narcotics Affairs has been the main source of funding for equipment acquisition in Colombia since 1990, through private military consulting firms such as DynCorp. These firms operate through an open market competitive bidding system. However, U.S. funding is expected to significantly decrease at a rate of 10% over the next five years, from US$ 157 million in 2011 to US$ 133 million in 2012.
In 2002, the Colombian government created a Wealth Tax to collect US$ 800 million from large companies or wealthy individuals, 70% of which was used to increase 2002–2003 defense spending. A similar tax in 2007–2011 was collected close to USD 3.7 billion, of which a significant portion was founded defense spending. The Colombian Army receives 60% of funding, followed by the Air Force with 25% and the Police with 10%.
The U.S. has had a privileged relationship with Colombia in regards to military equipment acquisitions; however, new competitors from England, France, South Korea, and Spain have gained some notoriety. The Colombian military tends to use standardized equipment and values relationship, trust, and familiarity with equipment (as exemplified by their consistent use of the same type of rifles), however, foreign manufacturers are gaining market share. According to the unofficial estimates, U.S. imports
Military and security equipment trends have remained the same post-Plan Colombia, since the government continues to support drugs interdiction and eradication efforts. Due to the significant improvement of national security, the Colombian Air Force has been more involved with military and civilian rescue operations. The Air Force created in 2010 a new rescue unit and continues to purchase rescue equipment and life support systems. The National Police is expanding its activity on civilian and urban surveillance, adapting its force and upgrading its equipment to this environment. Recent navy purchases have shown the government's interest to increase the guarding of the Caribbean coast, especially around the San Andres and Providencia Isles, which are under watch, due to Nicaragua's intent of claiming more Caribbean territory from Colombia. There has also been the intent from the Minister of Defense Juan Carlos Pinzon to purchase close to 20 fighter jets, some of the possible candidates may include the F–16 and Boeings F–18 Hornet however, and this intent has been put on hold until further notice in 2014.
In 1990, the U.S. Office of Aviation and Narcotics Affairs provided 18 UH–1N helicopters, buying 36 more over the years. In 2010, the Colombian military had 280 helicopters and 200 fixed-wing aircraft with no major new purchases projected until 2015 with the exception of some possible interest to purchase helicopters with higher capacity to transport troops and equipment. Due to recent aircraft acquisition, there are significant opportunities for training, parts and maintenance for these aircraft, especially for Blackhawk rotor blades repair services and erosion-resistant coating systems. Other opportunities include: Parameter security protection systems (convoy security, security walls and fences, and video surveillance systems), safety, survival accessories, search & rescue equipment, protective clothing, emergency medical equipment, trauma-life support systems.
The security forces number about 435,000 uniformed personnel: 285,000 in the military and 150,000 in the police. From 2012 to 2015, key needs will be armament and personal arms (up to USD 1 million a year), night vision goggles (up to USD 1 million a year), anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) (up USD1 million a year), survival equipment and kits (up to USD 400.000 a year), flight suits, footwear (up to US$ 200.000 a year), personal arms (M4 rifles, M9 pistols), grenades, binoculars, and medical equipment. The Colombian army is looking into upgrading its equipment and uniforms, with engineered textile solutions, smart textiles materials, as well as integrated communication aircraft helmets.
On May 15, 2012 the FTA agreement between the U.S and Colombia entered into effect finishing the implementation phase. 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia are duty-free immediately upon entry into force, with remaining tariffs phased out over ten years. Other provisions include strong protection for U.S. investors (legal stability), expanded access to service markets, greater intellectual property rights protection, market access for remanufactured goods, increased transparency and improved dispute settlement mechanisms (arbitration). The majority of Defense and Military equipment have zero tariffs since the FTA has been implemented. Prior to the agreement the tariff ranged between 5% and 20%. The U.S.-Colombia TPA also reduced tariffs for a wide variety of products and services in the safety and security industries.
The goal of the trade mission to Panama and Colombia is to help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business/sector strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Panama and Colombia. Participants will have access to the US&FCS Senior Commercial Officers in Panama City and Bogotá and to US&FCS Commercial Specialists during the mission. They will learn about the many business opportunities in Panama and Colombia, and gain first-hand market exposure. Participants already doing business in Panama or Colombia will have opportunities to further advance business relationships and projects in that market. U.S. companies new to either country will gain support in finding agents, distributors, and joint venture partners through this mission, laying the foundation for successful long-term ventures by providing business-to-business introductions and market access information.
The mission will stop in Panama City, Panama and Bogotá, Colombia. In each city, participants will meet with pre-screened potential agents, distributors, and representatives, as well as other business partners and government officials. They will also attend market briefings by U.S. Embassy officials and networking events offering further opportunities to speak with local business and industry decision-makers. In addition, there may be an optional spin-off offered for an additional fee for port security companies to visit and tour the port of Cartagena, Colombia at the end of the mission on Friday, September 26th. Companies interested in this option should contact April Redmon at
All parties interested in participating in the Safety and Security Trade Mission to Panama and Colombia must complete and submit an application for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 U.S. companies and/or trade associations and maximum of 17 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies or trade associations already doing business with Panama and Colombia, as well as U.S. companies or trade associations seeking to enter these countries for the first time may apply.
After a company and/or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
The participation fee will be US$3,600 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
The fee for each additional representative is US$450.
Expenses for travel to and from the mission, lodging, most meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
Selection will be based on the following criteria, listed in decreasing order of importance:
• Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services for the Panamanian and Colombian markets
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in Panama and Colombia, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the trade mission
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than Friday, June 20, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of seventeen participants is reached. We will inform all applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after applications are reviewed. Applications received after the June 20th deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Applications can be downloaded from the trade mission Web site or can be obtained by contacting April Redmon at the U.S. Department of Commerce (see contact details below.) Completed applications should be submitted to April Redmon.
Ms. April Redmon, International Trade Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service-Virginia/Washington, DC, 2800 S. Randolph St., Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22206, Tel: 703–756–1704, Email:
Enrique Tellez, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service Panama City, Tel: 011–507–317–5080, Email:
Camilo Gonzalez, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service Bogota, Tel: 011–571–275–2764, Email:
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Industry and Analysis is amending its notice for the
Frank Spector, Office of Industry and Analysis, Trade Promotion Programs, Phone: 202–482–2054; Fax: 202–482–9000, Email:
On March 3, 2014, the International Trade Administration published a notice in the
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, in partnership with the Minority Business Development Agency is organizing two-prong virtual and traditional trade mission to Canada that will include the Aboriginal Entrepreneurs Conference and Trade Show 2014 in the Northern Canadian Region. The Virtual Trade Mission (VTM) will include country and market/sector briefings and one-on-one virtual business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint-venture partners from throughout Canada, including those not attending the Conference and Trade Show.
Traditional trade mission members physically in Canada will participate in the Aboriginal Entrepreneurs Conference and Trade Show 2014 (that is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the traditional trade mission). Similar to the VTM, this will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint-venture partners, and networking event. Trade mission participants electing to participate in Aboriginal Entrepreneurs Conference and Trade Show 2014 may attend regional and industry-specific sessions and consultations. The cost of participating in the Conference and Trade Show is not included in the USCS package cost.
This mission is open to U.S. companies and trade associations from a cross section of industries with potential to provided needed and appropriate services in the more remote regions of Canada. These sectors include: Energy (both new and renewable), environmental technologies and services, remote healthcare related technology and services, distance education, and infrastructure (including architecture/engineering, master planning, and construction management).
The benefits of a Virtual Trade Mission (VTM):
• High-value virtual web meeting between American sellers and Canadian buyers in real time;
• Virtual delegates do not have to leave their own home or office to benefit from the VTM; reducing the cost of travel and time required by our traditional trade mission;
• VTMs have the capability to utilize technology above and beyond a simple audio; conference call. By adding web cameras and visual content in the form of presentations; you engage participants in an active setting and worthwhile experience;
• One-on-one private virtual meeting (break-out sessions) to allow for more individualized and catered discussions between potential prospects; and
The U.S. and Canada enjoy the world's largest and most comprehensive trading relationship, which supports millions of jobs in each country. Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, trade between the United States and Canada has more than doubled.
In 2012, U.S.-Canada two-way trade in goods and services totaled more than $715 billion; over $1.9 billion in goods and services daily. Also in 2012, U.S. and Canadian bilateral investment stock totaled $612 billion. In addition, U.S. exports to Canada surpassed $355 billion—that's 16 percent of total U.S. exports. Canada is the number one export market for 38 U.S. states.
Northern Canada is comprised of three territories; Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon. For hundreds of years, these territories, for the most part, have been left undeveloped. However, within the last 5 years, Northern Canada has started to boom with the rest of the country.
On January 8, 2014, Prime Minster Stephen Harper broke ground on the construction of a highway that will provide the first year-round land link between the Arctic Ocean coast and the rest of Canada. This is a long-promised plank in Mr. Harper's northern strategy to assert Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. This road is not only symbolic of Canada's claims to the north, but is the beginning of expanding economic activity that is set to take place across Canada's north.
In fact, billions of dollars' worth of projects are already in the pre-planning, planning and implementation phases, covering a full gambit of business sectors, including; mining (iron ore, uranium, `heavy' rare earth elements, diamonds, etc.), infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, buildings), water and sewer, and energy. This booming area of Canada is ripe with opportunities for U.S. companies.
Best market prospects for U.S. companies in Canada's North include: Energy (both new and renewable), environmental technologies and services, remote healthcare related technology and services, and infrastructure (including architecture/engineering, master planning, and construction management).
Canada remains among the most accessible markets in the world. Nevertheless, doing business in Canada is not the same as doing business in the United States. Canadian customs documentation, bilingual labeling, packaging requirements, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and Canadian federal and provincial sales tax accounting can be surprisingly challenging. In the North, there are other things to consider, including aboriginal set-asides for public sector projects as well as preference for doing business with local businesses with private sector. U.S. companies can do well in this market providing they are aware of these circumstances.
For all public sector projects, procurement for Aboriginal communities takes place at the federal level, with individual companies bidding on available contracts through Public Works and Government Services Canada. The federal government has established programs to promote Aboriginal economic development and a Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business (PSAB). Through this program:
• In 2009, more than 5000 contracts were awarded to Aboriginal-owned businesses.
• The 5,000 contracts amounted to over $450M in government money
• Procurement from Aboriginal business made up 2% of total contract despite representing only 4% of the population.
Joint ventures that are majority owned by an Aboriginal business are also encouraged when bidding for federal contracts.
Private sector businesses do not have to abide by any procurement regulations. However, due to the importance investing in the local community, there are preferences to doing business with companies who put back into the community or partner with other local businesses.
The goal of the Canada Far North virtual and traditional trade missions is to help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports in largely underrepresented regions in Canada. The delegation will have access to CS Senior Commercial Officers and Commercial Specialists during the VTM and the traditional trade mission, and learn about the many business opportunities and gain first-hand market exposure. U.S. trade mission participants already doing business in Canada will have opportunities to further advance business relationships and projects in those markets.
All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. The mission is designed for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. Companies not able to the attend our traditional trade mission but are interested in these specified target markets as U.S. companies seeking to enter these markets for the first time are encouraged to apply.
All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. The mission is designed for a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10 to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies already doing business in the target markets as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter these markets for the first time are encouraged to apply.
After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
For the virtual trade mission
• The participation fee will be $500 for SMEs and $750 for large companies.
• The provisions for each firm's required technology to participate in the virtual mission (computer, webcam and internet, and telephone) will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
For traditional trade mission
• The participation fee will be $1000 for SMEs and $1400 for large companies.
• Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals (e.g., local transportation) will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicant should specify in their application and supplemental materials whether they are applying for the virtual trade mission or the traditional trade mission. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the U.S., or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.
Selection Criteria for Participation: Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services to Canada.
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in Canada.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for both the virtual trade mission and the traditional trade mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than August 15, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning April 2014, until the minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10 to participate are selected for the traditional trade mission and a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 to participate are selected for the virtual trade mission. After August 15, 2014, companies will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Contact Information: Tracey Ford, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service Ottawa, Canada, 613–688–5406,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Administrative Policy, Budget/Personnel, Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem, Mackerel, Reef Fish, Joint Shrimp/Artificial Reef/Habitat Protection, Shrimp, Red Drum and Data Collection Management Committees; and a meeting of the Full Council.
The Council meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April 7 until 3:45 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2014.
Mr. Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630; fax: (813) 348–1711; email:
The items of discussion for each individual management committee agenda are as follows:
11:15 a.m.–11:30 a.m.: Call to Order and Introductions, Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes.
11:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: The Council will receive committee reports from the Budget/Personnel and Administrative Management Committees.
1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m.: The Council will receive public testimony on Final Action—Joint
4:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m.: The Council will review and vote on Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP), if any.
4:45 p.m.–5:15 p.m.: The Council will receive committee reports from the
8:30 a.m.–3:15 p.m.: The Council will continue to receive committee reports from the
3:15 p.m.–3:45 p.m.: The Council will review Other Business items: Discussion on the RESTORE Act.
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 sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings, April 7–14, 2014.
The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday April 9, continuing through Monday April 14, 2014. The Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday April 7 and continue through Wednesday April 9, 2014. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. on Tuesday April 8 and continue through Friday April 11, 2014. The Ecosystem Committee will meet Tuesday April 8, at 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions.
The meetings will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK.
David Witherell, Council staff, telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066, July 19,
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
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 these meetings. 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission, LLC (DWBIT) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to construction of the Block Island Transmission System. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to DWBIT to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 21, 2014.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
NMFS is also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The EA will be posted at the Web site listed above once it is finalized.
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On March 11, 2013, NMFS received an application from DWBIT for the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction of the Block Island Transmission System. The application went through a series of revisions and the final version was submitted on November 26, 2013. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on December 2, 2013.
DWBIT proposes to develop the Block Island Transmission System (BITS), a bi-directional submarine transmission cable, over a 1-year period. The proposed activity could begin in late 2014 and last through late 2015; however, portions of the project would only occur for short, sporadic periods of
DWBIT proposes to construct a bi-directional submarine transmission cable that will run from Block Island to the Rhode Island mainland. Construction of the marine portion of the BITS will involve three activities: Cable landfall construction on Block Island using a short-distance horizontal directional drill (HDD) from a temporary excavated trench box on Crescent Beach; cable landfall construction on Scarborough State Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island using a long-distance HDD from a temporary offshore cofferdam; and installation of the submarine BITS cable. Cable landfall construction may require the installation and removal of a temporary offshore cofferdam, which would involve vibratory pile driving. The generation of underwater noise from vibratory pile driving and the DP vessel thruster may result in the incidental take of marine mammals.
The BITS will interconnect Block Island to the existing Narragansett Electric Company National Grid distribution system on the Rhode Island mainland. In connection with the BITS, Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC (a different applicant) proposes to develop the Block Island Wind Farm, a 30-megawatt offshore wind farm. Incidental take of marine mammals resulting from construction of the Block Island Wind Farm project will be assessed separately.
Construction activities could begin in late 2014 and are scheduled to be complete by August 2015. The anticipated project work windows are provided in Table 1.
NMFS is proposing to issue an authorization effective December 2014 through December 2015, based on the anticipated work windows for in-water construction that could result in the incidental take of marine mammals. While project activities may occur for 1 year, in-water vibratory pile driving is only expected to occur for up to of 4 days (2 days each for construction of the cofferdam and 2 days each for removal of the cofferdam). Use of the DP vessel thruster during cable installation activities is expected to occur for 4 to 6 weeks (42 days maximum). Vibratory pile driving would occur during daylight hours only, starting approximately 30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes prior to dusk. Cable installation (and subsequent use of the DP vessel thruster) would be conducted 24 hours per day.
The BITS cable would originate from a manhole on Block Island and traverse federal and state submerged lands in Rhode Island Sound from Block Island to Narragansett for a total distance of 19.8 miles with water depths reaching up to 39 meters (m). Figure 1.2–1 of DWBIT's application shows the project location in detail (see
The following sections provide additional details associated with each portion of the BITS marine construction activities.
On Block Island, DWBIT plans to bring the BITS cable ashore via a short-distance HDD. DWBIT would use the short-distance HDD to install either a steel or high density polyethylene conduit for the cable from the parking lot under Crescent Beach to a temporary excavated trench beginning at about mean high water. The excavated trench on Crescent Beach would be approximately 2 to 3 m wide, 4 m deep, and 11 m long. Spoils from the trench excavation would be stored on the respective beach and returned to the trench after cable installation. To support the short-distance HDD on Crescent Beach, DWBIT would install steel sheet piling to stabilize the excavated trench, possibly using a vibratory pile driver. The HDD would enter through the shore side of the excavated trench and the cable conduit would be installed between the trench and the manhole. The BITS cable would then be pulled from the excavated trench into the respective manhole through the newly installed conduit. Sheet piling installations would occur at low tide.
The coupling of land-based vibrations and nearshore sounds into the underwater acoustic field is not well understood and cannot be accurately predicted using current models. However, because the excavation for the cable trench and the HDD installation on the beach would occur onshore and because sand is generally a very poor conductor of vibrations, NMFS considers it unlikely that the underwater noise generated from either of these installations would result in harassment of marine mammals.
DWBIT is proposing to conduct the cable landfall on Scarborough State Beach using a long-distance HDD from the manhole located within the RIDEM parking lot to a temporary offshore cofferdam located between 685.8 m and 1,112.5 m from shore. From this location, a jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation barge, would be used
Vibratory pile driving would be required to install the temporary cofferdam off of Scarborough State Beach. DWBIT assumes a 1,800 kilo Newton vibratory force for estimating source levels and frequency spectra. DWBIT modeled vibratory hammering at a source level of 194 decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal, using adjusted
DWBIT would use a jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation barge, to install the BITS cable below the seabed. The jet plow would be positioned over the trench and pulled from shore by the cable installation vessel. The jet plow would likely be a rubber-tired or skid-mounted plow with a maximum width of about 4.6 m, and pulled along the seafloor behind the cable-laying barge with assistance of a non-DP material barge. High-pressure water from vessel-mounted pumps would be injected into the sediments through nozzles situated along the plow, causing the sediments to temporarily fluidize and create a liquefied trench. DWBIT anticipates a temporary trench width of up to 1.5 m. As the plow is pulled along the route behind the barge, the cable would be laid into the temporary, liquefied trench through the back of the plow. The trench would be backfilled by the water current and the natural settlement of the suspended material. Umbilical cords would connect the submerged jet plow to control equipment on the vessel to allow the operators to monitor and control the installation process and make adjustments to the speed and alignment as the installation proceeds across the water.
The BITS cable would be buried to a target depth of 1.8 m beneath the seafloor. The actual burial depth depends on substrate encountered along the route and could vary from 1.2 to 2.4 m. Where the BITS crosses two existing submarine cables on the outer continental shelf, the cable would be installed directly on the seafloor and protected from external aggression using a combination of sand bags and concrete mattresses. Anchored vessels would be used to install both the BITS and the associated cable armoring at these locations.
DP systems maintain their precise coordinates in waters through the use of automatic controls. These control systems use variable levels of power to counter forces from current and wind. During cable-lay activities, DWBIT expects that a reduced 50 percent power level will be used by DP vessels. DWBIT modeled scenarios using a source level of 180 dB re 1 micro Pascal for the DP vessel thruster, assuming water depths of 7, 10, 20, and 40 m, and thruster power of 50 percent. Detailed information on the acoustic modeling for this source is provided in Appendix A of DWBIT's application (see
There are 34 marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed area of the specified activity (Table 2).
The highlighted species in Table 2 are pelagic and/or northern species, or are so rarely sighted that their presence in the proposed project area, and therefore take, is unlikely. These species are not considered further in this proposed IHA notice. The West Indian manatee is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is also not considered further in this proposed IHA notice. Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in section 4 of DWBIT's application (see
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (i.e., vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Proposed Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals, and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's intensity and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a 10-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold increase in power). A 10-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being 10 times louder, however. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 µPa” and “re: 1 µPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative
Vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster during the BITS project may temporarily impact marine mammals in the area due to elevated in-water sound levels. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. Naturally occurring sounds such as lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and biological sounds (e.g., snapping shrimp, whale songs) are widespread throughout the world's oceans. Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to: (1) Social interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance, or received levels of sound depend on the nature of the sound source, ambient noise conditions, and the sensitivity of the receptor to the sound (Richardson
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz (however, a study by Au
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
• Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal species (seven cetaceans and two pinnipeds) are likely to occur in the proposed project area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in DWBIT's proposed project area, four are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., minke whale, fin whale, humpback whale, and North Atlantic right whale), two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., Atlantic white-sided dolphin and short-beaked common dolphin), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise) (Southall
Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine mammal; therefore, PTS-onset must be estimated from TTS-onset measurements and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS is presumed to be likely if the hearing threshold is reduced by ≥40 dB (that is, 40 dB of TTS). PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days, can be limited to a particular frequency range, and can occur to varying degrees (i.e., a loss of a certain number of dBs of sensitivity). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animals is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during a time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts if it were in the same frequency band as the necessary vocalizations and of a severity that it impeded communication. The fact that animals exposed to levels and durations of sound that would be expected to result in this physiological response would also be expected to have behavioral responses of a comparatively more severe or sustained nature is also notable and potentially of more importance than the simple existence of a TTS.
Scientific literature highlights the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney
Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industrial activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many kilometers. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent response to industrial activities of various types (Miller
Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest to an animal by other sounds, typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are highly dependent on sound, and their ability to recognize sound signals amid other sound is important in communication and detection of both predators and prey. Background ambient sound may interfere with or mask the ability of an animal to detect a sound signal even when that signal is above its absolute hearing threshold. Even in the absence of anthropogenic sound, the marine environment is often loud. Natural ambient sound includes contributions from wind, waves, precipitation, other animals, and (at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal sound resulting from molecular agitation (Richardson
Background sound may also include anthropogenic sound, and masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. Ambient sound is highly variable on continental shelves (Thompson, 1965; Myrberg, 1978; Chapman
Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, this would reduce the size of the area around that whale within which it can hear the calls of another whale. The components of background noise that are similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily determine the degree of masking of that signal. In general, little is known about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of sounds from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In the absence of specific information about the importance of detecting these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of masking on marine mammals (Richardson
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound, etc. (Southall
The studies that address responses of low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds (such as vibratory pile driving or the sound emitted from a DP vessel thruster) include data gathered in the field and related to several types of sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps), including: Vessel noise, drilling and machinery playback, low-frequency M-sequences (sine wave with multiple phase reversals) playback, tactical low-frequency active sonar playback, drill ships, and non-pulse playbacks. These studies generally indicate no (or very limited) responses to received levels in the 90 to 120 dB re: 1μPa range and an increasing likelihood of avoidance and other behavioral effects in the 120 to 160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, though, contextual variables play a very important role in the reported responses and the severity of effects are not linear when compared to received level. Also, few of the laboratory or field datasets had common conditions, behavioral contexts, or sound sources, so it is not surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps) including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, Acoustic harassment devices (AHDs),
The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps), including: Pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor porpoises. Southall
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps), including: AHDs, various non-pulse sounds used in underwater data communication, underwater drilling, and construction noise. Few studies exist with enough information to include them in the analysis. The limited data suggest that exposures to non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 dB generally do not result in strong behavioral responses of pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at higher received levels (Southall
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals would be present within a particular distance of activities and/or exposed to a particular level of sound. In most cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some biologically-important manner.
Vessels and in-water structures have the potential to cause physical disturbance to marine mammals. Various types of vessels already use the water surrounding Rhode Island and Block Island in particular. Tug boats and barges, both of which would be required during the BITS construction are slow moving and follow a predictable course. Marine mammals would be able to easily avoid these vessels and are likely already habituated to the presence of numerous vessels.
There are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. Harbor seals haul out on Block Island and points along Narragansett Bay, the most important haul-out being on the edge of New Harbor, about 2.4 km from the proposed BITS landfall on Block Island. The only consistent haul-out locations for gray seals within the vicinity of Rhode Island are around Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge and Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts (more than 80 nautical miles from the proposed project area). NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224 designated the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) for right whales in 2008. Mandatory vessel speed restrictions are in place in that SMA from November 1 through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.
The BITS involves activities that would disturb the seafloor and potentially affect benthic and finfish communities. Installation of the BITS cable and the temporary offshore cofferdam would result in the temporary disturbance of no more than 45.3 acres of seafloor. These installation activities would also result in temporary and localized increases in turbidity around the proposed project area. DWBIT is required to install additional protective armoring over the BITS where it would cross two existing marine cables in federal waters. At the cable crossing locations, the installation of additional protective armoring would result in the permanent conversion of about 1.7 acre of soft substrate to hard substrate. The BITS cable may also require additional protective armoring in areas where the burial depth achieved is less than 1.2 m. DWBIT expects that additional protection would be required at a maximum of 1 percent of the entire BITS cable, resulting in a conversion of up to 1 acre of soft substrate to hard substrate along the cable route. During the installation of additional protective armoring at the cable crossings and as necessary along the cable route, anchors and anchor chains would temporarily impact about 1.8 acres of bottom substrate during each anchoring event.
Jet-plowing and cofferdam installation would cause either the displacement or loss of benthic and finfish resources in the immediate areas of disturbance. This may result in a temporary loss of forage items and a temporary reduction in the amount of benthic habitat available for foraging marine mammals in the immediate proposed project area. However, the amount of habitat affected represents a very small percentage of the available foraging habitat in the proposed project area. Increased underwater sound levels from cofferdam installation and use of the DP vessel thruster may temporarily result in marine mammals avoiding or abandoning the area.
Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, and the lack of important or unique marine mammal habitat, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
With NMFS' input during the application process, DWBIT is proposing the following mitigation measures during vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster:
Protected species observers would visually monitor a 200-m radius during all in-water vibratory pile driving. This distance is estimated to be the 160 dB isopleth based on DWBIT's sound
DWBIT would use a soft-start (or ramp-up) procedure at the beginning of vibratory pile driving. This procedure would require an initial set of three strikes from the vibratory hammer at 40 percent energy with a 1-minute waiting period between subsequent 3-strike sets. DWBIT would repeat the procedure two additional times. DWBIT would initiate a soft-start at the beginning of each day of pile driving and if pile driving stops for more than 30 minutes. DWBIT would not initiate a soft-start if the monitoring zone is obscured by fog, inclement weather, poor lighting conditions, etc.
DWBIT would delay vibratory pile driving and reduce DP vessel thruster use if a marine mammal is observed within the exclusion zone and until the exclusion zone is clear of marine mammals. DWBIT proposes to stop vibratory pile driving if a marine mammal is seen within a 200-m radius from the sound source at the Scarborough State Beach cofferdam and would not be reinitiated until the 200-m radius is clear of marine mammals for at least 30 minutes.
A constant tension must be maintained during cable installation and any significant stoppage in vessel maneuverability during jet plow activities would result in damage to the cable. Therefore, during DP vessel operations, DWBIT proposes to reduce DP thruster power to the maximum extent possible if a marine mammal approaches or enters a 5-m radius from the vessel (estimated to be the 160-dB isopleth from the vessel). This reduction would not be implemented at the risk of compromising safety and/or the integrity of the BITS. DWBIT would not increase power until the 5-m zone is clear of marine mammals for 30 minutes.
DWBIT would conduct vibratory pile driving off of Scarborough State Beach during daylight hours only, starting approximately 30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes before dusk. If a soft-start is initiated before the onset of inclement weather, DWBIT would complete that segment of vibratory pile driving. DWBIT would not initiate new vibratory pile driving activities until the entire monitoring zone is visible.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of continuous noise from vibratory pile driving and use of a DP vessel thruster that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
• Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
• Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
• Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
DWBIT submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in section 12 of their application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
DWBIT would use protected species observers to visually monitor the surrounding area during all in-water vibratory pile driving and use of DP vessel thrusters. These observers would monitor beyond the estimated 160-dB isopleths, in addition to conducting mitigation monitoring within these zones. Observers would estimate distances to marine mammals visually, using laser range finders, or by using reticle binoculars during daylight hours. During night operations (DP vessel thruster use only), observers would use night-vision binoculars. Observers would record their position using hand-held or vessel global positioning system units for each sighting, vessel position change, and any environmental change. Each observer would scan the surrounding area for visual indication of marine mammal presence. Observers would be located from the highest available vantage point on the associated operational platform (e.g., support vessel, barge or tug), estimated to be at least 6 m above the waterline.
Prior to initiation of construction work, all crew members on barges, tugs, and support vessels would undergo environmental training, a component of which would focus on the procedures for sighting and protection of marine mammals. DWBIT would also conduct a briefing with the construction supervisors and crews and observers to define chains of command, discuss communication procedures, provide an overview of the monitoring purposes, and review operational procedures. The DWBIT Construction Compliance Manager (or other authorized individual) would have the authority to stop or delay vibratory pile driving activities if deemed necessary.
DWBIT would conduct field verification of the estimated 160-dB isopleths during vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster to determine whether the proposed distances are adequate to minimize impacts to marine mammals.
DWBIT would conduct field verification of the 200-m radius marine mammal exclusion zone at the Scarborough State Beach cofferdam. DWBIT would take acoustic measurements during vibratory pile driving of the last half (deepest sheet pile segment) for any given open-water pile and would also measure from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). If the field measurements determine that the 160-dB isopleth is less than or beyond the proposed 200-m distance, a new zone may be established accordingly. DWBIT would notify NMFS and the USACE within 24 hours if a new marine mammal exclusion zone is established that extends beyond 200 m. Implementation of a smaller zone would be contingent on NMFS' review and would not be used until NMFS approves the change.
DWBIT would also perform field verification of the 160-dB isopleth associated with DP vessel thruster use during cable installation. DWBIT would take acoustic measurements from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). Similar to field verification during vibratory pile driving, the DP thruster power reduction zone may be modified as necessary.
Observers would record dates and locations of construction operations; times of observations; location and weather; details of marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, age, numbers, behavior); and details of any observed take.
DWBIT proposes to provide the following notifications and reports during construction activities:
• Notification to NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) within 24-hours of beginning construction activities and again within 24-hours of completion;
• Detailed report of field-verification measurements within 7 days of completion (including: sound levels, durations, spectral characteristics, DP thruster use, etc.) and notification to NMFS and the USACE within 24-hours if a new zone is established;
• Notification to NMFS and USACE within 24-hours if field verification measurements suggest a larger marine mammal exclusion zone;
• Final technical report to NMFS and the USACE within 120 days of completion of the specified activity documenting methods and monitoring protocols, mitigation implementation, marine mammal observations, other results, and discussion of mitigation effectiveness.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), DWBIT shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
DWBIT shall not resume its activities until we are able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with DWBIT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. DWBIT may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that DWBIT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), DWBIT shall immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
In the event that DWBIT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), DWBIT would report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Project activities that have the potential to harass marine mammals, as defined by the MMPA, include noise associated with vibratory pile driving of the temporary cofferdam, and noise associated with the use of DP vessel thrusters during cable installation. Harassment could take the form of masking, temporary threshold shift, avoidance, or other changes in marine mammal behavior. NMFS anticipates that impacts to marine mammals would be in the form of behavioral harassment and no take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is proposed. NMFS does not anticipate take resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds over a relatively shallow, nearshore area.
NMFS' current acoustic exposure criteria are shown in Table 3 below. Sound levels from vibratory pile driving or use of the DP vessel thruster would not reach the Level A harassment threshold of 180/190 dB (cetaceans/pinnipeds) during the proposed BITS project. DWBIT modeled distances to these acoustic exposure criteria are shown in Table 4. Details on the model characteristics and results are provided in the Underwater Acoustic Report at the end of DWBIT's application (see
DWBIT estimated species densities within the proposed project area in order to estimate the number of marine mammal exposures to sound levels above 120 dB. DWBIT used sightings per unit effort (SPUE) from Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009) for relative cetacean abundance and the Northeast Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) for seal abundance. Based on multiple reports, harbor seal abundance off the coast of Rhode Island is thought to be about 20 percent of the total abundance for southern New England. Because the seasonality and habitat use of gray seals off the coast of Rhode Island roughly overlaps with harbor seals, DWBIT applied this 20 percent estimate to both pinniped species. While the density estimates relied upon for this proposed authorization are from 2007 and 2009, they are the best scientific data available. NMFS is not aware of any efforts to collect more recent density estimates than those relied upon here.
Estimated takes were calculated by multiplying the average highest species density (per 100 km
DWBIT used a zone of influence of 4,352 km
DWBIT used a zone of influence of 23.0 km
DWBIT did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take from vessel strike. We do not anticipate marine mammals to be impacted by vessel movement because a limited number of vessels would be involved in construction activities and they would mostly move at slow speeds throughout construction.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number
DWBIT did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take of marine mammals by injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that take would be in the form of behavioral harassment. Exposure to sound levels above 120 dB during vibratory pile driving would not last for more than 12 hours per day for 4 non-consecutive days. Exposure to sound levels above 120 dB during use of the DP vessel thruster may last for 24 hours per day for 42 days. While use of the DP thruster may last for consecutive days, the vessel would be moving and therefore not focused on one specific area for the entire duration. Given the duration and intensity of the activity, and the fact that shipping contributes to the ambient sound levels around Rhode Island, NMFS does not anticipate the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels and sediment disturbance, but these impacts would be temporary. Furthermore, there are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by (1) giving animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before the pile driver reaches full energy; (2) reducing the intensity of exposure within a certain distance by reducing the DP vessel thruster power; and (3) preventing animals from being exposed to increased sound levels within 200 m of vibratory pile driving.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from DWBIT's BITS project will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The number of individual animals that may be exposed to sound levels above 120 dB is small relative to the species or stock size (Table 6). The proposed take numbers are the maximum numbers of animals that are expected to be harassed during the BITS project; it is possible that some of these exposures may occur to the same individual. NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
There are three marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA: Fin whale, humpback whale, and North Atlantic right whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, the USACE (the federal permitting agency for the actual construction) consulted with NMFS on the proposed BITS project. NMFS Northeast Region issued a Biological Opinion on January 30, 2014, concluding that the Block Island Wind Farm project (which includes the BITS) may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale, humpback whale, or North Atlantic right whale. NMFS is also consulting internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. The Biological Opinion may be amended to include an incidental take exemption for these marine mammal species.
The USACE is preparing an Environmental Assessment on the construction and operation of the BITS. The USACE's EA is not expected to be finalized prior to NMFS making a determination on the issuance of an IHA. Therefore, NMFS is currently conducting an analysis, pursuant to the NEPA, to determine whether or not DWBIT's proposed activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to DWBIT for conducting vibratory pile driving and use of a DP vessel thruster during construction of the BITS from late 2014 to late 2015, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission, LLC (DWBIT) (56 Exchange Terrace, Suite 101, Providence, RI 02903–1772) is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 216.107, to harass marine mammals incidental to vibratory pile driving and DP vessel thruster use during construction of the Block Island Transmission System (BITS).
1. This Authorization is valid from December 1, 2014 through November 31, 2015.
2. This Authorization is valid for construction of the BITS off Block Island, Rhode Island, as described in the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) application.
3. The holder of this authorization (Holder) is hereby authorized to take, by Level B harassment only, 456 Atlantic white-sided dolphins (
4. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this IHA must be reported immediately to NMFS' Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2276; phone 978–281–9328, and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 301–427–8401; fax 301–713–0376.
5. The Holder or designees must notify NMFS' Northeast Region and Headquarters at least 24 hours prior to the seasonal commencement of the specified activity (see contact information in 4 above).
The Holder is required to abide by the following mitigation conditions listed in 6(a)–(e). Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The Holder is required to abide by the following monitoring conditions listed in 7(a)–(b). Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(a)
(b)
• Numbers of individuals observed;
• Frequency of observation;
• Location (i.e., distance from the sound source);
• Vibratory pile driving status (i.e., soft-start, active, post pile driving, etc.);
• DP vessel thruster status (i.e., energy level); and
• Reaction of the animal(s) to relevant sound source (if any) and observed behavior, including bearing and direction of travel.
(c) Acoustic Field Verification: The Holder shall conduct field verification of the estimated 160-dB isopleths during vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster. Acoustic measurements shall be taken during vibratory pile driving of the last half (deepest sheet pile segment) for any given open-water pile and from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). If the field measurements show that the 160-dB isopleth is less than or beyond the initially proposed 200-m distance, a new zone may be established accordingly. The Holder shall notify NMFS within 24 hours if a new marine mammal exclusion zone is established that extends beyond 200 m. Implementation of a smaller zone shall be contingent on NMFS' review and shall not be used until NMFS approves the change.
The Holder shall also perform field verification of the 160-dB isopleth associated with DP vessel thruster use during cable installation. Acoustic measurements shall be taken from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). Similar to field verification during vibratory pile driving, the DP thruster power reduction zone may be modified as necessary.
The Holder shall provide the following notifications during construction activities:
• Notification to NMFS within 24-hours of beginning construction and again within 24-hours of completion;
• Detailed report of field-verification measurements within 7 days of completion and notification to NMFS within 24-hours if a new zone is established; and
• Notification to NMFS within 24-hours if field verification measurements suggest a larger marine mammal exclusion zone.
The Holder shall submit a technical report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 120 days of the conclusion of monitoring.
(a) The report shall contain the following information:
• A summary of the activity and monitoring plan (i.e., dates, times, locations);
• A summary of mitigation implementation;
• Monitoring results and a summary that addresses the goals of the monitoring plan, including the following:
○ Environmental conditions when observations were made:
○ Water conditions (i.e., Beaufort sea-state, tidal state)
○ Weather conditions (i.e., percent cloud cover, visibility, percent glare)
○ Date and time survey initiated and terminated
○ Date, time, number, species, and any other relevant data regarding marine mammals observed (for pre-activity, during activity, and post-activity surveys)
○ Description of the observed behaviors (in both the presence and absence of activities):
If possible, the correlation to underwater sound level occurring at the time of any observable behavior
• Estimated exposure/take numbers during activities; and
• An assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures.
(b) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), the Holder shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Incidental
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
The Holder shall not resume its activities until we are able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the Holder to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Holder may not resume activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
(c) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), the Holder shall immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
(d) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the Holder shall report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to
9. A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the lead contractor on site and protected species observers operating under the authority of this authorization.
10. This IHA may be modified, suspended, or withdrawn if the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for DWBIT's construction of the BITS. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on DWBIT's request for an MMPA authorization.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Part 284 Natural Gas Pipeline Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 27, 2014, the Western Area Power Administration submitted a tariff filing per 10 CFR 903.23: DSW_PDP_162–20140226 to be effective October 1, 2013, Rate Order No. WAPA–162, concerning extension of the Parker-Davis Project Firm Electric and Transmission Service Formula Rates.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification. On December 18, 2013, Grand River Dam Authority filed with the Commission a copy of its request for water quality certification. The copy included a date stamp and signature from the Oklahoma Department of Water Quality indicating receipt of the request on December 11, 2013 by the certifying agency.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at (978) 238–2822.
Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at (978) 283–2822.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: April, 28 2014.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. The proposed Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be the most upstream project at river mile (RM) 115.4 and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 180-foot-long, 95-foot-wide intake channel containing a 30-foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the west bank of the river; (3) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 6.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a 280-foot-long, 64-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (6) a 3,511-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt (kV), overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 25,300 megawatt-hours (MWh).
The proposed Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located at RM 102.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 280-foot-long, 80-foot-wide intake channel containing a 30-foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 200-foot-long, 70-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (6) a 2,600-foot-long, 12.5-kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 18,900 MWh.
The proposed Point Marion Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located at RM 90.8 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 280-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel containing a 30-foot-long, 50-foot-high, 70-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-high, 70-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the east bank of the river; (3) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 5.0 MW; (4) a 215-foot-long, 90-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (6) a 3,320-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing substation; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 16,500 MWh.
The proposed Grays Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located at RM 82.0 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 300-foot-long, 130-foot-wide intake channel containing a 100-foot-long, 84-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 576-foot-long, 2.5-foot-high adjustable crest gate on top of the existing dam crest; (3) a 150-foot-long, 75-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the west bank of the river; (4) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW; (5) a 250-foot-long, 84-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (7) a 9,965-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 47,300 MWh.
The proposed Maxwell Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located at RM 61.2 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 130-foot-long, 85-foot-wide intake channel located immediately downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the east side of the river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located within the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 85-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a 150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 13.0 MW; (6) a 160-foot-long, 120-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 350-
The proposed Monongahela Lock and Dam Number Four Hydroelectric Project would be located at RM 41.5 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 140-foot-long, 90-foot-wide intake channel located immediately downstream of the Corps' 5th spillway gate on the west side of the river; (2) a pair of spill gates totaling 84 feet wide located within the proposed intake channel; (3) a 100-foot-long, 64-foot-high, 90-foot-wide intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing trashracks; (4) a 150-foot-long, 70-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse; (5) two turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW; (6) a 210-foot-long, 130-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 40-foot-long by 40-foot-wide substation; (8) a 45-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 48,500 MWh.
Free Flow Power proposes to operate all six projects in a “run-of-river” mode using flows made available by the Corps. The proposed projects would not change existing flow releases or water surface elevations upstream or downstream of the proposed projects.
o.
You may also register online at
p.
On February 24, 2014, Green Energy Storage Corp filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Sacaton Pumped Storage Project to be located off stream near Casa Grande, Arizona. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed 150-megawatt closed loop pumped storage project would use the 1,200 feet of available head between a new upper reservoir and an existing open pit mine. The project consists of the following: (1) A new 28-foot-high upper dam with a total crest length of 6,000 feet, impounding an upper reservoir with a maximum storage of 1,300 acre-feet ; (2) an existing open pit mine lower reservoir, with a maximum storage of 1,500 acre-feet; (3) a penstock connecting the two reservoirs consisting of a 200-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel pipe and a 1,250-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter vertical shaft; (4) two 75-megawatt pump/turbines; (5) a 2,200-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter draft tube, extending from the turbines to the lower reservoir; (6) a new 137-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending about 2,500 feet from a new substation to the existing 137-kV transmission line owned by Arizona Public Service; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The estimated average generating capacity of the project would be 400 gigawatt hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032–7574.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Mary Cain, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–6337 or
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this transaction. Comments received will be made available to the public.
Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2014 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to be used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Boeing 747 aircraft.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning environmentally sound products.
Submit comments on or before May 19, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection
• Regulations.gov:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000–0134. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000–0134, Environmentally Sound Products”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000–0134, Environmentally Sound Products” on your attached document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Hada Flowers/IC 9000–0134, Environmentally Sound Products.
Ms. Marissa Petrusek, Procurement Analyst, Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202–501–0136 or
This information collection complies with Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6962). RCRA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate items which are or can be produced with recovered materials. RCRA further requires agencies to develop affirmative procurement programs to ensure that items composed of recovered materials will be purchased to the maximum extent practicable. Affirmative procurement programs required under RCRA must contain, as a minimum (1) a recovered materials preference program and an agency promotion program for the preference program; (2) a program for requiring estimates of the total percentage of recovered materials used in the performance of a contract, certification of minimum recovered material content actually used, where appropriate, and reasonable verification procedures for estimates and certifications; and (3) annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of an agency's affirmative procurement program.
The items for which EPA has designated minimum recovered material content standards are grouped into eight categories: (1) Construction products, (2) landscaping products, (3) nonpaper office products, (4) paper and paper products, (5) park and recreation products, (6) transportation products, (7) vehicular products, and (8) miscellaneous products. The FAR rule also permits agencies to obtain pre-award information from offerors regarding the content of items which the agency has designated as requiring minimum percentages of recovered materials.
In accordance with RCRA, the information collection applies to acquisitions requiring minimum percentages of recovered materials, when the price of the item exceeds $10,000 or when the aggregate amount paid for the item or functionally equivalent items in the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more.
Contracting officers use the information to verify offeror/contractor compliance with solicitation and contract requirements regarding the use of recovered materials. Additionally, agencies use the information in the annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of the affirmative procurement programs required by RCRA.
A reassessment of the recovered material provision, FAR 52.223–4, and clause, FAR 52.223–9, was preformed. Based on the comprehensive reassessment performed, this information collection resulted in a small increase in the total burden hours from the previous information collection that was published in the
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of Per Diem Bulletin 14–06, revised Continental United States (CONUS) per diem rates.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has conducted its mid-year review and has determined that the per diem rate for one location in the State of West Virginia is inadequate.
This notice is effective March 20, 2014 and applies to travel performed on or after April 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014.
For clarification of content, please contact Ms. Jill Denning, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202–208–7642, or by email at
After an analysis of the per diem rates established for FY 2014 (see the
CONUS per diem rates are published as FTR Per Diem Bulletins available on the Internet at
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772–76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 78 FR 79697–79699, dated December 31, 2013) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C–B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and the mission and function statements for the Division of Diabetes Translation (CUCG) and insert the following:
Division of Diabetes Translation (CUCG). In collaboration with NCCDPHP divisions, other CDC components, other HHS agencies, state, tribal, local and territorial government agencies, academic institutions, and voluntary and private sector organizations, the Division of Diabetes Translation; (1) plans, directs, and coordinates a national program to prevent diabetes and reduce morbidity, mortality, disability, and cost associated with diabetes and its complications; (2) identifies, evaluates, and implements programs and policies to prevent and control diabetes through the translation of evidence-based models and interventions for improved health care and self-care practices into widespread clinical and community practice; (3) conducts surveillance of diabetes, its complications, and the utilization of health care and prevention resources to monitor trends and evaluate program impact on morbidity, mortality, disability, and cost; (4) conducts epidemiologic studies and disseminates finding to identify and evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of potential prevention and control strategies at the community level; (5) develops or supports clinical and public health guidelines and strategies to form the basis for community interventions; and (6) provides technical consultation and assistance to national, state and local organizations to implement and evaluate cost effective interventions to reduce morbidity, mortality, and disability.
Office of the Director (CUCG1). (1) Establishes and interprets policies and determines program priorities; (2) provides leadership and guidance in strategic planning, budget formulation, programmatic and scientific planning, development, and management, administrative management and operations of the division; (3) coordinates the monitoring and reporting of division priorities, accomplishments, future directions, and resource requirements; (4) leads and coordinates policy, communications and partnership activities; and (5) coordinates division activities with other components of NCCDPHP and CDC, organizations in the public and private sectors, and other federal agencies.
Epidemiology and Statistics Branch (CUCGB). (1) Conducts national surveillance of diabetes and its complications, including surveillance of the degree of diffusion and dissemination of preventive services and the utilization of health care; (2) identifies clinical, health services, and public health research findings and technologies that have potential to prevent or control diabetes and its complications through public health avenues; (3) develops and analyzes mathematical and economic models to project the burden of diabetes and prioritize effective interventions to prevent and control diabetes; (4) conducts epidemiologic studies to identify high-risk population groups and other risk factors for diabetes and its complications; (5) conducts cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of diabetes prevention and control to prioritize strategies for policy-makers; (6) provides scientific and technical support to division staff, state and local health agencies, and others in planning and implementation of surveillance and effectiveness studies to reduce morbidity and mortality from diabetes; and (7) collaborates with counterparts in other divisions, academic institutions, and other HHS agencies by conducting national public health research projects and by providing technical assistance in areas of epidemiology, surveillance, and economics.
Program Implementation Branch (CUCGC). (1) Provides programmatic leadership, guidance and consultation on a range of strategies to improve diabetes prevention and control programs in states, territories, tribes, and local jurisdictions; (2) identifies, develops, implements and evaluates strategies to prevent and control diabetes through widespread community practice and through the application of policy and environmental interventions, health systems interventions and community interventions; (3) provides leadership, management and oversight for the National Diabetes Prevention Program; (4) develops, implements and supports work with vulnerable and disparate population groups and (5) coordinates and collaborates with counterparts in other divisions, HHS agencies, academic institutions, and national and voluntary organizations to improve public health diabetes prevention and control programs, practices and policies.
Translation, Health Education, and Evaluation Branch (CUCGD). (1) Synthesizes and translates a body of best science and practice that can be applied to various public health settings; (2) Analyzes, disseminates, and publishes data from diabetes prevention and control programs to develop operational strategies for translation of results into improved practice; (3) prepares and disseminates products that translate applied research, program evaluation, and health economics science to state programs and others; (4) provides technical assistance and implementation support for evidence-based and practice-based communication strategies, including web management, that advance diabetes prevention and control; (5) designs, evaluates and implements national education strategies directed toward health care professionals and systems, individuals with and at risk for diabetes, community leaders, business, and general public; (6) evaluates program policies, plans, procedures, priorities,
Notice of intent to provide expansion and capacity building funding to the incumbent Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) grantees under limited competition.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing the application deadline and a single case deviation from maximum competition for the Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) Program project grants. The SMP program has 54 SMP project grants which are currently awarded on two different three-year cycles with 26 awarded in one year and the other 28 awarded the following year. The purpose of this deviation is to award a 4th year non-competing continuation to the 26 SMP project grantees with a three (3) year budget period set to expire May 31, 2014 so that all 54 SMP project grants can be moved to the same competitive three (3) year cycle beginning in FY 2015.
Title IV and Title II of the Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3032), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 Public Law 109–365 and HIPAA of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–191)
• Application Submission deadline: April 21, 2014.
• The anticipated budget period start date is June 1, 2014.
The Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) program is a national program providing cooperative agreements to grantees in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help Medicare beneficiaries detect, prevent and report potential health care fraud, error and abuse. In doing so, they not only protect beneficiaries, they also help preserve the integrity of the Medicare program. Because this work often requires face-to-face contact to be most effective, SMPs nationwide recruit, train, and manage over 5,100 volunteers every year to help in this effort. The focus of the SMP program is providing beneficiary education to prevent the fraud before it ever occurs.
Historically, the 54 SMP project grants have been awarded using two different three-year cycles with 26 awarded in one year and the other 28 awarded the following year. This was originally done to alleviate the administrative burden of awarding 54 new grants at one time. However, the SMP program has gone through a number of changes since its inception, as has the ACL. Given these changes the split award of the SMP project grants has become an administrative burden in itself by necessitating twice the effort to prepare and award the grants. Moving the 54 SMP grants to the same grant cycle will allow the program to move forward as one instead of two separate steps as needed with the current split grant cycle. Failure to move forward with this deviation would disrupt ACL's ability to improve and advance the SMP program as one cohesive and consistent program nationally.
Incumbent Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) grantees with award expiration dates of 5/31/14.
Information previously provided in semi-annual reports, as well as information in the non-competing extension application will be considered to determine satisfactory progress of the grantee project and ensure that proposed activities are within the approved scope and budget of the grant. Areas that will be evaluated include:
Applications will be objectively reviewed by Federal staff utilizing the criteria listed above in Section III.
For further information or comments regarding this program expansion supplement, contact Rebecca Kinney, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Office of Elder Rights, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001; telephone (202) 357–3520; fax (202) 357–3560; email
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 19, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)), provides that every agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Section 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30) sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may submit to FDA, in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) (submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), a citizen petition requesting the Commissioner to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or order, or to take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action.
The Commissioner may grant or deny such a petition, in whole or in part, and may grant such other relief or take other action as the petition warrants. Respondents are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, or groups.
Section 10.33 (21 CFR 10.33) issued under section 701(a) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request reconsideration of part or all of a decision of the Commissioner on a petition submitted under 21 CFR 10.25 (initiation of administrative proceedings). A petition for reconsideration must contain a full statement in a well-organized format of the factual and legal grounds upon which the petition relies. The grounds must demonstrate that relevant information and views contained in the administrative record were not previously or not adequately considered by the Commissioner. The respondent must submit a petition no later than 30 days after the decision involved. However, the Commissioner may, for good cause, permit a petition to be filed after 30 days. An interested person who wishes to rely on information or views not included in the administrative record shall submit them with a new petition to modify the decision. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for reconsideration. Respondents to this collection of information are individuals of households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions who are requesting from the Commissioner of FDA a reconsideration of a matter.
Section 10.35 (21 CFR 10.35), issued under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), the Commissioner to stay the effective date of any administrative action.
Such a petition must do the following: (1) Identify the decision involved; (2) state the action requested, including the length of time for which a stay is requested; and (3) include a statement of the factual and legal grounds on which the interested person relies in seeking the stay. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for stay of action.
Respondents to this information collection are interested persons who choose to file a petition for an administrative stay of action.
Section 10.85 (21 CFR 10.85), issued under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to Division of Dockets Management), an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on a matter of general applicability. An advisory opinion represents the formal position of FDA on a matter of general applicability. When making a request, the petitioner must provide a concise statement of the issues and questions on which an opinion is requested, and a full statement of the facts and legal points relevant to the request. Respondents to this collection of information are interested persons seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on the Agency's formal position for matters of general applicability.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden estimates for this collection of information are based on Agency records.
On December 19, 2013, FDA published a technical amendment (78 FR 76748) announcing that the Agency is modernizing its administrative regulations regarding submission of citizen petitions to explicitly provide for electronic submission. The current regulation does not recognize electronic methods for submitting citizen petitions; thus, this action will enable efficiency and ease in the filing of citizen petitions.
The Agency still allows for non-electronic submissions, however, electronic submissions of a citizen petition to a specific electronic docket presents a simpler and straightforward approach. FDA has created a single docket on
Electronic submissions through
DDM will receive the electronically submitted citizen petition through the Federal Dockets Management System, the Agency component of
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of May 19, 2014 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of June 16, 2014 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of June 9, 2014 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 23) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on settlement.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its
The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on June 26, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland and Nokia Inc., of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189 (“the `189 patent”); 6,373,345; 6,711,211 (“the `211 patent”); 7,187,945; 8,140,650 (“the `650 patent”); and 8,363,824. 78 FR 38362 (Jun. 26, 2013). The respondents are HTC Corporation of Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”). Subsequently, third party Google Inc. (“Google”) intervened as a party in this investigation with respect to three of the six patents, namely the `189, `211 and `650 patents. 78 FR 49764 (Aug. 15, 2013). The complaint was amended to add U.S. Patent No. 7,366,529 and to add Nokia's recently launched domestic industry products. 78 FR 56737 (Sept. 13, 2013).
On February 10, 2014, complainants Nokia and respondents HTC (collectively, “the Moving Parties”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety. On February 25, 2014, the Moving Parties filed a corrected public version of the motion and corrected exhibits in support of the motion, including redacted public versions of the settlement agreements. The Moving Parties aver that intervenor Google does not oppose the motion to terminate the investigation.
On February 25, 2014, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 23). The ALJ found that termination of this investigation does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers. Order No. 23 at 5. The ALJ granted the motion to terminate. No party petitioned for review of the ID, and the Commission has determined not to review it.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order to the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to reverse the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on September 30, 2013, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”) in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission finds no violation of Section 337. The investigation is terminated.
Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 29, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Flashpoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) of Peterborough, New Hampshire, alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic imaging devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (“the '575 patent”), 6,222,538 (“the '538 patent”), 6,400,471 (“the '471 patent”), and 6,223,190 (“the '190 patent”). The notice of investigation named the following respondents: HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”); Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, “Pantech”); Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas (collectively “Huawei”); and ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively “ZTE”). The '575 patent and respondent Pantech have been terminated from the investigation. The Commission Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this investigation.
On September 30, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding a violation of Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that two of the accused HTC smartphones,
On October 31, 2013, Flashpoint filed a petition for review challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same day, respondents filed a joint petition for review challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same day, HTC filed a separate petition for review challenging the ALJ's findings with respect to issues affecting only HTC. The parties submitted responses to the petitions on November 8, 2013.
On December 16, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's findings regarding the following issues: (1) Infringement of the asserted claims of the '538 patent by the HTC Vivid and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE smartphones; (2) the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) obviousness of the asserted claims of the '538 patent over U.S. Patent No. 5,835,772 to Thurlo, U.S. Patent No. 5,740,801 to Branson, the “Admitted Prior Art,” U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501 to Gough
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the parties' petitions for review, and the submissions of the parties on review, the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's determination of violation of Section 337 and to find no violation of Section 337 with respect to the asserted patents. Specifically, the Commission finds that: (1) The HTC Vivid and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE smartphones do not infringe the asserted claims of the '538 patent; (2) complainant has met the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) respondents have not shown that the asserted claims of the '538 patent are obvious; (4) the ALJ correctly construed the term “operating system” in the asserted claims of the '471 patent, (5) the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '471 patent; (6) complainant has not proved the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '471 patent; (7) respondents have not shown that the asserted claims of the '471 patent are anticipated; (8) the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products do not infringe the asserted claim of the '190 patent; (9) complainant has not proved the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '190 patent; (10) respondents have not shown that the asserted claim of the '190 patent is anticipated or rendered obvious; (13) respondents have not shown that the asserted claims of the '538, '471, and '190 patents are invalid in view of the on-sale bar; (14) respondents have not shown that claim 19 of the '538 patent is unenforceable due to failure to name an inventor; and (15) complainant has proved that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538, '471, and '190 patents. The Commission has furthered determined to take no position on whether the asserted claim of the '190 patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by Parulski-963 or Zaurus. A Commission opinion will issue promptly.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On March 14, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Third Modified Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the lawsuit entitled
In 1998, a Consent Decree was entered in this Clean Water Act enforcement action. Among other requirements, that Consent Decree required the Sewage and Water Board of New Orleans (“the Board”) to perform remedial work on its sewage system in nine designated basins. Work in four of those basins was completed prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A Modified Consent Decree extending the deadlines for the remaining five basins was entered in 2010. For two basins of those five basins, the schedule was further extended under a Second Modified Consent Decree entered in 2013. The proposed Third Modified Consent Decree would extend the schedule for the three basins not addressed in the Second Modified Consent Decree (i.e., the MidCity, Carrollton, and South Shore basins). In addition to the schedule changes, the proposed Third Modified Consent Decree also includes additional requirements related to funding green infrastructure and to reporting on coordination between the Board and the City of New Orleans with respect to work required under the Third Modified Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Third Modified Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Third Modified Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $17.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension for the collection of data on the ETA 9016, Alien Claims Activity Report, which expires September 30, 2014. The data collection will provide for a comprehensive evaluation of the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Alien Claims Activities. The data are collected quarterly, and an analysis of the data received is formulated into a report summarizing the Alien Claims Activity by the 53 State Workforce Agencies (SWAs).
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 19, 2014.
Send comments to Ericka Parker, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number 202–693–3208 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Email: [
The ETA 9016 report is used by the Department to assess whether (and the extent to which) the requirements of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) system are cost-effective and otherwise appropriate for the UI program. In addition, data from the Alien Claims Activity report is being used to assist the Secretary of Labor in determining whether a SWA's administrative costs associated with the verification program are reasonable and reimbursable. There is no other report or system available for collecting this required information. The report allows the Department of Labor to determine the number of aliens filing for UI, the number of benefit issues detected, the denials of benefits to aliens, the extent to which State Agencies use the system, and the overall effectiveness and cost efficiency of the verification system. If SWAs are not required to submit the information on the Alien Claims Activity Report, the Department would not be able to fulfill its responsibilities to assess the SAVE system.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension for collection of data on the ETA 9047 Reemployment of UI Benefit Recipients report (current expiration date is September 30, 2014).
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 19, 2014.
Submit written comments to Valerie Rodall, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–4519, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–3194 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
Required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department's Strategic Plan is an integral part of the budget process. Among the purposes of the GPRA are to improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by focusing on program results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.
Outcome Goal 1.3 in the Department's fiscal year (FY) 2011–2016 Strategic Plan—help workers who are in low-wage jobs or out of the labor market find a path into middle-class jobs—focuses on improving the operational performance and effectiveness of the Federal/state UI program. This goal is supported in part by the performance measure:
Percent of UI claimants reemployed by the end of the first quarter after the quarter in which they received their first payment.
ETA collects the data to measure the facilitation of reemployment of UI benefit recipients through the ETA 9047 report. OMB approved the Department's request to begin collecting UI reemployment data through the ETA 9047 report on July 26, 2005. This data collection was renewed in 2011 through September 30, 2014.
ETA has also included UI reemployment as a performance measure for UI Performs, the Department's performance management system for the UI program. Per UI Program Letter (UIPL) No. 17–08 (May 14, 2008), Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALP)—the minimum performance criteria for UI Performs Core Measures—are set annually for each state. The ALPs take into account the state's total unemployment rate and the percentage of UI claimants who are exempt from active work search or Employment Service (ES) registration requirements because they are job-attached. Analyses of the data indicate that UI reemployment is strongly related to these two factors.
Each calendar quarter, states report on the ETA 9047 report separate counts for individuals receiving their first UI payments who are exempt from active work search or ES registration requirements, in most cases because they are job-attached with definite recall dates, and those not exempt from active work search or ES registration requirements.
States also report on the ETA 9047 report the number of those first payment recipients for whom intrastate or out-of-state employers reported wages in the subsequent quarter. States obtain these counts by crossmatching the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of claimants who received UI first payments with the UI wage records for the subsequent calendar quarter. ETA issued instructions on obtaining out-of-state reemployment data through matching the SSNs of UI first payment recipients with UI wage records in the National Directory of New Hires in UIPL No. 1–06, Change 1 (August 2, 2006).
The UI reemployment GPRA and UI Performs measures are defined as the percentage of all UI claimants receiving a first payment in a calendar quarter who were paid wages in the following calendar quarter, based on state UI wage records.
ETA believes that this measure encourages the state agencies that administer UI—which share responsibility with all Workforce Investment partners in facilitating the reemployment of UI beneficiaries—to be innovative in the steps they take to facilitate these individuals' reemployment.
The following table summarizes GPRA targets and performance for the UI reemployment measure.
ETA's analyses of the data show that state performance in the reemployment of UI benefit recipients is significantly influenced by forces outside the control of the agency administering the state UI program, most notably by the economic conditions in the state, as measured by the total unemployment rate, and the percent of UI benefit recipients who are job-attached, as measured by the percent of claimants who are not required to conduct active work search or register with the state ES. State ALPs for the UI Performs Core Measure reflect state-specific data for these two factors. State ALPs and performance for the period January to December 2012 are available at
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension for collection of data on the ETA 902 report, Disaster Unemployment Assistance Activities under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The current expiration date is September 30, 2014.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 19, 2014.
Submit written comments to Jeffery Haluska, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–2992 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
The ETA 902 Report, Disaster Unemployment Assistance Activities, is a monthly report submitted by an impacted state when a major disaster is declared by the President that provides for individual assistance (including Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA)). The report contains data on DUA claims and payment activities associated with administering the DUA program. The information is used by ETA's Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI) to determine workload counts, for example, the number of individuals determined eligible or ineligible for DUA, the number of appeals filed, and the number of overpayments issued. The report also allows OUI to track states' administrative costs for the DUA program.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR;
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting the additional modification to an existing bilateral agreement for inbound competitive services with Posten Norge AS. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Brian Corcoran, Acting General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On March 13, 2014, the Postal Service filed Notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5, that it has entered into an additional modification (Modification Two) of an existing bilateral agreement for inbound competitive services with Posten Norge AS.
The Notice states that Modification Two, like the Norway Post Agreement, includes rates for inbound Air Parcels.
• Attachment 1A: a copy of Modification Two;
• Attachment 1B: a copy of Modification One;
• Attachment 1C: a redacted copy of the Norway Post Agreement;
• Attachment 2: the certification required by 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2);
• Attachment 3: a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 10–3;
• Attachment 4: an application for non-public treatment of unredacted material filed under seal (consisting of financial workpapers and Attachments 1C).
The Postal Service separately filed a public version of the financial workpapers.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filing in the captioned docket is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633 and applicable requirements of 39 CFR part 3015. Comments are due no later than March 21, 2014. The public portions of this filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–35 for consideration of the matters raised in this docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than March 21, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting the addition to Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Brian Corcoran, Acting General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On March 13, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
The Notice includes four attachments: A redacted copy of the Agreement, a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 08–7, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also includes supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–34 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than March 21, 2014. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–34 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than March 21, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form ABS–15G (17 CFR 249.1300) is used for reports of information required under Rule 15Ga–1 (17 CFR 240.15Ga–1) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Exchange Act Rule 15Ga–1 requires asset-backed securitizers to provide disclosure regarding fulfilled an unfulfilled repurchase requests with respect to asset-backed securities. The purpose of the information collected on Form ABS–15G is to implement the disclosure requirements of Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide information regarding the use of representations and warranties in the asset-backed securities markets. We estimate that approximately 810 securitizers will file Form ABS–15G annually at estimated 311.223 burden hours per response. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 311.223 hours per response (233.417 hours) is carried internally by the securitizers for a total annual reporting burden of 189,068 hours (233.417 hours per response × 810 responses).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the “Equities Pricing” section of its fee schedule effective March 3, 2014, in order to amend the fees for certain routing strategies based on a change of fees at the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”). The Exchange also proposes to remove certain unnecessary language from the definition of “TCV”, or total consolidated volume.
The Exchange has previously provided a discounted fee for Destination Specific Orders routed to certain of the largest market centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as “One Under” [sic] pricing). NYSE is implementing certain pricing changes effective March 1, 2014, including modification from a fee to remove liquidity of $0.0025 per share to a fee of $0.0026 per share.
In addition, the Exchange offers a variety of routing strategies, including “SLIM” and “TRIM,” each of which has a specific fee for an execution that occurs at NYSE.
In addition to the changes described above related to orders routed to NYSE through certain Exchange routing strategies, the Exchange proposes to eliminate certain unnecessary language from the fee schedule. Beginning on December 9, 2013, the Exchange temporarily excluded odd lot executions from the calculation of average daily TCV, as defined on the Exchange's fee schedule as it relates to “Equities Pricing.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that its removal of language from the definition of TCV regarding the odd lot exclusion that has expired is consistent with the Act. This change will help to avoid confusion and does not substantively change the fees imposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For an order routed through the Exchange and executed at NYSE through the applicable routing strategies, the proposed fee change is designed to maintain a slight discount compared to the fee the Member would have paid if such routed order was instead executed directly by a Member at NYSE. The proposed change to remove the language for the exclusion of odd lots imposes no burden on competition because such exclusion explicitly expired on January 31, 2014.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BYX–2014–002 and should be submitted on or before April 10, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the “Equities Pricing” section of its fee schedule effective March 3, 2014, in order to amend the fees for certain routing strategies based on a change of fees at the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”). The Exchange also proposes to remove certain unnecessary language from the definition of “TCV”, or total consolidated volume.
The Exchange has previously provided a discounted fee for Destination Specific Orders routed to certain of the largest market centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as “One Under” pricing). NYSE is implementing certain pricing changes effective March 1, 2014, including modification from a fee to remove liquidity of $0.0025 per share to a fee of $0.0026 per share.
In addition, the Exchange offers a variety of routing strategies, including “SLIM” and “TRIM,” each of which has a specific fee for an execution that occurs at NYSE.
In addition to the changes described above related to orders routed to NYSE through certain Exchange routing strategies, the Exchange proposes to eliminate certain unnecessary language from the fee schedule. Beginning on December 9, 2013, the Exchange temporarily excluded odd lot executions from the calculation of average daily TCV, as defined on the Exchange's fee schedule as it relates to “Equities Pricing.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that its removal of language from the definition of TCV regarding the odd lot exclusion that has expired is consistent with the Act. This change will help to avoid confusion and does not substantively change the fees imposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For an order routed through the Exchange and executed at NYSE through the applicable routing strategies, the proposed fee change is designed to maintain a slight discount compared to the fee the Member would have paid if such routed order was instead executed directly by a Member at NYSE. The proposed change to remove the language for the exclusion of odd lots imposes no burden on competition because such exclusion explicitly expired on January 31, 2014.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 14, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing the following prices for the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Program for the silver and clad coin options:
Marc Landry, Acting Associate Director for Sales and Marketing, United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354–7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701; Pub. L. 112–152, sec. 6.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension, VA Form 21–526.
b. Veteran's Supplemental Claim Application, VA Form 21–526b.
c. Authorization and Consent Release Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Form 21–4142.
d. General Release for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Form 21–4142a.
a. Veterans complete VA Form 21–526 to initially apply for compensation and/or pension benefits.
b. Veterans who previously filed a claim using VA Form 21–526, and who wish to request an increase in a service connected condition, reopen their claim for a previously denied claim, and/or file a claim for a new service-connected condition must complete VA Form 21–526b. VA Form 21–526b will be used for supplemental disability or ancillary benefit claims.
c. Veterans who need VA's assistance in obtaining non-VA medical records must complete VA Form 21–4142.
d. VA Form 21–4142a is used to gather private provider information of the Veteran to VA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. VA Form 21–526—391,708.
b. VA Form 21–526b—50,000.
c. VA Form 21–4142—5,516.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—5,516.
a. VA Form 21–526—1 hour.
b. VA Form 21–526b—15 minutes.
c. VA Form 21–4142—5 minutes.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—5 minutes.
a. VA Form 21–526—391,708.
b. VA Form 21–526b—200,000.
c. VA Form 21–4142—66,200.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—66,200.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension, VA Form 21–526.
b. Veteran's Supplemental Claim Application, VA Form 21–526b.
c. Authorization and Consent Release Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Form 21–4142.
d. General Release for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Form 21–4142a.
a. Veterans complete VA Form 21–526 to initially apply for compensation and/or pension benefits.
b. Veterans who previously filed a claim using VA Form 21–526, and who wish to request an increase in a service connected condition, reopen their claim for a previously denied claim, and/or file a claim for a new service-connected condition must complete VA Form 21–526b. VA Form 21–526b will be used for supplemental disability or ancillary benefit claims.
c. Veterans who need VA's assistance in obtaining non-VA medical records must complete VA Form 21–4142.
d. VA Form 21–4142a is used to gather private provider information of the Veteran to VA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. VA Form 21–526—391,708.
b. VA Form 21–526b—50,000.
c. VA Form 21–4142—5,516.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—5,516.
a. VA Form 21–526—1 hour.
b. VA Form 21–526b—15 minutes.
c. VA Form 21–4142—5 minutes.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—5 minutes.
a. VA Form 21–526—391,708.
b. VA Form 21–526b—200,000.
c. VA Form 21–4142—66,200.
d. VA Form 21–4142a—66,200.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 19, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the
By direction of the Secretary.
In rule document 2014–04105, appearing on pages 12273–12300 in the issue of Tuesday, March 4, 2014, make the following correction: