The UWCNF is intending to develop an Environmental Impact Statement in response to the applicants request for a special use authorization.

The objective of the project applicant is to seek permission from the UWCNF to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin via pipeline rather than trucks for refining in Salt Lake City. The pipeline is comprised of approximately 135 miles of underground 12-inch pipeline and ancillary facilities. Approximately 14 miles are proposed to cross NFS land administered by the UWCNF.

The construction of this project is desired to provide a safer and more efficient transportation route for crude oil produced in the Uinta Basin of Utah.

Production of crude oil within Duchesne County, Utah has increased from 8.7 Million Barrels (MM BBL) in 2008 to 11.9 MM BBL in 2011. Production in 2012 was nearly 14 MM BBL, and 2013 is on pace for 18 MM BBL. This represents a 54% increase over the last five years. New drilling technology continues to improve the ability for economical extraction of Uinta Basin crude. The majority of this production is currently transported via tanker truck to Salt Lake City.

The oil produced from the Uinta Basin is paraffinic crude that is not compatible with the current pipeline infrastructure in Utah. The product must be maintained at an elevated temperature in order to flow through a pipeline. Other pipelines in the area were not designed to maintain the temperatures that Uinta crude requires. Therefore, the Uinta crude is currently loaded into trucks and transported via road to refineries. The unique composition of the Uinta crude also hinders its transportation to markets outside of the Salt Lake metropolitan area.

Several refineries in the Salt Lake metropolitan area have announced planned upgrades to increase the capacity to process crude produced in Utah, including the Uinta Basin. 1 These planned upgrades will take advantage of the relatively lower price of locally produced crude. The project provides infrastructure to deliver typically lower priced, locally produced crude oil to market in an environmentally responsible and safe manner.

The planned increases in production and refining capacities have state lawmakers and transportation officials concerned about the capacity and capability of the existing highway infrastructure. 2 The construction of the project considers pipeline transmission as more viable long-term method of delivery to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. In addition, the project considers it a benefit to the public by removing a portion of the tanker truck traffic from the highways in the region thereby potentially reducing the cost of highway maintenance and upgrades.

Five principal facilities will be located along the project, one origin station and four intermediate stations. The origin station will consist of truck offloading racks, product storage, pumps, launcher/receivers, piping, valves, fittings, and power generation. This origination facility would be located on private property and would be approximately 20 acres. The four intermediate stations for the project are approximately five acres each and located on private property. There are seven main line block valves locations and other minor above ground appurtenances that also will be located on private property.

The project would be constructed primarily on private lands and cross approximately 14 miles of NFS land administered by the UWCNF, U.S. Forest Service (FS). The proposed pipeline right-of-way would be a minimum of 50-feet wide and up to 100-feet wide on National Forest System lands once constructed (right-of-way may be wider off of NFS lands). Many areas of the proposed pipeline route would utilize existing pipeline right-of-way routes or utility corridors and parallel Chevron, Questar and Kern River pipelines. The pipeline is further described as 12″ carbon steel pipe, .375 WT, API 5L, X52, insulated (HDPE) jacketed, externally coated, and buried at a minimum depth of three feet. System pressure designs are currently projected to be between 1,200 and 1,400 psi maximum operating pressure (MOP).

A route review and investigation was conducted that identified three options:

The northern route is generally a 135 mile option that parallels portions of the existing Chevron crude pipeline for the first 40 miles from the origin point to Francis, UT. From Francis, the pipeline bears north to Coalville, UT in many areas paralleling existing Questar distribution pipelines. At Coalville it meets with the Kern River natural gas pipeline. The pipeline would then parallel the Kern River pipeline to about the top of the Wasatch Range. From here the route would roughly parallel a Questar natural gas pipeline west to the town of Bountiful, UT, and on to the east side of Utah Highway 67. The pipeline would then bear south connecting to multiple Salt Lake area refineries.

The east canyon route is generally a 135-mile option that follows the northern route for the first 90 miles, then bears west to the Park City area. From Park City, the pipeline would parallel East Canyon Creek to join with the Kern River pipeline. The pipeline would then parallel the Kern River pipeline to about the top of the Wasatch Range. From here the route would roughly parallel a Questar natural gas pipeline west to the town of Bountiful, UT, and on to the east side of Utah Highway 67. The pipeline would then bear south connecting to multiple Salt Lake area refineries.

The southern route is generally a 120-mile option that follows the northern route for the first 90 miles and then roughly parallels the existing Chevron crude oil pipeline into and through Salt Lake City connecting to multiple Salt Lake area refineries.

The northern route was identified as the proposed action, based principally on permitting and “Right of Way” (ROW) acquisition, minimizing areas of disturbance, and utilizing previously established utility corridors, despite being the longest route of the proposed options.

Under all alternatives, approximately 14 miles are on NFS land and the remainder on private lands. The segments crossing NFS land follow forest plan (both Uinta and Wasatch-Cache Forest Plans were revised in 2003) designated utility corridors. The right-of-way would be a minimum of 50-feet wide and up to 100-feet wide on NFS land once constructed (right-of-way may be wider off of NFS land). Many reaches of the pipeline route would utilize existing pipeline routes or utility corridors and parallel Chevron, Questar and Kern River pipelines right-of-way. These existing corridors form portions of the boundaries of 4 Inventoried Roadless Area (IRAs). Under all alternatives, the project would be located outside of the IRAs on the opposite (non-roadless) side of the existing pipeline, except at one point where two of these IRAs come together and encroachment into an IRA cannot be avoided. At this point, the project must cross the tip of the 8,810 acre Nobletts IRAs. Routing around the IRAs is not feasible. No roads will be constructed in IRAs, but a small amount of incidental tree clearing (<1.0 acre) will be required at this point.

The decision to be made is whether or not to approve grantng a special use authorization for the construction and maintenance of the Uinta Express Pipeline.

Preliminary issues are the effects of the project on transportation safety, air quality, visual resources, surface and groundwater quality, noise levels, land use (including roadless area impact), vegetation and wildlife.

This notice of intent initiates the 45-day scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

Two open house meetings will be held—one in Bountiful City and another in Heber City—to provide stakeholders and the general public with information about the proposed project and to provide a forum for submitting comments.

Written comments will be accepted throughout the 45-day period. Comments can be hand delivered from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, rich text format (.rtf) or Word (.doc) to uwc_info@fs.fed.us, by facsimile to (801) 253-8118, or to: Nelson Gonzalez-Sullow, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Supervisor's Office, 857 West South Jordan Parkway, South Jordan, UT 84095-8594.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement; therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the 45-day scoping period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The scoping period begins when the Legal Notice is published in The Salt Lake Tribune .

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

The following business will be conducted: (1) Review presentation and written proposals (2) Brief discussion of proposals (3) prioritize projects by vote and choose which projects to fund as funding allows.

On December 31, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (certain solar cells and panels) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan. 1 The Petitions were filed in proper form on behalf of SolarWorld Industries America, Inc. (Petitioner). Petitioner is a domestic producer of solar cells and panels. The Petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition on imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC. On January 3, 6, 9 and 10, 2014, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions. Petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17, 2014.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, and threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting. 2

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petitions were filed on December 31, 2013, the period of investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is April 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013. The POI for the Taiwan investigation is October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.

The products covered by these investigations are certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of the investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Also, on January 15, 2014, Suniva, Inc. (“Suniva”), a U.S. producer of certain solar cells and panels, submitted comments on the scope. 3 As discussed in the preamble to the regulations, 4 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. Parties should note that when considering product coverage with respect to these investigations, the Department will be informed by the product coverage decisions that it made in the investigations that resulted in the existing orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC. 5 The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 11, 2014. All comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and Taiwan AD investigations, as well as the concurrent PRC CVD investigation.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 6 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. on the date of the applicable deadline. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually ( i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit of Enforcement and Compliance, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadline.

The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of certain solar cells and panels to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production (COPs) accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe certain solar cells and panels, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments on product characteristics by February 5, 2014. Rebuttal comments must be received by February 12, 2014. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced above.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 7 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 8

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner offers a definition of the domestic like product that includes certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules and notes that the like product definition in this proceeding is identical to the definition of the like product in the Department's and the ITC's investigation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. 9 According to Petitioner, “{t}he definition of the domestic like product in the Petition differs only slightly from the proposed scope of the investigations . . .” and “slight differences in the definition of the domestic like product and the scope of an investigation are permissible under the statute . . .”  10 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 11

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the Petitions. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. 12 Petitioner obtained total 2012 production of the domestic like product using data published by Solar Energy Industries Association/Greentech Media Research in U.S. Solar Market Insight 2012 Year in Review and other publicly available data. 13 We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. 14

On January 10, 2014, in consultations the Department held with respect to the companion CVD case on imports of certain solar cells and modules from the PRC, the Government of China raised the issue of industry support. 15 On January 15, 2014, we received comments on industry support from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar Inc (collectively, PRC Producers/Exporters). 16 Petitioner responded to the PRC Producers/Exporters' comments on January 15, 2014. 17 PRC Producers/Exporters filed a rebuttal to Petitioner on January 17, 2014. 18 For further discussion of these comments, see the PRC AD Initiation Checklist and the Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Based on information provided in the Petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 19 Based on information provided in the Petitions, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 20

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and that it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. 21

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 22

Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; shuttered production and hindered capacity utilization; reduced employment; and decline in industry financial performance. 23 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 24

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Petitioner calculated constructed export price (CEP) based on an offer for sales of solar panels assembled in, and exported from, the subject country by a manufacturer of subject merchandise. Petitioner classified these offers as CEP transactions because it believed that this manufacturer's products were sold by their U.S. affiliates. Petitioner made deductions from the U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the delivery terms. Petitioner also deducted from the U.S. price U.S. selling expenses and CEP profit, both of which it estimated using the financial statements of First Solar, Inc., a U.S. producer of solar modules utilizing thin-film technologies. 25

Petitioner calculated CEP based on offers for sales of solar panels which were exported from the subject country in the form of laminates and further manufactured in the United States by the U.S. affiliate of the Taiwanese producer of the laminates. Petitioner classified these offers as CEP transactions because it believed that these products were sold by the U.S. affiliate of the Taiwanese producer. Petitioner calculated the further manufacturing costs in the United States using its own production experience and subtracted the further manufacturing cost related to the production of finished modules in the United States from the quoted U.S. price. Petitioner made deductions from the U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the delivery terms. Petitioner also deducted from the U.S. price U.S. indirect selling expenses and CEP profit, both of which it estimated using the financial statements of First Solar, Inc., a U.S. producer of solar modules utilizing thin-film technologies. 26

Petitioner calculated NV for the panels assembled in the PRC using a methodology that was based on the conclusion that the solar cells that were used in the panels were produced in Taiwan from wafers manufactured in the PRC. 27 Petitioner states that the Department has long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. 28 Accordingly, Petitioner calculated the portion of NV that was based on production performed in the PRC using the Department's NME methodology, as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Specifically, Petitioner calculated the portion of NV relating to production performed in the PRC using factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Petitioner contends that Thailand is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) it is a significant producer of identical merchandise; and (3) that the availability and quality of data are good. 29

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Hence, an NME methodology is appropriate for valuing production performed in the PRC. Moreover, based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production no later than 30 days before the date of the preliminary determination. In addition, in the course of the investigation covering merchandise from the PRC, all parties, including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner calculated a portion of the NV for the PRC Petition based on the cost of producing solar cells in Taiwan using PRC wafers. Petitioner determined the cost of the solar cells produced in Taiwan by valuing FOPs for the Taiwanese production using import prices in Taiwan. 30

Petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the consumption rates of a surrogate producer of panels. Petitioner asserts that these consumption rates are reasonably available information, which, to the best of its knowledge, are an appropriate surrogate for consumption of producers of the merchandise under consideration in the PRC because this surrogate producer is comparable to the PRC producers of the merchandise under consideration. 31

Petitioner valued the FOPs for various raw material inputs used to produce subject merchandise in the PRC based on Thai import data for the POI from Global Trade Atlas (GTA) under corresponding Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers. 32 Petitioner added to the raw material surrogate values the inland freight charges reported for importing goods into Thailand, as published by the World Bank in Doing Business 2014: Thailand. 33 Petitioner excluded from its surrogate values all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. 34 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value used as a surrogate excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country. We revised the surrogate that Petitioner used to value aluminum frames and frame corners because Petitioner used a HTS number that had been rejected by the Department in a previous AD proceeding involving solar cells and panels from the PRC. 35

For production performed in Taiwan for the module assembled in the PRC, Petitioner valued various raw material inputs based on Taiwan import data for the POI from GTA under the applicable HTS numbers. 36

For production performed in the PRC, Petitioner valued electricity using a 2012 electricity rate in Thai baht per kilowatt hour, as reported by the Thai Board of Investment. 37 In accordance with the Department's policy not to adjust energy tariffs for inflation if those tariffs are likely still in force, Petitioner did not adjust this value for inflation. 38

For production performed in Taiwan, Petitioner utilized Taiwanese electricity rates for industrial users as collected and disseminated by the U.S. Department of Energy. 39

For production performed in the PRC, Petitioner valued labor using information published in a 2013 industrial survey by the Thailand National Statistics Office. 40

For production performed in Taiwan, Petitioner valued labor using 2012 data for Taiwan collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 41 Petitioner adjusted this rate for inflation by utilizing the consumer price index, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 42

Petitioner calculated factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit using data from the 2012-2013 financial statements of Hana Microelectronics Group, a Thai producer of electronics merchandise which Petitioner identified as comparable to the merchandise under consideration. 43

Petitioner based NV on price information from a Taiwanese producer of panels for panels sold in the subject country. Petitioner was not able to obtain a price quote for a laminate offered for sale in the home market during the POI, but did obtain a finished module price. The only alleged difference between the finished module and laminate is the final stage of the production of the module. Therefore, Petitioner believes that an adjustment to the home market price for the difference in merchandise is appropriate. Petitioner adjusted the home market price by subtracting from the offered price the further manufacturing cost related to the production of finished modules in the United States, based on Petitioner's own experience. Petitioner made adjustments to NV for movement expenses consistent with the sales terms. Petitioner made no other adjustments to NV. 44

Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of CEP to NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for certain solar cells and panels from Taiwan is 75.68 percent. 45 Based on a comparison of CEP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for certain solar cells and panels from the PRC is 165.04 percent. 46

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate an AD proceeding whenever an interested party files an AD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under section 731 of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting the allegations.

Based upon the examination of the Petitions on certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

The Petition for Taiwan names 21 companies as producers/exporters of certain solar cells and panels. Following the Department's standard practice in AD investigations involving market-economy countries, for the Taiwanese AD investigation we will select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of certain solar cells and panels. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five-business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

The Petition for the PRC names 78 companies as producers/exporters of certain solar cells and panels. In accordance with the Department's standard practice in AD investigations involving NME countries, for respondent selection in the PRC AD investigation we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent named in the Petition and base respondent selection on the responses to our Q&V questionnaire. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with the filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. Exporters and producers of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC that do not receive a Q&V questionnaire from the Department may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire using a copy of the questionnaire obtained from Enforcement and Compliance's Web site. The Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by all PRC producers/exporters no later than February 13, 2014. All Q&V questionnaires must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS.

In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. 47 The specific requirements for submitting the separate rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice. All separate rate applications must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. For exporters and producers who submit a separate rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that PRC producers/exporters submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of the PRC and Taiwan via IA ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of the public version of the Petition to the governments of the PRC and Taiwan, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than February 14, 2014, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-10/pdf/2013-08227.pdf#page=1, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 49 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 50 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

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

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

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On December 31, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (certain solar cells and panels) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form by SolarWorld Industries America, Inc. (Petitioner), a domestic producer of certain solar cells and panels. The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of certain solar cells and panels. 1 Between January 3 and January 9, 2014, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition, and between January 7 and January 13, 2014, Petitioner filed a timely response to each request. 2

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of certain solar cells and panels in the PRC received countervailable subsidies under thirty-three programs within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that imports from these producers/exporters materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate ( see “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below).

The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

The products covered by this investigation are certain solar cells and panels the PRC. 3

During our review of the Petition, we solicited information from Petitioner to ensure that the proposed scope language is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Also, on January 15, 2014, Suniva, Inc. (Suniva), a U.S. producer of certain solar cells and panels, submitted comments on the scope. 4 Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, 5 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. Parties should note that when considering product coverage with respect to this investigation, the Department will be informed by the product coverage decisions that it made in the investigations that resulted in the existing orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC. 6 The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by February 11, 2014, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on the record of the CVD investigation, as well as the concurrent AD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually ( i.e., in paper form) with the Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline established by the Department. 7

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on January 2, 2014, the Department invited representatives from the Government of China (GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition. Consultations were held with the GOC on January 10, 2014. 8

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 9 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 10

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner offers a definition of the domestic like product that includes certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules and notes that the like product definition in this proceeding is identical to the definition of the like product in the Department's and the ITC's investigation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. 11 According to Petitioner, “{t}he definition of the domestic like product in the Petition differs only slightly from the proposed scope of the investigations . . .” and “slight differences in the definition of the domestic like product and the scope of an investigation are permissible under the statute. . . .”  12 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 13

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the Petition. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. 14 Petitioner obtained total 2012 production of the domestic like product using data published by Solar Energy Industries Association/Greentech Media Research in U.S. Solar Market Insight 2012 Year in Review and other publicly available data. 15 We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. 16

On January 10, 2014, in its consultations with the Department, the GOC raised the issue of industry support. 17 On January 15, 2014, we received comments on industry support from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar Inc. (collectively, PRC Producers/Exporters). 18 Petitioner responded to the PRC Producers/Exporters' comments on January 15, 2014. 19 PRC Producers/Exporters filed a rebuttal to Petitioner on January 17, 2014. 20 For further discussion of these comments, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Based on information provided in the Petition, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 22

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. 23

Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 24

Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; shuttered production and hindered capacity utilization; reduced employment; and decline in industry financial performance. 25 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting the allegations.

The Department has examined the Petition on certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether producers/exporters of certain solar cells and panels in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see the CVD Initiation Checklist which accompanies this notice.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 28 alleged programs. For the other five programs alleged by Petitioner, we have determined that the requirements for initiation have not been met. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the CVD Initiation Checklist.

For this investigation, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI ( i.e., calendar year 2012) under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five days of the announcement of the initiation of this investigation. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven calendar days of release of this data. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/index.html.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the representatives of the GOC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized certain solar cells and panels from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. 27 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 28 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

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

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings. 29 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov//fdsys//pkg//FR-2013-09-20//html//2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 30 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD or CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, including this investigation. 31 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7025-X, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 97-12A003.”

The original Certificate for the Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc., was issued on January 21, 1998 (63 FR 4220, January 28, 1998). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows.

Applicant: Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. (“AARQ”), c/o Jess Errecarte, AARQ Chairman, 1550 Drew Ave Suite 150 Davis, California 95616.

Contact: Matthew R. Elkin, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Telephone (202) 739-5285.

Application No.: 97-12A003.

Date Deemed Submitted: January 7, 2014.

Proposed Amendment: AARQ seeks to amend its Certificate to:

AARQ's proposed amendment of its Export Trade Certificate of Review would result in the following membership list:

On December 27, 2013 NOAA announced the availability of draft guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under NOAA's jurisdiction for public comment (78 FR 78822). The guidance provides updated received levels, or thresholds, above which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity (either temporary or permanent) for all underwater anthropogenic sound sources. NOAA has received requests for an extension of the public comment period. In response to these requests, NOAA is reopening the comment period an additional 45 days. Comments must be received or postmarked by no later than March 13, 2014.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specific geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

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.”

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].”

On December 18, 2013, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting a Letters of Authorization (LOA) for the take of 29 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities to be conducted in the NWTT Study Area over 5 years. The Navy is requesting a 5-year LOA for training and testing activities to be conducted from 2015 through 2020. The Study Area includes the existing Northwest Training Range Complex, the Keyport Range Complex, Carr Inlet Operations Area, Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC), and Navy pierside locations where sonar maintenance or testing may occur (see Figure 1-1 of the Navy's application for a map of the NWTT Study Area). The activities conducted within the NWTT Study Area are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine mammals present within the NWTT Study Area to sound from underwater acoustic sources and explosives. In addition, incidental takes of marine mammals may occur from ship strike. The Navy is requesting authorization to take 29 marine mammal species by Level B (behavioral) harassment; 9 of those marine mammal species may be taken by injury or mortality.

In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting the following training and testing activities: Anti-surface warfare; anti-submarine warfare; mine warfare; naval special warfare; major training activities; Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) testing; anti-surface warfare testing; anti-submarine warfare testing; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) testing; and Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) testing. Detailed descriptions of these activities, including duration, location, and equipment involved, are provided in the Navy's application. The Navy has also prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing the effects on the human environment of implementing their preferred alternative (among others).

Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All input related to the Navy's NWTT request and NMFS' role in governing the incidental taking of marine mammals will be considered by NMFS when developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of a Letter of Authorization.

The Bureau is charged with regulating “the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws,” so as to ensure that “all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.” Pursuant to Section 1021(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Bureau's primary functions are:

1. Conducting financial education programs;

2. Collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer complaints;

3. Collecting, researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant to the function of markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and to the proper functioning of such markets;

4. Supervising persons covered under the Dodd-Frank Act for compliance with Federal consumer financial law, and taking appropriate enforcement action to address violations of Federal consumer financial law;

5. Issuing rules, orders, and guidance implementing Federal consumer financial law; and

6. Performing such support activities as may be needed or useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.

Section 1013(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(1), establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Office of Research and assigns to it the responsibility of researching, analyzing, and reporting on topics relating to the Bureau's mission, including developments in markets for consumer financial products and services, consumer awareness, and consumer behavior. The Bureau established the Academic Research Council as a technical advisory body comprised of scholars to provide the Office of Research methodological and technical advice and feedback on its research work by framing research questions; suggesting new data collection strategies and methods of analysis; providing feedback, both backward and forward looking, on the Office of Research's research program; providing input into its research strategic planning process and research agenda; collaborating with CFPB research staff on high value research projects which shall allow for transfer of specialized expertise; and supporting high quality recruitment.

In appointing members of the Council, the Office of Research seeks to recruit tenured academics, with a world class research and publishing background, and a record of public or academic service. We are seeking prominent experts who are recognized for their professional achievements and objectivity in economics, statistics, psychology or behavioral science. In particular, academics with strong methodological and technical expertise in structural or reduced form econometrics, modeling of consumer decision-making, behavioral economics, experimental economics, program evaluation, psychology, and financial choice. The members of the Council will collectively provide a balance of expertise across these areas.

The Council is composed of no more than eight members. Currently we have six Council members. We are looking to fill two additional seats on the Council in 2014. You can learn more about current Academic Research Council members at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/1209_cfpb_arcbios.pdf.

The Bureau has a special interest in ensuring that the perspectives of women and men, all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on the Board and Councils, and therefore, encourages applications from qualified candidates from these groups. The Bureau also has a special interest in establishing a Council that is represented by a diversity of viewpoints and constituencies, and therefore encourages nominations for qualified candidates who:

1. Represent the United States' geographic diversity; and

2. Understand the interests of special populations identified in the Dodd-Frank Act, including servicemembers, older Americans, students, and traditionally underserved consumers and communities.

Any interested person may apply for membership on the Council.

A complete application packet must include:

1. A complete résumé or curriculum vitae for the applicant; and

2. Completed application— http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/accepting-applications-for-our-academic-research-council.

To evaluate potential sources of conflicts of interest, the Bureau will ask potential candidates to provide information related to financial holdings and/or professional affiliations, and to allow the Bureau to perform a background check. The Bureau will not review nominations and will not answer questions from internal or external parties regarding applications until the application period has closed.

The Bureau will not entertain nominations of federally registered lobbyists and individuals who have been convicted of a felony for a position on the Council.

Only complete applications will be given consideration for review of membership on the Council.

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

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the Task Force Members to convene and gather data from panels and briefers on the Task Force's topics of inquiry.

Agenda: (Refer to http://rwtf.defense.gov for the most up-to-date meeting information.)

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

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces about its mission and functions. If individuals are interested in making an oral statement during the Public Forum, a written statement for a presentation of two minutes must be submitted as stated in this notice and it must be identified as being submitted for an oral presentation by the person making the submission. Identification information must be provided and, at a minimum, must include a name and a phone number. Individuals may visit the Task Force Web site at http://rwtf.defense.gov to view the Charter. Individuals making presentations will be notified by Thursday, February 20, 2014. Oral presentations will be permitted only on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. EST before the Task Force. The number of oral presentations will not exceed ten, with one minute of questions available to the Task Force members per presenter. Presenters should not exceed their two minutes.

Written statements in which the author does not wish to present orally may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Task Force through the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

Statements, either oral or written, being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, February 18, 2014 with the subject of this notice. Statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Task Force until its next meeting. Please mark mail correspondence as “Time Sensitive for February Meeting.”

The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Task Force Co-Chairs and ensure they are provided to all members of the Task Force before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

Reasonable accommodations will be made for those individuals with disabilities who request them. Requests for additional services should be directed to Ms. Heather Moore, (703) 325-6640, by 5:00 p.m. EST, Wednesday, February 19, 2014.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) part 204, Administrative Matters, and related clauses at DFARS 252.204; DD Form 2051, Request for Assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code; OMB Control Number 0704-0225.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 12,895.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 12,895.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.0 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 13,418.

Needs and Uses: DoD uses this information to control unclassified contract data that is sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public; and it is used to facilitate data exchange among automated systems for contract award, contract administration, and contract payment by assigning a unique code to each DoD contractor.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Frequency: On Occasion.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

CPANGC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Anchorage, Alaska. CPANGC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company (“ConocoPhillips”), a publicly-traded Delaware corporation. CPANGC is authorized to do business in the State of Alaska, among other states. CPANGC is the operator and indirect owner of existing natural gas liquefaction and marine terminal facilities located in the Cook Inlet near Kenai, Alaska (“Kenai LNG Facility”).

CPANGC states in the Application that either itself or its predecessors have exported LNG from the Kenai LNG Facility over a forty-five year period pursuant to several, sequential export authorizations granted by DOE/FE or its predecessor agencies. The more recent such authorizations have included DOE Order and Opinion No. 2500, issued June 3, 2008, which authorized CPANGC and Marathon Oil Company (co-owners of the Kenai LNG Facility at the time) to export up to 99 trillion British thermal units (TBtus) of LNG on a short-term or spot-market basis to Japan and/or one or more countries in the Pacific Rim over a two-year period commencing April 1, 2009, and terminating March 31, 2011. DOE/FE denied rehearing of Order No. 2500 in DOE Opinion and Order No. 2500-A, issued July 30, 2008.

Most recently, on October 5, 2010, DOE/FE issued Order No. 2860, which granted CPANGC and Marathon blanket authorization to export the balance of the 99 TBtus of LNG authorized for export in Order Nos. 2500 and 2500-A, which had not been exported by the expiration of that authorization on March 31, 2011. This most recent authorization to export LNG from the Kenai LNG Facility to Japan and/or one or more other countries in the Pacific Rim with which trading is not prohibited by U.S. law commenced on April 1, 2011, and expired on March 31, 2013.

CPANGC did not apply to extend its prior export authorizations beyond March 31, 2013. According to the Application, this was due to perceived uncertainties regarding the near-term adequacy of natural gas supplies in the Cook Inlet region for regional needs. CPANGC states, however, that the uncertainties have been removed and this change of circumstances justifies the instant Application.

CPANGC seeks blanket authorization to export a quantity of LNG in an amount up to the equivalent of 40 Bcf of natural gas from the Kenai LNG Facility, acting on its own behalf or as agent for others, to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. CPANGC is willing to comply with the agency requirements imposed by DOE/FE in a series of recent orders. CPANGC seeks such authorization for a two-year period to commence on the date of issuance of the order granting the requested authorization. CPANGC expects that LNG prices will vary from time to time to reflect changes in market conditions. Consistent with the DOE/FE precedent, natural gas purchase and sales contracts are not being filed as part of this application for blanket authorization to export LNG from the Kenai LNG Facility. CPANGC certifies that there are no other proceedings related to this Application currently pending at either DOE or any other Federal agency.

CPANGC states that approval of this application is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is required. CPANGC further states that the proposed export of LNG would not require any changes to the Kenai LNG Facility and that the LNG manufacturing and storage facilities that will be utilized during the blanket authorization already exist and have been operated safely without major disruption of supply or accident since their startup in 1969.

CPANGC states that, under section 3 of the NGA, DOE/FE must authorize an export of natural gas from the United States to a foreign country unless there is a finding that the export will not be consistent with the public interest. CPANGC further states that DOE/FE has found that section 3 of the NGA creates a statutory presumption in favor of approval of a properly-framed export application, which opponents bear the burden of overcoming. According to CPANGC, DOE/FE's public interest determination is guided by DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111, which designates domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported as the only explicit criterion that must be considered in determining the public interest. CPANGC states that DOE/FE has found the regional need for the natural gas proposed to be exported to be the principal focus of its review for an application for authorization to export LNG from the State of Alaska and that DOE/FE has in turn evaluated regional need in Southcentral Alaska by determining whether there is sufficient evidence that regional natural gas supplies will be adequate to meet both regional needs and the proposed LNG export during the relevant export period. CPANGC also states that DOE/FE has considered other factors to the extent they are shown to be relevant to the public interest determination for an export authorization.

CPANGC maintains that its Application for blanket authorization to export LNG from the Kenai LNG Facility to non-FTA countries is not inconsistent with the public interest. It asserts that the natural gas to be exported under the requested blanket authorization is not needed to meet regional demand for natural gas during the proposed export period. CPANGC adds that, by providing an additional source of demand, particularly during the warmer months when domestic demand is low, the requested export authorization will provide tangible benefits to the local community by not only preserving gas well deliverability and enhancing the current supply security of Southcentral Alaska, but also by providing an economic incentive and market opportunity for continued exploration and additional gas supply development in Alaska's Cook Inlet.

Additional details can be found in CPANGC's Application, which is posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2013_applications/13_155_LNG.pdf.

CPANGC requests that DOE/FE act upon the Application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 days, in order that LNG export activity can be resumed during the second quarter of 2014. In view of the submission of letters in support of the Application from the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and others (reproduced respectively in Appendix C and Appendix E to the Application), CPANGC does not expect material, substantive opposition to the requested export authorization from key stakeholders in Southcentral Alaska. In addition, CPANGC states that it is relying upon a supply and demand study that DOE/FE has already evaluated in DOE Opinion and Order No. 2860, as supplemented by a 2011 DNR Study that is incorporated by reference in the Application.

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a). In reviewing this LNG export Application, DOE will consider issues required by law or policy. The Application is considered a renewal of previously issued authority (see discussion above). To the extent determined to be relevant or appropriate, DOE/FE's review will include the impact of LNG exports associated with this Application on Alaskan regional domestic need for the natural gas proposed for export, adequacy of domestic natural gas supply in Alaska, and other issues, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose the Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities. Interested persons will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or motions for additional procedures.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR Part 590.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to fergas@hq.doe.gov with FE Docket No. 13-155-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES ; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply at the address listed in ADDRESSES before 4:30 p.m. EST. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 13-155-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may submit an answer to the Request for Expedited Action, 1 or may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision, and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.

If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

Background: In 2001, six Federal agencies began formal cooperation under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the research and development of multimedia (i.e. air, soil, water) environmental models. This MOU established the Federal Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling (ISCMEM). The MOU was revised and renewed in 2006 and again in 2011. The MOU establishes a framework for facilitating cooperation and coordination among research organizations in the participating agencies. So far, seven agencies have signed the current renewal of the MOU: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Engineer Research and Development Center); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Resources Conservation Service); the U.S. Department of Energy (Office of Environmental Management); the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Research and Development); the U.S. National Science Foundation (Geosciences Directorate); and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research). Other agencies are considering signing the revised MOU.

In ISCMEM, agencies cooperate and coordinate in research and development of all aspects of multimedia environmental modeling. This includes development and enhancements of software, databases, and interoperability, and applications and assessment of site specific, generic, and process-oriented multimedia environmental models as they pertain to human and environmental health risk assessment. Multimedia environmental model development and simulation supports interagency interests in risk assessment, uncertainty analyses, management of geologic, hydrologic, atmospheric, terrestrial, and ecological resources, and decision making. The theme of this year's annual public meeting is “How environmental modeling plays a role in decision making”. The topics to be discussed focus on: (1) Citizen science, crowd sourcing, and social media; (2) environment and energy; (3) energy/water nexus; (4) climate change; and (5) water resources management.

Purpose of the Public Meeting: The annual public meeting provides an opportunity for the scientific community, ISCMEM members and other Federal and State agencies, and the public to discuss ISCMEM activities and their initiatives for the upcoming year, and to discuss technological advancements in multimedia environmental modeling.

Proposed Agenda: The ISCMEM Chair will open the meeting with a brief overview of the goals of the MOU and an update on current activities and future plans of ISCMEM. This introduction will be followed by a series of invited technical presentations for the remainder of the first day, focusing on topics of mutual interest to ISCMEM participants. The steering committee will hold an open business session on the morning of the second day. A detailed agenda with presentation titles and speakers will be posted on the ISCMEM public Web site: http://iemhub.org/topics/iscmem . The agenda and instructions for registration will also be available through the list of public meetings on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings.html .

Meeting Access: The meeting location at the U.S. DOE Forrestal Building, Main Auditorium (Room GE-086) is located at 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 adjacent to the Smithsonian Metrorail Station. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. Please allow time to register with U.S. DOE visitor security check-in at the main lobby and bring two photo IDs. Direct access to the meeting room is on the same level as the visitor security check-in. Refer to the above section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for pre-registration requirements.

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

Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):

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

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://inlcab.energy.gov/pages/meetings.php.

EPA submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), and the procedures in 5 CFR 1320.12. Prior Public Notice: Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA announced and provided a 60-day public comment period on the information collection activities as described in this ICR (78 FR 36774, June 19, 2013). EPA received two public comments which are posted in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0287 for this action. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

ICR Status: This is a renewal for a currently approved ICR. This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. Under the PRA, 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 OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

Abstract: Pesticide registrants are required by statute to pay an annual registration maintenance fee for all products registered under Section 3 and Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) amended FIFRA in 2004 to create a registration service fee system for applications for specific pesticide registration, amended registration, and associated tolerance actions (Section 33). This ICR specifically covers the activities related to the collection of the annual registration maintenance fees, the registration service fees and the burden associated with the submission of requests for fees to be waived.

Form Numbers: EPA Form 8570-30—Pesticide Registration Fee Filing Form.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturers, other basic inorganic chemical manufacturers, other basic organic chemical manufacturers, and regulators of agricultural marketing commodities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to this collection of information are required to obtain or retain a benefit (i.e., registration of a pesticide).

Estimated number of respondents: 1744

Frequency of response: Annual and on occasion.

Total estimated annual burden: 7,907 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated annual cost: $535,728 For both programs.

Changes in the Estimates: The total annual respondent burden increased by 342 hours for the Pesticide Product Maintenance fees program and also increased 303 hours for the Pesticide Registration Service Fee waivers compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects a slight increase in the number of requests submitted to the agency. This change is an adjustment.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

EPA ICR Number: 0220.12.

OMB Control Number: 2040-0168.

Abstract: Section 404(g) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes States [and Tribes] to assume the section 404 permit program for discharges of dredged or fill material into certain Waters of the U.S. This ICR covers the collection of information EPA needs to perform its program approval and oversight responsibilities and the State/Tribe needs to establish and implement its program.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those States/Tribes requesting assumption of the CWA section 404 permit program; States/Tribes with approved assumed programs; and permit applicants in States/Tribes with assumed programs.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR 233).

Estimated number of respondents: EPA anticipates 2 States/Tribes will request program assumption; there will be approximately 14,000 permit applications (3,500 applications per state); and 4 States/Tribes which have assumed the program (the two current programs and potentially two who may be approved under this ICR) which will submit an annual report.

Frequency of response: States/Tribes will respond one time to request assumption and once the program is approved they will respond annually for the annual permit and annual report; permit applicants will respond one time when requesting a permit.

Total estimated burden: The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 90,960 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: Costs to states for assumed Section 404 permit programs will vary widely by state and permit, however there are $0 capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 10,400 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is because the estimated number of permits reviewed by a state per year decreased. This decrease is based on the experience of the state of New Jersey, due in part to a change in the economy and to a recalculation in the number of permits estimated. There was an increase in the number of hours spent reviewing each permit, due to an increase in the number of times applicants requested a review of mitigation options. The estimate used here is a weighted average of Michigan's and New Jersey's estimates.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit www.epa.gov/dockets.

EPA ICR #: 1808.07.

OMB Control #: 2020-0007.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulations at 40 CFR part 8, Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Rule), were promulgated pursuant to the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 (Act), 16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2403a, which implements the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Protocol) to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 (Treaty). The Rule provides for assessment of the environmental impacts of nongovernmental activities in Antarctica, including tourism, for which the United States is required to give advance notice under Paragraph 5 of Article VII of the Treaty, and for coordination of the review of information regarding environmental impact assessments received from other Parties under the Protocol. Persons subject to the Rule must prepare environmental documentation to support the operator's determination regarding the level of environmental impact of the proposed expedition. The Protocol and the Rule also require an operator to employ procedures to assess and provide a regular and verifiable record of the actual impacts of an activity which proceeds on the basis of an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) or Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE).

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Private operators.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 8).

Estimated number of respondents: 18.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 1,254 hours.

Total estimated cost: $100,575 (per year) includes $3,390 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 454 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is the result of a change to the level of environmental documentation EPA anticipates the operators will submit as well as an anticipated decrease of operators submitting documentation.

I. General Information A. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

Pesticides are regulated under both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq., and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a.

you may be potentially affected by this action if you are a producer of pesticide products (NAICS 32532), importers of such products, or any person or company who seeks to obtain a tolerance for such a pesticide. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pesticide drift can be characterized as the physical movement of a pesticide through the air at the time of application or soon thereafter from the target site to any non- or off-target site. This does not include pesticide movements by erosion, migration, volatility, or windblown soil particles after application. Drift is dependent on the design of application equipment, size of spray droplets or dry particles, weather conditions, and other factors.

Once off-target, pesticide drift can potentially deposit in unintended areas or directly onto people or nontarget species. To provide guidance to EPA staff and stakeholders, EPA has developed two documents describing EPA's approach to assessing pesticide drift in human health and ecological risk assessments. Both documents are available in the docket for this action using the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0676.

• Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessments for the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (Draft dated 11/1/2013) (Ref. 1), and

• Residential Exposure Assessment Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Addenda 1: Consideration of Spray Drift (Draft dated 11/1/2013) (Ref. 2).

The draft Ecological and Drinking Water Assessment Guidance provides information on estimating spray drift fractions of liquid sprays for modeling offsite deposition of a pesticide for ecological and drinking water assessment and on estimating distances from the treated field where adverse effects may be observed due to exposure to spray drift. The draft guidance also provides default assumptions for modeling inputs to use when estimating spray drift in terrestrial and aquatic assessments.

The Residential Exposure Addenda describes a screening approach for defining when assessments are needed and the methodology for estimating risks for indirect exposures to pesticide drift, such as children playing on a lawn that has pesticide residues that drifted from a nearby treated field. The draft guidance describes when quantitative risk assessments for spray drift are generally needed, and also provides the modeling inputs needed to complete the exposure and risk assessments.

EPA expects the model-generated values for spray drift fractions to provide realistic exposure and risk estimates for both ecological and human health assessments. These policies will promote consistency within EPA, as well as with other federal agencies and international regulatory partners that rely on predicted spray drift values.

EPA uses two peer-reviewed spray drift models (AgDRIFT and AGDISP) to estimate the contribution of spray drift to ecological and human health risk assessments. Both models estimate drift fractions, as applicable to spray of liquid materials. In general, OPP uses the AgDRIFT model to assess spray drift from agricultural applications, whereas AGDISP is used for other types of pesticide applications, such as aerial application of mosquito adulticides. It is noted that AGDISP has limited capability to estimate drift fractions from dry materials application.

EPA has prepared a support document (Ref. 3), which is available in the docket for this action, explaining the scientific basis for AgDRIFT and AGDISP, and providing information on this harmonized approach for estimating spray drift fractions.

To enhance consistency and provide more realistic risk estimates, the Agency has developed the draft ecological guidance (Ref. 1) to apply a uniform approach for estimating drift fractions for all tiers of ecological risk assessments. Unit III. provides historical information on OPP's approach for estimation of spray drift.

Prior to the adoption of AgDRIFT and AGDISP, for aquatic exposure assessment purposes, default values of 5% were recommended to OPP for use as estimates for the spray drift loading from aerial and air-blast applications to a pond (Ref. 4). However, beginning in the 1990s, OPP's practice was to use default drift values—developed using best professional judgement—of 5% (aerial application), 3% (airblast application), and 1% (ground application) in terrestrial and aquatic assessments. Then, to make more realistic calculations of exposure from spray drift deposition, EPA implemented the use of AgDRIFT model-generated values for spray drift fractions for:

• Screening-level (Tier I) aquatic exposure model GENEEC (GENeric Estimated Exposure Concentration) for ecological exposure assessments, and

• Tier I—FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool) and Tier II—PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model)/EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System) for drinking water assessments.

However, the practice of using default drift values of 5% (aerial application), 3% (airblast application), and 1% (ground application) in terrestrial and Tier II aquatic assessments continued.

In 2004, EPA staff performed a comparison study of these previously-specified, percentage-based default spray drift deposition levels and AgDRIFT predictions. The comparison indicated these default values can potentially underestimate off-site deposition of spray drift under certain scenarios when compared to model-predicted values (Ref. 5).

Based upon continued model refinements, EPA is now revising its approach for terrestrial and Tier II aquatic assessments. As a result of these revisions, EPA has developed default model input parameters to estimate the spray drift fraction for all tiers of aquatic and terrestrial exposure assessments. Use of these inputs in the AgDRIFT model should result in more realistic estimates of exposure from spray drift deposition for all terrestrial and aquatic environments.

The draft guidance for considering spray drift in human health risk assessment has been developed as an addendum to the EPA's existing SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment (SOPs), which are available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html. EPA routinely uses the SOPs as the basis for evaluating the risks associated with residential exposures to pesticides, including residential turf assessments.

The predominant sources of potential human health risks associated with spray drift is from direct contact with sprays and from contact with contaminated surfaces such as lawns in areas adjacent to pesticide applications. Direct contact with sprays is considered a violation of standard label language, and as applicable, EPA's Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170). This means that direct contact is not evaluated in risk assessment but is addressed through enforcement action against persons not complying with label prohibitions/directions, through applicator education, and through other means. The primary focus on spray drift in the human health risk assessment process is through indirect contact with contaminated surfaces such as lawns. The draft guidance document describes scenarios for which quantitative risk assessments for spray drift would generally be appropriate, and provides the information needed to complete a residential turf assessment using spray drift fractions predicted by AgDRIFT.

Spray drift is governed by a variety of factors which govern how much of the pesticide application deposits on surfaces where contact with residues can eventually lead to indirect exposures (e.g., children playing on lawns that are next to treated fields and where residues have deposited). The potential risk estimates from these residues can be calculated using drift modeling coupled with methods employed for residential risk assessments for turf products. There is a regulatory precedent for this approach as it has been used by the Agency in a number of previous situations that include:

• Response to a petition to cancel 14 pesticides, (69 FR 30042; May 26, 2004; FRL-7355-7),

• Development of buffer zone estimates for two organophosphate insecticides used on orchard crops in the Pacific Northwest, and

• Development of a recent spray drift risk assessment for all uses of an organophosphate insecticide, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0105.

Using default assumptions, the AgDRIFT model is used to predict spray drift estimates (similar to the ecological assessment process described in Unit III.) in the absence of application parameters such as droplet size spectrum, release height, wind speed, and percent of swath displacement (i.e., the same Tier 1 input parameters are used to compute drift fractions for both human health and ecological risk assessment). In the human health risk assessment process, deposition estimates are integrated over 50 feet wide lawns to account for the fact that small children can play anywhere on an impacted lawn. In the draft guidance document (Ref. 2), drift estimates are then used to adjust deposition values for the standard methods for evaluating children's exposure from treated turf. Small children are the focus of this methodology because they have the highest exposures. Values are calculated using lawns at different distances away from a treatment area—adjoining it to 300 feet away. Also, additional spray drift deposition values are included which account for more options available in the AgDRIFT model which allows for flexibility in the risk management process. These include:

• All canopy types for orchard airblast sprayers,

• All boom height and spray quality combinations available for groundboom sprayers, and

• Different options for aircraft including consideration of helicopter use and differing spray qualities (e.g., coarse instead of fine to medium spray quality).

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for the public to provide comments and input on any additional information that may impact the Agency's assessment of spray drift in pesticide risk assessments. Specifically included within the Agency's request for comments are the model-generated spray drift values as described in either or both of the draft guidance documents.

With regards to the Ecological and Drinking Water Assessment Guidance, as discussed in Unit III., EPA currently uses spray drift estimates, developed in the 1990s, using best professional judgement: 5% (aerial application), 3% (air-blast application) and 1% (ground application) in selected terrestrial and Tier II aquatic exposure assessments. Based upon continued model refinements, EPA is revising this approach and is beginning to incorporate AgDRIFT model estimates in all tiers for terrestrial and aquatic environments to estimate more realistic exposure from spray drift deposition. This approach is more consistent with current approaches throughout OPP. EPA is seeking comment on this approach.

While EPA does not intend to formally respond to all comments made, comments in response to this notice will be taken into consideration as EPA finalizes these guidance documents. If substantive comments are made that may substantially change the EPA's consideration of spray drift in pesticide risk assessment, EPA will notify the public of these comments and describe how EPA has responded to them.

As indicated under ADDRESSES , a docket has been established for this notice under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0676. The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this action. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.

The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2), to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the chartered CASAC augmented with additional experts, known as the CASAC Ozone Review Panel, will hold a public meeting to peer review EPA's draft documents referenced above. These EPA draft documents are prepared as part of the agency's review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including ozone. EPA is currently reviewing the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for ozone. The CASAC previously reviewed EPA's Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (First External Review Draft—Updated August 2012) and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (First External Review Draft—Updated August 2012) . CASAC's comments on both of these documents are reported in a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated November 19, 2012 (EPA-CASAC-13- 002). CASAC also previously reviewed EPA's Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (First External Review Draft—August 2012) as reported in a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated November 26, 2012 (EPA-CASAC-13-003).

The CASAC Ozone Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone—Second External Review Draft (January 2014) or concerning the Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone—Second External Review Draft (January 2014) should be directed to Dr. Bryan Hubbell ( hubbell.bryan@epa.gov ). Any questions concerning the Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Second External Review Draft (January 2014) should be directed to Ms. Susan Lyon Stone ( stone.susan@epa.gov ).

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for a federal advisory committee to consider pertaining to EPA's charge to the committee or review materials. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific, technical information or analysis or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information for the CASAC's consideration. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Interested parties should contact Dr. Stallworth, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by March 13, 2014, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting. Written Statements: Written statements should be submitted to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by March 13, 2014 for the meeting so that the information may be made available to the CASAC Panel for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post public comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: The public can view the March 25-27, 2014 meeting via a non-interactive webcast that will be broadcast on the internet. The connection information to view the meeting via webcast will be provided on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac in advance of the meeting. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth at (202) 564-2073 or stallworth.holly@epa.gov . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Stallworth preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

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

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

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

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

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

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

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

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

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

Two sections of the Clean Air Act (Act) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in her “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources;” and “for which * * * [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria * * *”. Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air * * *” 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria * * * and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards * * * and shall recommend to the Administrator any new * * * standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate * * *.” Since the early 1980's, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).

Presently, the EPA is reviewing the NAAQS for O 3 . The EPA's overall plan for this review is presented in the Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 1 As part of the EPA's review of the primary and secondary O 3 NAAQS, 2 the Agency has conducted quantitative assessments characterizing the: (1) Health risks associated with exposure to ambient O 3 ; (2) welfare risks associated with exposure to ambient O 3 ; and, (3) associated ambient air quality analyses. On or about January 31, 2014, the EPA is making available for public comment two draft assessment documents titled, Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, Second External Review Draft and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, Second External Review Draft. These documents revise the first draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment (EPA-452/P-12-001; July 2012) and first draft Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment (EPA-452/P-12-004; July 2012), respectively. 3 The draft assessment documents announced today convey the approaches taken to assess exposures to ambient O 3 and to characterize associated health and welfare risks, as well as present the key results, observations, and related uncertainties associated with the quantitative analyses performed. These draft assessments may be accessed online through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.

In addition, on or about January 31, 2014, the EPA will make available the draft document titled, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Second External Review Draft. This document will serve to “bridge the gap” between the scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether to retain or revise the existing NAAQS for (O 3 ), and, if revision is considered, what revisions may be appropriate. This document revises the first draft Policy Assessment (EPA-452/P-12-004; July 2012). 4 The Policy Assessment builds upon information presented in the Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report)  5 and the two draft assessment documents announced today and described above. The second draft Policy Assessment may be accessed online through the EPA's TTN Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.

The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of these draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. Information about these public meetings, including the dates and locations, will be published as a separate notice in the Federal Register . Following the CASAC meeting, the EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing revisions to these documents. The EPA will consider public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the documents. The documents that are the subject of today's notice do not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint or determination.

Title and Form Number: EIB 92-36 Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies

OMB Number: 3048-0016

Type of Review: Regular

Need and Use: This form is used by an insured exporter or lender (or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment risk of an overseas bank. The information received allows Ex-Im Bank staff to make a determination of the creditworthiness of the foreign bank and the underlying export sale for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its programs.

This form has been updated to include a new Certification and Notices section as well as a new statement explaining Ex-Im Bank's limitation on support for goods subject to trade measures or sanctions.

Affected Public:

This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

Government Expenses:

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3018” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3018” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to the Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC (“the Atlanta Falcons”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that the Atlanta Falcons made to consumers concerning their participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework (“Safe Harbor”) agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor framework.

The Atlanta Falcons are a professional football team and a member of the National Football League. According to the Commission's complaint, from September 2005 until November 2013, the Atlanta Falcons set forth on their Web site, www.atlantafalcons.com, privacy policies and statements about their practices, including statements related to their participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the Atlanta Falcons falsely represented that they were a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor when, in fact, from September 2006 until November 2013, the Atlanta Falcons were not a “current” participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The Commission's complaint alleges that in September 2005, the Atlanta Falcons submitted a Safe Harbor self-certification. The Atlanta Falcons did not renew the self-certification in September 2006, and Commerce subsequently updated the Atlanta Falcons' status to “not current” on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits the Atlanta Falcons from making misrepresentations about their membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires the Atlanta Falcons to retain documents relating to compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that the Atlanta Falcons submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “DDC Laboratories, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3024” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “DDC Laboratories, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3024” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to DDC Laboratories, Inc. (“DDC”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that DDC made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework (“Safe Harbor”) agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor framework.

DDC is a leading provider of private DNA testing and focuses primarily on testing to establish paternity and other familial relationships. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least November 2007, DDC has set forth on its Web site, www.dnacenter.com, a privacy policy and statement about its practices, including a statement related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that DDC, through its statement, falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor when, in fact, from November 2011 until November 2013, DDC was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor. The Commission's complaint alleges that in November 2007, DDC submitted a Safe Harbor self-certification. DDC subsequently renewed its self-certification in November 2008, November 2009, and November 2010. DDC did not renew its self-certification in November 2011 and Commerce subsequently updated DDC's status to “not current” on its public Web site. In November 2013, DDC renewed its self-certification to the Safe Harbor and its status was changed to “current” on Commerce's Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits DDC from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires DDC to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that DDC submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3019” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm . As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3019” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP (“Baker Tilly”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Baker Tilly made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework (“Safe Harbor”) agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor framework.

In 2008, Commerce developed the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework Certification Mark (“the mark”) to allow companies to highlight for consumers their compliance with the Safe Harbor Framework. Upon request, Commerce provides the mark to those organizations that maintain a “current” self-certification to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has established certain rules for using the mark, such as requirements related to the mark's placement on a Web site and the inclusion of a link to www.export.gov/safeharbor .

Baker Tilly is an accounting and advisory services firm. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least June 2010, Baker Tilly has set forth on its Web site, www.bakertilly.com, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. In addition, from at least June 2010, Baker Tilly displayed the mark on its Web site.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Baker Tilly, through its statements and use of the mark, falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor when, in fact, from June 2011 until December 2013, Baker Tilly was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor. The Commission's complaint alleges that in June 2010, Baker Tilly submitted a Safe Harbor self-certification. Baker Tilly did not renew its self-certification in June 2011 and Commerce subsequently updated Baker Tilly's status to “not current” on its public Web site. In December 2013, Baker Tilly renewed its self-certification to the Safe Harbor and its status was changed to “current” on Commerce's Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Baker Tilly from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Baker Tilly to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Baker Tilly submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “Tennessee Football, Inc.-Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3032” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Tennessee Football, Inc.- Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3032” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Tennessee Football, Inc. (“the Tennessee Titans”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that the Tennessee Titans made to consumers concerning their participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework (“Safe Harbor”) agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor framework.

The Tennessee Titans are a professional football team and a member of the National Football League. According to the Commission's complaint, from August 2005 until November 2013, the Tennessee Titans set forth on their Web site, www.titansonline.com, privacy policies and statements about their practices, including statements related to their participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the Tennessee Titans falsely represented that they were a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor when, in fact, from August 2009 until November 2013, the Tennessee Titans were not a “current” participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The Commission's complaint alleges that in August 2005, the Tennessee Titans submitted a Safe Harbor self-certification. The Tennessee Titans did not renew the self-certification in August 2009, and Commerce subsequently updated the Tennessee Titans' status to “not current” on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits the Tennessee Titans from making misrepresentations about their membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires the Tennessee Titans to retain documents relating to compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that the Tennessee Titans submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “Apperian, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3017” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm . As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “Apperian, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3017” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm .

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Apperian, Inc. (“Apperian”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Apperian made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy frameworks agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”) and the U.S. and Switzerland (“U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and/or U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework (“Safe Harbor Frameworks”). The Safe Harbor Frameworks allow U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU and Switzerland consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor Frameworks, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission and Switzerland as providing “adequate” privacy protection. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Frameworks.

In 2008, Commerce developed the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework Certification Mark (“the mark”) to allow companies to highlight for consumers their compliance with the Safe Harbor framework. Upon request, Commerce provides the mark to those organizations that maintain a “current” self-certification to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has established certain rules for using the mark, such as requirements related to the mark's placement on a Web site and the inclusion of a link to www.export.gov/safeharbor .

Apperian develops mobile applications management platforms for enterprises and provides tools to help companies deploy apps to employees. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least July 2010, Apperian has set forth on its Web site, www.apperian.com, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework. In addition, since at least July 2010, Apperian has displayed the mark on its Web site.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Apperian, through its statements and use of the mark, falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks when, in fact, from July 2012 until November 2013, Apperian was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The Commission's complaint alleges that in July 2010, Apperian submitted a self-certification to the Safe Harbor Frameworks. Apperian did not renew its self-certification in July 2012, and Commerce subsequently updated Apperian's status to “not current” on its public Web site. In November 2013, Apperian renewed its self-certification to the Safe Harbor Frameworks, and its status was changed to “current” on Commerce's Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Apperian from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Apperian to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Apperian submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 21, 2014), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 20, 2014. Write “PDB Sports, Ltd., d/b/a the Denver Broncos Football Club—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3025” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

If you file your comment on paper, write “PDB Sports, Ltd., d/b/a the Denver Broncos Football Club—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3025” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 20, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to PDB Sports, Ltd., doing business as the Denver Broncos Football Club (“the Denver Broncos”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that the Denver Broncos made to consumers concerning their participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework (“Safe Harbor”) agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework”). It is among several actions the Commission is bringing to enforce the promises that companies make when they certify that they participate in the Safe Harbor Framework. The Safe Harbor framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with European law. To join the Safe Harbor framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor framework.

The Denver Broncos are a professional football team and a member of the National Football League. According to the Commission's complaint, from November 2008 until November 2013, the Denver Broncos set forth on their Web site, www.denverbroncos.com, privacy policies and statements about their practices, including statements related to their participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the Denver Broncos falsely represented that they were a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor when, in fact, from November 2011 until November 2013, the Denver Broncos were not a “current” participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The Commission's complaint alleges that in November 2008, the Denver Broncos submitted a Safe Harbor self-certification. The Denver Broncos did not renew the self-certification in November 2011, and Commerce subsequently updated the Denver Broncos' status to “not current” on its public Web site.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits the Denver Broncos from making misrepresentations about their membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.