Title: DPRS-2809, Request to Change FEHB Enrollment.

OMB Number: 0505-0024.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2014.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The DPRS-2809, Request to Change FEHB Enrollment, is for Spouse Equity Act/Temporary Continuation of Coverage (TCC) enrollees and direct pay annuitants who are eligible to elect, cancel, or change health benefits enrollment during the open season each year.

Estimated Time per Respondent: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response.

Respondents: Individuals who are under the Spouse Equity Act/TCC and direct pay annuitants who are eligible to make Federal Employees Health Benefits plan changes during open season.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 (one).

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 18,750.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection. Comments may be sent to DPRS via email to nfc.dprs@nfc.usda.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for the Office Management and Budget's approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Importation of Gypsy Moth Host Material From Canada.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0142.

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

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA. Regulations governing the importation of gypsy moth host material into the United States from Canada are contained in 7 CFR 319.77-1 through 319.77-5.

The regulations are intended to prevent the introduction of gypsy moth into noninfested areas of the United States by placing certain inspection and documentation requirements on gypsy moth host material (i.e., regulated articles) imported from Canada. These regulated articles are: Certain trees with and without roots (e.g., Christmas trees) and shrubs with roots and persistent woody stems, logs and pulpwood with bark attached, bark and bark products, outdoor household articles, and mobile homes and their associated equipment. Under the regulations, depending on the place of origin of the regulated articles and their destination in the United States, certain information collection activities are required, including a phytosanitary certificate, certificate of origin, compliance agreement, or signed homeowner statement.

In the previous request for extension of approval of this information collection, the number of individuals (private citizens) was counted under the estimated annual number of responses per respondent rather than the estimated annual number of respondents. This notice reflects the corrected estimates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.055 hours per response.

Respondents: Canadian plant health authorities; growers, exporters, or shippers of Christmas trees, shrubs, logs, pulpwood, and other articles from gypsy moth-infested provinces in Canada; and private individuals entering the United States with mobile homes or outdoor household articles.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,131.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.090.

Estimated annual number of responses: 2,325.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 128 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms (GE) and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.

In a notice  1 published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63279-63280, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0038), APHIS announced our determination of nonregulated status of soybean ( Glycine max ) designated as event MON 87701, which was genetically engineered for lepidopteran resistance. APHIS has received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87701 (APHIS Petition Number 09-082-01p) to soybean designated as event MON 87751 (APHIS Petition Number 13-337-01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO. MON 87751 soybean expresses resistance to lepidopteran pests similar to that of MON 87701 soybean, with the exception of increased resistance to fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ). In its request, Monsanto stated that this soybean is similar to lepidopteran-resistant soybean event MON 88701 and, based on the similarity to the antecedent organism, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As described in the extension request, soybean event MON 87751 soybean has been genetically engineered to express two Bacillus thuringiensis proteins (Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2) that confer resistance to certain lepidopteran pests of soybeans. The antecedent organism, MON 87701 soybean, was similarly genetically engineered to express the B. thuringiensis Cry1Ac insecticidal protein. The Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 expressed in MON 87751 soybean are both similar to the Cry1Ac protein expressed in MON 87701 soybean. Based on the information in the request, we have concluded that soybean designated as event MON 88751 is similar to soybean designated as event MON 88701. Soybean event MON 87751 is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340.

As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS evaluates the plant pest risk of the article. In section 403 of the PPA, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.

APHIS completed a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) on the antecedent organism, MON 87701 soybean, in which we concluded that MON 87701 soybean is unlikely to present a plant pest risk. MON 87751 soybean differs from MON 87701 soybean in the proteins expressed, specifically, Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 are expressed in MON 87751 while only Cry1Ac is expressed in MON 87701. However, the activity spectra are quite similar. APHIS has evaluated Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 when expressed in corn and cotton (MON 89034 and MON 15985, respectively). In the PPRAs that APHIS completed for MON 89034 corn and MON 15985 cotton, we concluded that the organisms did not pose a plant pest risk. As mentioned previously, the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 expressed in MON 87751 soybean are together similar to the Cry1Ac protein expressed in MON 87701 soybean, and APHIS has concluded that the increased activity toward fall armyworm from the proteins expressed in MON 87751 soybean is unlikely to affect the plant pest risk of MON 87751 soybean. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the safety of Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 in corn and concluded that adverse effects will not occur to nontarget organisms. Therefore, based on our PPRAs for MON 87701 soybean, MON 89034 corn, and MON 15985 cotton, the similarity between MON 87751 soybean and MON 87701 soybean, the limited difference in activity spectra between MON 87751 soybean and MON 87701 soybean, and other information, APHIS has concluded that Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 in MON 87751 soybean are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and that MON 87751 soybean is unlikely to pose a different plant pest risk than MON 87701.

APHIS also prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the antecedent organism MON 87701 soybean based on our analysis of data submitted by Monsanto, a review of other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. The EA was prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status soybean event MON 87701. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

APHIS has carefully examined the existing NEPA documentation completed for MON 87701 soybean and has concluded that Monsanto's request to extend a determination of nonregulated status to MON 87751 soybean encompasses the same scope of environmental analysis as MON 87701 soybean. Therefore, based on the similarity of MON 87751 soybean to MON 87701 soybean, APHIS has prepared a preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on MON 87751 soybean using the EA prepared for MON 87701 soybean. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of soybean event MON 87751 and it would continue to be a regulated article, or (2) make a determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87751 soybean. APHIS' preferred alternative is to make a determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87751.

APHIS has analyzed information submitted by Monsanto, references provided in the extension request, peer-reviewed publications, and information in the EA of the antecedent organism MON 87701 soybean. APHIS has also analyzed information in the PPRA for the antecedent organism MON 87701 soybean, information in the PPRAs for MON 89034 corn and MON 15985 cotton, the limited difference in activity spectra between MON 87751 soybean and the antecedent organism MON 87701 soybean, and other information. Based on APHIS' analysis of this information, the similarity of MON 87751 soybean to the antecedent organism MON 87701 soybean, our conclusion that the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 in MON 87751 soybean are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, and our conclusion that MON 87751 is unlikely to pose a different plant pest risk than MON 87701, APHIS has determined that soybean event MON 87751 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a preliminary decision to approve the request to extend the determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87701 to soybean event MON 87751, whereby soybean event MON 87751 would no longer be subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms.

Paragraph (e) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing all preliminary decisions to extend determinations of nonregulated status for 30 days before the decisions become final and effective. In accordance with § 340.6(e) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public of our preliminary decision to extend the determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87701 to soybean event MON 87751.

APHIS will accept written comments on the FONSI regarding a determination of nonregulated status of soybean event MON 87751 for a period of 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register . The FONSI, as well as the extension request, supporting documents, and our preliminary determination for soybean event MON 87751, are available for public review as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the comments, if APHIS determines that no substantive information has been received that would warrant APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, our preliminary regulatory determination will become final and effective upon notification of the public through an announcement on our Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml. APHIS will also furnish a response to the petitioner regarding our final regulatory determination. No further Federal Registe r notice will be published announcing the final regulatory determination regarding soybean event MON 87751.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be released into the environment. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article.

On October 24, 2013, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application from Cornell University (APHIS Permit Number 13-297-102r) seeking the permitted field release of three strains of GE diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella, strains designated as OX4319L-Pxy, OX4319N-Pxy, and OX4767A-Pxy. The GE DBM have been genetically engineered to exhibit red fluorescence (DsRed2) as a marker and repressible female lethality, also known as female autocide. The GE DBMs are considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because the recipient organism is or may be a plant pest. APHIS has previously issued Cornell University a permit authorizing the importation of GE DBM strains OX4319L-Pxy, OX4319N-Pxy, and OX4767A-Pxy from the United Kingdom to the Cornell University New York State Agricultural Experiment Station (NYSAES, APHIS Permit Number 12-227-102m) in Geneva, NY.

The purpose of the requested field release is to assess the efficacy of GE DBM strains OX4319L-Pxy, OX4319N-Pxy, and OX4767A-Pxy in reducing pest populations of non-GE DBM. The female autocidal trait permits the selection of DBM males during rearing. When released, it is likely that any female progeny produced from GE DBM males and non-GE DBM females will die.

The proposed release would be at NYSAES and would not exceed 3 years. The release would be limited to 6 sites not exceeding 10 acres per site, surrounded by other agricultural fields within NYSAES' 870 total acres. The release of 20,000 GE DBMs per release per site would be allowed, with up to 5 releases per week per site. Post-experiment monitoring of DBM with traps would continue for 2 weeks after the conclusion of each release to assess field longevity of GE DBM. The red fluorescent marker will allow the GE DBMs to be positively identified.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of the GE DBM, an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). APHIS will accept written comments on our EA regarding the proposed release of the GE DBM from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Copies of the EA are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.

Background

Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

The CCFL is responsible for:

(a) Drafting provisions on labeling applicable to all foods;

(b) Considering, amending if necessary, and endorsing draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines;

(c) Studying specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Commission; and

(d) Studying problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions. The Committee is hosted by Canada.

The following items on the Agenda for the 42nd Session of the CCFL will be discussed during the public meeting:

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Committee meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ).

At the September 23, 2014, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 42nd Session of the CCFL, Felicia Billingslea (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 42nd Session of the CCFL.

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

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

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

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

The September 16 and September 22 meetings are open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review project proposals (2) Vote and recommend projectes to DFO, (3) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 12, 2014 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3) survey. The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey requests data from domestic manufacturers on form M-3 (SD), which will be mailed at the end of each month. Data requested are shipments, new orders, unfilled orders, total inventory, materials and supplies, work-in-process, and finished goods. It is currently the only survey that provides broad-based monthly statistical data on the economic conditions in the domestic manufacturing sector.

The M3 survey is designed to measure current industrial activity and to provide an indication of future production commitments. The value of shipments measures the value of goods delivered during the month by domestic manufacturers. Estimates of new orders serve as an indicator of future production commitments and represent the current sales value of new orders received during the month, net of cancellations. Substantial accumulation or depletion of unfilled orders measures excess or deficient demand for manufactured products. The level of inventories, especially in relation to shipments, is frequently used to monitor the business cycle.

We do not plan any changes to the M-3 (SD) form. The estimated total annual burden hours will remain 17,200.

Respondents submit data on form M-3 (SD) via mail, or via the Internet. Analysts call respondents who usually report, to obtain data in time for preparing the monthly estimates.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0008.

Form Number(s): M-3 (SD).

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses, large and small, or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,300.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,200.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 131 and 182.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

From December 2009 through April 2010, the Census Bureau contracted the Gallup Organization to conduct a nightly poll of the public's opinion toward the 2010 Census, public awareness of Census promotional efforts, and intent to mail back their Census forms. The nationally representative, probability-based, sample of 200 respondents per night, sampled from RDD and cell frames, estimates, based on aggregating these data over week-long time periods provided nearly immediate feedback on public reaction to national events that could possibly influence response to the 2010 Census, and on the success or failure of our communications campaign messaging.

The Census Bureau used this feedback to make communication campaign decisions during data collection that contributed to achieving a mail-back participation rate of 74%, despite increased vacancy rates due to the economic downturn, increased public skepticism about the role of the Federal Government, and a general decline in survey response rates during the decade that crossed both public and private sector surveys.

From February 2012 through March 2014, the Gallup Organization conducted the Federal Statistical System (FSS) Public Opinion Survey conducted under a contract with the U.S. Census Bureau. The mission critical objective was to track public opinion toward statistics produced by the Federal Government. During this time, we saw a relatively stable level of trust in Federal statistics until several events became headlines in the news, including scandals involving the IRS and NSA and then the Government shutdown of 2013. As these events progressed, we saw a downturn in trust in Federal statistics, which also happened to correlate with a decrease in response rates to several Census Bureau surveys. Without being able to determine causal factors, we are interested in pursuing further data collection to try to understand these possible causal relationships. To date, the data have been gathered nightly from small (n = 200) independent cross- section samples of individuals participating in a general multi-topic Random Digit Dial (RDD) telephone survey. We collected 200 cases per night, leading up to 1,400 cases per week and 6,000 cases per month, etc. The nightly sample data was aggregated over weeks or months to examine trends in attitudes towards the FSS. The cross-sectional design offered the opportunity to examine large marginal shifts in attitudes on a daily basis. The cross-sectional design precluded examination of small daily marginal changes in attitudes, as well as any change at the individual level. The design also limited our ability to relate events in the news, such as the IRS and NSA stories, to shifts in opinion toward Federal statistics.

The objective of the planned study is to conduct a nationally representative sample survey of public opinion, primarily on attitudes toward the FSS and the use of Federal statistics. The collected data will be used to track changes in attitudes towards the FSS and in data use. The data will also enable the Census Bureau to assess how news events related to the statistical system or government and public perceptions of these events affects usage of and attitudes towards Federal statistics. The methodology for the planned survey is very similar to the recently conducted FSS Public Opinion Survey, however with a smaller weekly sample with additional questions that will allow us to examine possible causal factors over time. The smaller sample size makes this data collection cheaper, and thus possible to continue this survey for a longer period of time.

The Census Bureau plans to add a minimum of 7 and up to 25 questions at a time to a sample of cases in the Gallup Daily Tracking, which is an ongoing daily survey asking U.S. adults about various political, economic, and well-being topics. The initial 7 questions will allow us to continue the time series began under the previous study and to add open-ended questions which will allow us to measure change in the basis of attitudes. The additional questions will allow us to investigate other issues that could be related to trust and other perceptions of the FSS.

The survey methodology for the planned collection is the same as the past collection. It includes sample coverage in Alaska and Hawaii, and relies on a three-call design to reach respondents not contacted on the initial attempt. The survey methods for the Gallup Daily Tracking rely on live interviews, dual-frame sampling (which includes listed landline interviewing as well as cell phone sampling to reach those in cell phone-only households, cell phone-mostly households, and unlisted landline-only households), and a random selection method for choosing respondents within the household. The Census Bureau will ask questions of 850 respondents a week who participate in the Gallup Daily Tracking from March 1, 2015 through October 31, 2019.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0969.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 44,200.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,367.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Chapter 5.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the forms necessary to conduct the public employment and payroll program, which consists of an annual collection of information and a quinquennial collection in a census environment in years ending in “2” or “7”. During the upcoming three years, we intend to conduct the 2015 Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, the 2016 Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, and the 2017 Census of Governments: Employment.

Under Title 13, Section 161, of the United States Code, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to conduct the public employment and payroll program, which collects and disseminates data by function for full-time and part-time employees, payroll, and number of part-time hours worked. The number and content of the data items collected are the same in the annual and census cycles.

The burden hours we will request are based on the expected 2015 and 2016 Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll mail out of 16,432 forms for each survey year, and the expected 2017 Census of Governments: Employment mail-out of 99,726 forms. In addition, burden hours include data received via data arrangements, which are explained in further detail within the method of collection section.

The state and local government statistics produced cover national, state, and local aggregates on various functions with comparative detail for individual governments for the pay period that includes March 12. The public employment and payroll program provides the only comprehensive count of employees and payrolls of state and local governments.

The Census Bureau provides this employment data to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for constructing the functional payrolls in the public sector of the Gross Domestic Product; payroll being the single largest component of current operations. The public employment and payroll program has increasingly been used as the base for reimbursable programs conducted by the Census Bureau for other Federal agencies such as: (1) The government portion of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to provide timely, comprehensive information about health care use and costs in the United States, and (2) the Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment Survey, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which provides criminal justice expenditure and employment data on spending and personnel levels.

Statistics are produced as data files in electronic formats. The program has disseminated comprehensive and comparable governmental statistics since 1940.

The users of the public employment and payroll program data include Federal agencies, state and local governments and related organizations, public interest groups, and many business, market, and private research organizations.

An estimated 21,000 state agencies, county governments, consolidated city-county governments, independent cities, towns, townships, special district governments, and public school systems designated for the 2015 or 2016 Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll will be sent an appropriate form or their data will be collected through a data sharing arrangement between the Census Bureau and the governmental unit. Approximately 104,000 governmental units designated for the 2017 Census of Governments: Employment will either be sent an appropriate form or their data will be collected through a data sharing arrangement between the Census Bureau and the governmental unit.

The Census Bureau developed central collection arrangements with state and large local government officials to collect the data from their dependent agencies and report to us as a central respondent. Based on the 2012 Census of Governments: Employment, these arrangements eliminate the need for a mail canvass of approximately 3,777 state agencies and 616 school systems. The arrangements reduce burden by greatly reducing the number of people who have to complete a form as the data are acquired from a centralized source instead of from multiple sources. Currently, the Census Bureau has central collection arrangements with forty-six states and four local school district governments. The Census Bureau continues to expand the conversion of paper submissions into electronic formats, for both individual units and central collection units.

All form types can be completed on the Internet. For the 2013 Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, approximately 73.1 percent of the governmental units that completed the questionnaire used the Census Bureau's Web site.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0452.

Form Number(s): E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: State and local governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 44,197.

Estimated Time per Response: The average for all forms is 50 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 36,831.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 161.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Background

On May 19, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the initiation of the antidumping duty investigation of 53-foot domestic dry containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC). 1 The current deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is September 30, 2014.

The period of investigation is October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the initiation of the antidumping duty investigation. On July 25, 2014, Stoughton Trailers LLC (Petitioner) made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary determination because the Department is still gathering questionnaire responses from the mandatory respondents and publicly-available information necessary to value respondents' factors of production. 2

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing by 50 days, to November 19, 2014, the deadline for its preliminary determination of this investigation pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) and (f). In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this antidumping duty investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background

This review covers 159 producers/exporters. The respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. and Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. (collectively, Thai Union) and the Pakfood Group. 2 On July 26, 2013, we collapsed Thai Union and Pakfood into a single entity, hereinafter referred to as “Thai Union/Pakfood”). 3 The respondents which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

On March 24, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. On March 25, 2014, we issued a memorandum stating our intention to rescind the review for two companies that the Department found not to be producers or exporters of subject merchandise, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 351.102(b)(29)(i). 4

In May 2014, we received case briefs from the American Shrimp Processors Association and Thai Union/Pakfood, and we received rebuttal briefs from the above-mentioned interested parties and the the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. Also on May 15, 2014, the Department held a public hearing at the request of the respondents.

The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. 5 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made one change to Thai Union/Pakfood's margin calculations.

The POR is February 1, 2012, through January 31, 2013.

As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received properly-filed no shipment claims from 13 companies named in the Initiation Notice. 6 However, as noted in the “Rescission in Part” section of this notice, below, we subsequently determined that one of these companies is not an exporter or producer of shrimp and thus we are rescinding the review with regard to this company.

Regarding the remaining 12 companies, we confirmed the claims of these companies with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). We received no comments from interested parties with respect to these claims. Therefore, because we find that the record indicates that the 12 companies listed below did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we continue to find that they had no reviewable transactions during the POR. These companies are:

The Department initiated this administrative review for 161 companies, including companies named GSE Lining Technology Co., Ltd. (GSE) and Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Kosamut). 7 In the Preliminary Results, we made a determination that GSE did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review, based on its certified statement of no shipments;  8 and we assigned Kosamut a preliminary dumping margin as a non-selected respondent. 9

After issuing the preliminary results, it came to our attention that neither GSE nor Kosamut is a producer or exporter of subject merchandise, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b), and thus we issued a memorandum stating that the Department intended to rescind the review for both of these companies in the final results. Specifically, in its April 2013 statement of no shipments, GSE certified that it is a manufacturer of geosynthetic liners and that it is not, and has never been, involved in the sale of shrimp or other seafood. Moreover, in Shrimp AR7 Final Results, 10 the Department determined that Kosamut is neither an exporter nor a manufacturer of subject merchandise, and accordingly, we rescinded the review with respect to this entity; there is no evidence on the record of this segment of the proceeding contradicting our finding with respect to Kosamut.

Because no party has commented on this preliminary decision, we continue to find that GSE and Kosamut are not exporters or producers, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b), and, accordingly, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to GSE and Kosamut, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below as follows:

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for entries of Thai Union/Pakfood's subject merchandise made from April 23, 2012, through January 31, 2013, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales. With respect to entries of subject merchandise by Thai Union and Pakfood prior to April 23, 2012, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates using the individual company information based on the same method noted above. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value. For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we have used as the assessment rate the cash deposit rate assigned to Thai Union/Pakfood, in accordance with our practice. 12 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent ( de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)) the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.34 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the Section 129 Determination. 13 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Background

This review covers 205 producers/exporters. The respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries) and Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises (Falcon). The respondents which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

On March 25, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In May 2014, we received case briefs from the American Shrimp Processors Association; and Devi Fisheries, Falcon, and 16 additional producers/exporters of the subject merchandise (collectively, the respondents); we also received rebuttal briefs from the above-mentioned interested parties and the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. In June 2014, the Department held a public hearing at the request of the respondents.

The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. 2 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments receive from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made no changes to Devi Fisheries' or Falcon's margin calculations.

The POR is February 1, 2012, through January 31, 2013.

We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below as follows:

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:  3

On May 1, 2014, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order on PSF from Korea for the period of review May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014. 1 On May 29, 2014, DAK Americas LLC and Auriga Polymers, Inc., the successor to Invista, S.a.r.L (collectively, Petitioners) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Huvis Corporation (Huvis) and Woongjin Chemical Company, Ltd. (Woongjin). 2 On May 30, 2014, Huvis requested an administrative review of its period of review sales. 3 Pursuant to these requests, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published a notice initiating an administrative review of Huvis and Woongjin. 4 Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Huvis on July 8, 2014. 5 On July 10, 2014, Huvis withdrew its request for an administrative review. 6 On July 29, 2014, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Woongjin. 7

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Petitioners withdrew their requests for review of Huvis and Woongjin within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. In addition, Huvis also timely withdrew its request for an administrative review. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of PSF from Korea. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

A NOI to prepare a DEIS for the Generic AM and Dolphin Allocation Amendment was published on January 31, 2014 (79 FR 5379). The NOI indicated the amendment would be supported by an environmental impact statement, which was the preliminary determination at the time the original purpose and need of the amendment was drafted. When the Council first requested development of this amendment the allocation applied to dolphin and snapper-grouper species.

The Council subsequently removed snapper-grouper species from the allocation action, which left only dolphin allocations and AM modifications for snapper-grouper species and golden crab as amendment actions. A reassessment of the actions in the amendment relative to the National Environmental Policy Act indicates an EA is appropriate. Therefore, a DEIS will not be prepared for the Generic AM and Dolphin Allocation Amendment at this time.

The EA for the Generic AM and Dolphin Allocation Amendment would consider alternatives to modify existing AMs for snapper-grouper species and golden crab to provide consistency among species, and ensure overfishing does not occur. The EA would also consider alternatives to modify existing sector allocations for dolphin.

The Council held public hearings in August 2014 to discuss the actions included in the Generic AM and Dolphin Allocation Amendment.

On April 9, 2014 notice was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 19578) that a request for a permit to conduct research on the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

Permit No. 18537 supports continuation of ADF&G's long-term Steller sea lion (SSL) research program. It authorizes takes during research activities that incorporate improved methodology based on previous work authorized under permit No. 14325 and subsequent modifications, including: Incidental disturbance during aerial, skiff- and ground-based count and brand resight surveys; captures supporting marking, external instrument attachment, and physiology, toxicology, feeding ecology and health sampling; and permanent marking of pups and older age classes for describing vital rates and intra-/inter-Discrete Population Segment (DPS) movement. The permit authorizes takes by incidental disturbance of northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ), California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), and harbor ( Phoca vitulina ), spotted ( Phoca largha ), ribbon ( Histriophoca fasciata ), ringed ( Pusa hispida ) and bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) due to the proximity of isolated individuals to the study area. See tables in permit for numbers of takes by species, stock and activity. Annual unintentional mortality of 5 SSL from the Western DPS and 10 SSL from the Eastern DPS is authorized. The permit is valid through August 31, 2019.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), NMFS has determined that the activities proposed are consistent with the Preferred Alternative in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Steller Sea Lion and Northern Fur Seal Research (NMFS 2007), and that issuance of the permit would not have a significant adverse impact on the human environment. An additional environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the effects of sUAS, which were not considered in the initial PEIS, on the human environment was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the analyses in the EA for Issuance of Permits to take Steller Sea Lions by Harassment During Surveys Using Unmanned Aerial Systems, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on June 17, 2014.

As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

On April 9, 2014, notice was published in the Federal Register (79 FR19579) that a request for an amendment to Permit No. 14610-02 to conduct research on beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ), endangered bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ), gray whales ( Eschrictius robustus ), and endangered humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The previous permit (No. 14610-02) authorized vessel and aerial surveys, remote biopsy and instrument attachment for the above listed cetacean species. Amended Permit No. 14610-03 now authorizes take for vessel surveys and photo-identification to determine stock or feeding group affiliation of gray whales encountered in Alaskan waters (Chukchi and western Beaufort seas). Additional gray whale takes by harassment during photo-identification efforts (300 annually), and tagging and biopsy activities (50 annually) are now authorized. The amendment also authorizes tag attachment methods to be altered to allow for the attachment of tags using a two-anchor system on bowhead whales. The amended permit is valid through the expiration date of the original permit, May 31, 2015.

A supplement environmental assessment (SEA) analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the analyses in the SEA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit amendment would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact, signed on August 8, 2014.

As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

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 U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 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.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

On March 11, 2013, NMFS received an application from DWBIT for the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction of the Block Island Transmission System (BITS). The application went through a series of revisions and the final version was submitted on November 26, 2013. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on December 2, 2013.

DWBIT plans to develop the BITS, a bi-directional submarine transmission cable, over a 1-year period. The planned activity could begin in late 2014 and last through late 2015; however, portions of the project will only occur for short, sporadic periods of time over the 1-year period. The following specific aspects of the planned activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Vibratory pile driving and the use of dynamically positioned (DP) vessel thrusters. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of nine species is anticipated to result from the specified activity.

DWBIT plans to construct a bi-directional submarine transmission cable that will run from Block Island to the Rhode Island mainland. Construction of the marine portion of the BITS will involve three activities: Cable landfall construction on Block Island using a short-distance horizontal directional drill (HDD) from a temporary excavated trench box on Crescent Beach; cable landfall construction on Scarborough State Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island using a long-distance HDD from a temporary offshore cofferdam; and installation of the submarine BITS cable. Cable landfall construction may require the installation and removal of a temporary offshore cofferdam, which will involve vibratory pile driving. The generation of underwater noise from vibratory pile driving and the DP vessel thruster may result in the incidental take of marine mammals.

The BITS will interconnect Block Island to the existing Narragansett Electric Company National Grid distribution system on the Rhode Island mainland. In connection with the BITS, Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC (DWBI—a different applicant) proposes to develop the Block Island Wind Farm, a 30-megawatt offshore wind farm. Incidental take of marine mammals resulting from construction of the Block Island Wind Farm project will be assessed separately.

Construction activities could begin in late 2014 and are scheduled to be complete by late 2015. The anticipated project work windows are provided in Table 1.

NMFS is issuing an IHA effective November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015, based on the anticipated work windows for in-water construction that could result in the incidental take of marine mammals. While project activities may occur for 1 year, in-water vibratory pile driving is only expected to occur for up to 4 days (2 days each for construction of the cofferdam and 2 days each for removal of the cofferdam). Use of the DP vessel thruster during cable installation activities is expected to occur for 4 to 6 weeks (42 days maximum). Vibratory pile driving will occur during daylight hours only, starting approximately 30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes prior to dusk. Cable installation (and subsequent use of the DP vessel thruster) will be conducted 24 hours per day.

The BITS cable will originate from a manhole on Block Island and traverse federal and state submerged lands in Rhode Island Sound from Block Island to Narragansett for a total distance of 19.8 miles with water depths reaching up to 39 meters (m). Figure 1.2-1 of DWBIT's application shows the project location in detail (see ADDRESSES ). Vibratory pile driving for temporary offshore cofferdam will occur at a site located off of Scarborough State Beach. The temporary offshore cofferdam will be located between 685.8 m and 1,112.5 m from shore. Terrestrial cables and other terrestrial facilities associated with the BITS will be located in the towns of New Shoreham (Block Island) and Narragansett in Washington County, Rhode Island. Construction staging and laydown for offshore components of the project will occur at the Quonset Point port facility in North Kingstown, also in Washington County, Rhode Island.

The following sections provide additional details associated with each portion of the BITS marine construction activities.

On Block Island, DWBIT plans to bring the BITS cable ashore via a short-distance HDD. DWBIT will use the short-distance HDD to install either a steel or high density polyethylene conduit for the cable from the parking lot under Crescent Beach to a temporary excavated trench beginning at about mean high water. The excavated trench on Crescent Beach will be approximately 2 to 3 m wide, 4 m deep, and 11 m long. Spoils from the trench excavation will be stored on the respective beach and returned to the trench after cable installation. To support the short-distance HDD on Crescent Beach, DWBIT will install steel sheet piling to stabilize the excavated trench, possibly using a vibratory pile driver. The HDD will enter through the shore side of the excavated trench and the cable conduit will be installed between the trench and the manhole. The BITS cable will then be pulled from the excavated trench into the respective manhole through the newly installed conduit. Sheet piling installations will occur at low tide.

The coupling of land-based vibrations and nearshore sounds into the underwater acoustic field is not well understood and cannot be accurately predicted using current models. However, because the excavation for the cable trench and the HDD installation on the beach will occur onshore and because sand is generally a very poor conductor of vibrations, NMFS considers it unlikely that the underwater noise generated from either of these installations will result in harassment of marine mammals.

DWBIT is proposing to conduct the cable landfall on Scarborough State Beach using a long-distance HDD from the manhole located within the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management parking lot to a temporary offshore cofferdam located between 685.8 m and 1,112.5 m from shore. From this location, a jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation barge, will be used to install the BITS cable below the seabed. Construction of the temporary cofferdam will consist of the installation of steel sheet piles to create an enclosed area approximately 15.2 by 6.1 m. The steel sheet piles will be installed and later removed using a vibratory hammer supported by a spud barge. DWBIT expects the cofferdam to be in place between January and the end of May.

Vibratory pile driving will be required to install the temporary cofferdam off of Scarborough State Beach. DWBIT assumes a 1,800 kilo Newton vibratory force for estimating source levels and frequency spectra. DWBIT modeled vibratory hammering at a source level of 194 decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal, using adjusted 1/3-octave band source levels from measurements of a similar offshore construction, and adjusted to account for the estimated force necessary for driving of the BITS cofferdam sheet piles. Detailed information on the acoustic modeling for this source is provided in Appendix A of DWBIT's application (see ADDRESSES ).

DWBIT will use a jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation barge, to install the BITS cable below the seabed. The jet plow will be positioned over the trench and pulled from shore by the cable installation vessel. The jet plow will likely be a rubber-tired or skid-mounted plow with a maximum width of about 4.6 m, and pulled along the seafloor behind the cable-laying barge with assistance of a non-DP material barge. High-pressure water from vessel-mounted pumps will be injected into the sediments through nozzles situated along the plow, causing the sediments to temporarily fluidize and create a liquefied trench. DWBIT anticipates a temporary trench width of up to 1.5 m. As the plow is pulled along the route behind the barge, the cable will be laid into the temporary, liquefied trench through the back of the plow. The trench will be backfilled by the water current and the natural settlement of the suspended material. Umbilical cords will connect the submerged jet plow to control equipment on the vessel to allow the operators to monitor and control the installation process and make adjustments to the speed and alignment as the installation proceeds across the water.

The BITS cable will be buried to a target depth of 1.8 m beneath the seafloor. The actual burial depth depends on substrate encountered along the route and could vary from 1.2 to 2.4 m. Where the BITS crosses two existing submarine cables on the outer continental shelf, the cable will be installed directly on the seafloor and protected from external aggression using a combination of sand bags and concrete mattresses. Anchored vessels will be used to install both the BITS and the associated cable armoring at these locations.

DP systems maintain their precise coordinates in waters through the use of automatic controls. These control systems use variable levels of power to counter forces from current and wind. During cable-lay activities, DWBIT expects that a reduced 50 percent power level will be used by DP vessels. DWBIT modeled scenarios using a source level of 180 dB re 1 micro Pascal for the DP vessel thruster, assuming water depths of 7, 10, 20, and 40 m, and thruster power of 50 percent. Detailed information on the acoustic modeling for this source is provided in Appendix A of DWBIT's application (see ADDRESSES ).

A proposed IHA and request for public comments was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2014 (78 FR 15573). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS only received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). The Commission's comments are summarized and addressed below. All comments have been compiled and posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS require DWBIT to provide information regarding the data and assumptions used to derive cetacean density estimates.

Response: As stated in section 6 of their application (see ADDRESSES ), DWBIT used sightings per unit effort (SPUE) reported in Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009) to derive density estimates for cetacean species in the project area. SPUE is derived by using a measure of survey effort and number of individual cetaceans sighted. SPUE allows for comparison between discrete units of time (i.e., seasons) and space within a project area. SPUE calculated by Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009) was derived from a number of sources, all of which are referenced in the application.

Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS require DWBIT to address apparent inconsistencies in the density estimates for fin whales for this project with those for the BIWF (the wind farm) project.

Response: The proposed activity for installation of the BITS could begin in late 2014 and last through late 2015; however, portions of the project will only occur for short, sporadic periods of times over the 1-year period. Therefore the estimates of take of marine mammals were calculated based on density estimates during the predicted seasons within which the specific BITS activity was likely to occur. The estimates of take for the BIWF were also based on the density estimates during the predicted season of the proposed activity. In addition, the location of activities for the BIWF are further offshore and to the south of activities as described for the BITS. Density estimates, as reported by Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009), are temporally and spatially variable. Therefore, the maximum seasonal densities within the project areas differ given the specific location and time of year of the activity described.

Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS include in each Federal Register notice for proposed incidental harassment authorizations a sufficiently detailed description of the status and distribution of the species of marine mammals likely to be affected by the proposed activities to allow the public to review and comment on the proposed authorization as a stand-alone document.

Response: As required by regulation, section 4 of DWBIT's application included a detailed description of the status, distribution, and seasonal distribution of the affected species or stocks of marine animals likely to be affected by such activities (see ADDRESSES ). As such, the DWBIT application was referenced accordingly in the FR notice for the proposed IHA and request for public comments (78 FR 15573, March 20, 2014). Further, the internet Web site for the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which contain information on the biology and local distribution of species potentially affected by this project, was provided in the FR notice for the proposed IHA.

Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS require DWBIT to provide estimated source levels associated with HDD and jet plowing activities, and to provide take estimates associated with those activities.

Response: Neither HDD nor jet plow noise were modelled for harassment because all the noise associated with these activities will be in-air. More specifically, the HDD rig will be located on land at Scarborough and Crescent Beaches. As discussed in the FR notice for the proposed IHA and request for public comments (78 FR 15573, March 20, 2014), the coupling of land-based vibrations and nearshore sounds into the underwater acoustic field is not well understood and cannot be accurately predicted using current models. However, because the HDD installation on the beach will occur onshore and because sand is generally a very poor conductor of vibrations, NMFS considers it unlikely that the underwater noise generated from the HDD installation will result in harassment of marine mammals. Regarding jet plow noise, all compressors will be located on the vessel itself and will not affect the surrounding underwater environment. Therefore, noise associated with jet plow activities was also discounted by NMFS as a potential source of harassment.

Comment 5: To reduce the potential for vessel strikes with endangered North Atlantic right whales, the Commission recommended that NMFS require DWBIT vessels to reduce speeds to 10 knots or less from November 1 to April 30 in all areas of operation.

Response: In 2008, NMFS promulgated a regulation implementing a mandatory 10-knot speed limit for vessels 65 feet or greater in length in designated seasonal management areas (SMAs) to reduce the threat of ship collisions with right whales (see 50 CFR 224.105). The SMAs were established to provide protection for right whales, and the timing, duration, and geographic extent of the speed restrictions were specifically designed to reflect right whale movement, distribution, and aggregation patterns. The vessel speed restriction is in effect in the mid-Atlantic SMA from November 1 through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.

Right whales have been observed in or near Rhode Island during all four seasons; however, they are most common in the spring when they are migrating and in the fall during their southbound migration (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2009). The BITS project area is located outside of the Mid-Atlantic SMA; however, to minimize the potential for vessel collision with right whales and other marine mammal species all DWBIT vessels associated with the BITS construction, regardless of their length, will operate at speeds of 10 knots or less from the November 1 to April 30 time period, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of the designated SMA. In addition, all DWBIT vessels associated with the BITS construction will adhere to NMFS guidelines for marine mammal ship striking avoidance (available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/education/viewing_northeast.pdf ), including maintaining a distance of at least 1,500 feet from right whales and having dedicated protected species observers who will communicate with the captain to ensure that all measures to avoid whales are taken. NMFS believes that the size of right whales, their slow movements, and the amount of time they spend at the surface will make them extremely likely to be spotted by protected species observers during construction activities within the BITS project area. NMFS does not anticipate any marine mammals to be impacted by vessel movement because only a limited number of vessels will be involved in construction activities and they will move at slow speeds throughout construction.

Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS require DWBIT to include additional visual or acoustic monitoring measures as part of its monitoring plan to ensure that the entire Level B harassment zone for the DP vessel thruster is monitored and a significant portion of the Level B harassment zone for vibratory pile driving is also monitored.

Response: Exclusion zones (often defined as the Level A harassment zone of influence [ZOI] out to the 180 dB isopleth) and monitoring zones (often defined as the Level B harassment ZOI out to the 120 dB isopleth for continuous noise) are typically established to minimize impacts to marine mammals and monitor take of marine mammals (and sea turtles). However, noise analysis has indicated that both vibratory pile driving and DP vessel thruster use will not produce sound levels at 180 dB at any appreciable distance. In addition, NOAA has concluded that the modeled monitoring zones established out to the 120 dB isopleth will result in zones too large to effectively monitor (approximately 89.9 km for vibratory pile driving and up to 4.75 km for DP vessel thruster use). Therefore, NMFS has instead required that DWBIT monitor a zone equivalent to the size of the predicted 160 dB isopleth for DP vessel thruster use and vibratory pile driving activities, as follows: A preliminary monitoring zone of 200 m at the Scarborough State Beach cofferdam based on the modeled critical distance to the 160 dB isopleth will be established and monitored during all vibratory pile driving activities; and a preliminary monitoring zone of 5 m from the DP vessel based on the modeled distance to the 160 dB isopleth will be established and monitored during all cable installation activities. These monitoring zones will also serve as mitigation zones (see Mitigation below).

These preliminary monitoring zones will be field verified, adjusted as necessary, and monitored for individual take during installation and removal of the cofferdam and during the installation of the BITS cable. This monitoring zone represents the minimum area of coverage for Level B harassment. All marine mammal sightings which are visually feasible, including those beyond the 160 dB isopleth will be recorded and potential takes will be noted.

There are 34 marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the area of the specified activity (Table 2).

The highlighted species in Table 2 are pelagic and/or northern species, or are so rarely sighted that their presence in the project area, and therefore take, is unlikely. These species are not considered further in this IHA notice. The West Indian manatee is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is also not considered further in this IHA notice. Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in section 4 of DWBIT's application (see ADDRESSES ), and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.

The proposed IHA (78 FR 15573, March 20, 2014) included a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (i.e., vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thrusters) have been observed to impact marine mammals. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals, and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

Potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals involve acoustic effects related to sound produced by in-water vibratory pile driving and use of DP vessel thrusters. Detailed information on these effects was provided in the proposed IHA (78 FR 15573, March 20, 2014) and that information has not changed.

There are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. Harbor seals haul out on Block Island and points along Narragansett Bay, the most important haul-out being on the edge of New Harbor, about 2.4 km from the proposed BITS landfall on Block Island. The only consistent haul-out locations for gray seals within the vicinity of Rhode Island are around Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge and Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts (more than 80 nautical miles from the proposed project area). NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 designated the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic SMA for right whales. Mandatory vessel speed restrictions are in place in that SMA from November 1 through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.

The BITS involves activities that will disturb the seafloor and potentially affect benthic and finfish communities. Installation of the BITS cable and the temporary offshore cofferdam will result in the temporary disturbance of no more than 45.3 acres of seafloor. These installation activities will also result in temporary and localized increases in turbidity around the proposed project area. DWBIT is required to install additional protective armoring over the BITS where it will cross two existing marine cables in federal waters. At the cable crossing locations, the installation of additional protective armoring will result in the permanent conversion of about 1.7 acre of soft substrate to hard substrate. The BITS cable may also require additional protective armoring in areas where the burial depth achieved is less than 1.2 m. DWBIT expects that additional protection will be required at a maximum of 1 percent of the entire BITS cable, resulting in a conversion of up to 1 acre of soft substrate to hard substrate along the cable route. During the installation of additional protective armoring at the cable crossings and as necessary along the cable route, anchors and anchor chains will temporarily impact about 1.8 acres of bottom substrate during each anchoring event.

Jet plowing and cofferdam installation will cause either the displacement or loss of benthic and finfish resources in the immediate areas of disturbance. This may result in a temporary loss of forage items and a temporary reduction in the amount of benthic habitat available for foraging marine mammals in the immediate proposed project area. However, the amount of habitat affected represents a very small percentage of the available foraging habitat in the proposed project area. Increased underwater sound levels from cofferdam installation and use of the DP vessel thruster may temporarily result in marine mammals avoiding or abandoning the area.

Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, and the lack of important or unique marine mammal habitat, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

DWBIT will implement the following mitigation measures during vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster:

Protected species observers will visually monitor a 200-m radius exclusion zone during all in-water vibratory pile driving. This distance is estimated to be the 160 dB isopleth based on DWBIT's sound exposure model. A minimum of two observers will be stationed aboard each noise-producing construction support vessel. Each observer will visually monitor a 360-degree field of vision from the vessel. Observers will begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to vibratory pile driving, continue monitoring during vibratory pile driving, and stop monitoring 30 minutes after vibratory pile driving has ended. If a marine mammal is seen approaching or entering the 200-m exclusion zone during vibratory pile driving, DWBIT will stop vibratory pile driving as a precautionary measure to minimize noise impacts on the animal.

DWBIT will use a soft-start (or ramp-up) procedure at the beginning of vibratory pile driving. This procedure will require an initial set of three strikes from the vibratory hammer at 40 percent energy with a 1-minute waiting period between subsequent 3-strike sets. DWBIT will repeat the procedure two additional times. DWBIT will initiate a soft-start at the beginning of each day of pile driving and if pile driving stops for more than 30 minutes. DWBIT will not initiate a soft-start if the monitoring zone is obscured by fog, inclement weather, poor lighting conditions, etc.

DWBIT will delay vibratory pile driving and reduce DP vessel thruster use if a marine mammal is observed within the 160-dB isopleth marine mammal exclusion zone and until the exclusion zone is clear of marine mammals. DWBIT will stop vibratory pile driving if a marine mammal is seen within the estimated 160-dB isopleth, 200-m radius exclusion zone at the Scarborough State Beach cofferdam and will not be reinitiated until the 200-m radius is clear of marine mammals for at least 30 minutes.

A constant tension must be maintained during cable installation and any significant stoppage in vessel maneuverability during jet plow activities will result in damage to the cable. Therefore, during DP vessel operations, DWBIT will reduce DP thruster power to the maximum extent possible if a marine mammal approaches or enters a 5-m radius from the vessel (estimated to be the 160-dB isopleth from the vessel). This reduction would not be implemented at the risk of compromising safety and/or the integrity of the BITS. DWBIT will not increase power until the 5-m zone is clear of marine mammals for 30 minutes.

DWBIT will conduct vibratory pile driving off of Scarborough State Beach during daylight hours only, starting approximately 30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes before dusk. DWBIT will not initiate vibratory pile driving until the entire marine mammal exclusion zone is visible. If a soft-start is initiated before the onset of inclement weather, DWBIT will complete that segment of vibratory pile driving.

All DWBIT vessels, regardless of length, will operate at speeds of 10 knots or less from November 1 through April 30.

DWBIT will adhere to NMFS guidelines for marine mammal ship strike avoidance ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/education/viewing_northeast.pdf ).

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

2. An increase in the understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of continuous noise from vibratory pile driving and use of a DP vessel thruster that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;

3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

• Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

• Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

• Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

DWBIT submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in section 12 of their application (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS did not require any modification or supplementation to that proposed monitoring plan.

DWBIT will use protected species observers to visually monitor the surrounding area during all in-water vibratory pile driving and use of DP vessel thrusters. These observers will monitor beyond the estimated 160-dB isopleths, in addition to conducting mitigation monitoring within these zones. Observers will estimate distances to marine mammals visually, using laser range finders, or by using reticle binoculars during daylight hours. During night operations (DP vessel thruster use only), observers will use night-vision binoculars. Observers will record their position using hand-held or vessel global positioning system units for each sighting, vessel position change, and any environmental change. Each observer will scan the surrounding area for visual indication of marine mammal presence. Observers will be located from the highest available vantage point on the associated operational platform (e.g., support vessel, barge or tug), estimated to be at least 6 m above the waterline.

Prior to initiation of construction work, all crew members on barges, tugs, and support vessels will undergo environmental training, a component of which will focus on the procedures for sighting and protection of marine mammals. DWBIT will also conduct a briefing with the construction supervisors and crews and observers to define chains of command, discuss communication procedures, provide an overview of the monitoring purposes, and review operational procedures. The DWBIT Construction Compliance Manager (or other authorized individual) will have the authority to stop or delay vibratory pile driving activities if deemed necessary.

DWBIT will conduct field verification of the estimated 160-dB isopleths during vibratory pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster to determine whether the proposed distances are adequate to minimize impacts to marine mammals.

DWBIT will conduct field verification of the 200-m radius marine mammal exclusion zone at the Scarborough State Beach cofferdam. DWBIT will take acoustic measurements during vibratory pile driving of the last half (deepest sheet pile segment) for any given open-water pile and will also measure from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). If the field measurements determine that the 160-dB isopleth is less than or beyond the proposed 200-m distance, a new zone may be established accordingly. DWBIT will notify NMFS and the USACE within 24 hours if a new marine mammal exclusion zone is established that extends beyond 200 m. Implementation of a smaller zone will be contingent on NMFS' review and will not be used until NMFS approves the change.

DWBIT will also perform field verification of the 160-dB isopleth associated with DP vessel thruster use during cable installation. DWBIT will take acoustic measurements from two reference locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). Similar to field verification during vibratory pile driving, the DP thruster power reduction zone may be modified as necessary.

Observers will record dates and locations of construction operations; times of observations; location and weather; details of marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, age, numbers, behavior); and details of any observed take.

DWBIT will provide the following notifications and reports during construction activities:

• Notification to NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) within 24-hours of beginning construction activities and again within 24-hours of completion;

• Detailed report of field-verification measurements within 7 days of completion (including: sound levels, durations, spectral characteristics, DP thruster use, etc.) and notification to NMFS and the USACE within 24-hours if a new zone is established;

• Notification to NMFS and USACE within 24-hours if field verification measurements suggest a larger marine mammal exclusion zone;

• Final technical report to NMFS and the USACE within 120 days of completion of the specified activity documenting methods and monitoring protocols, mitigation implementation, marine mammal observations, other results, and discussion of mitigation effectiveness.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), DWBIT will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and John.Fiorentino@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ). The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

DWBIT will not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with DWBIT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. DWBIT may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that DWBIT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), DWBIT will immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and John.Fiorentino@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with DWBIT to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that DWBIT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), DWBIT will report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and John.Fiorentino@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ), within 24 hours of the discovery. DWBIT will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

Project activities that have the potential to harass marine mammals, as defined by the MMPA, include noise associated with vibratory pile driving of the temporary cofferdam, and noise associated with the use of DP vessel thrusters during cable installation. Harassment could take the form of masking, temporary threshold shift, avoidance, or other changes in marine mammal behavior. NMFS anticipates that impacts to marine mammals will be in the form of behavioral harassment and no take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is authorized. NMFS does not anticipate take resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds over a relatively shallow, nearshore area.

NMFS' current acoustic exposure criteria are shown in Table 3 below. Sound levels from vibratory pile driving or use of the DP vessel thruster will not reach the Level A harassment threshold of 180/190 dB (cetaceans/pinnipeds) during the proposed BITS project. DWBIT modeled distances to these acoustic exposure criteria are shown in Table 4. Details on the model characteristics and results are provided in the Underwater Acoustic Report at the end of DWBIT's application (see ADDRESSES ). DWBIT and NMFS believe that this estimate represents the worst-case scenario and that the actual distance to the Level B harassment threshold may be shorter.

DWBIT estimated species densities within the proposed project area in order to estimate the number of marine mammal exposures to sound levels above 120 dB. DWBIT used sightings per unit effort (SPUE) from Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009) for relative cetacean abundance and the Northeast Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (DoN 2007) for seal abundance. Based on multiple reports, harbor seal abundance off the coast of Rhode Island is thought to be about 20 percent of the total abundance for southern New England. Because the seasonality and habitat use of gray seals off the coast of Rhode Island roughly overlaps with harbor seals, DWBIT applied this 20 percent estimate to both pinniped species. While the density estimates relied upon for this IHA are from 2007 and 2009, they are the best scientific data available. NMFS is not aware of any efforts to collect more recent density estimates than those relied upon here.

Estimated takes were calculated by multiplying the average highest species density (per 100 km 2 ) by the zone of influence (maximum ensonified area of 120 dB), multiplied by a correction factor of 1.5 to account for marine mammals underwater, multiplied by the number of days of the specified activity. A detailed description of the DWBIT's model used to calculate zones of influence is provided in the Underwater Acoustic Report at the end of their application (see ADDRESSES ).

DWBIT used a zone of influence of 4,352 km 2 and a total construction period of 4 days to estimate take from vibratory pile driving. In contrast to their application, DWBIT clarified that the vibratory pile driving will likely occur over a 2-day period during the winter and a 2-day period during the spring. Their take calculations were revised after the application was submitted. For each species, DWBIT used the estimated seasonal density (winter and spring) to calculate take for a total of 4 days (2 days each season). DWBIT's requested take numbers are provided in Table 5 and this is also the number of takes NMFS is authorizing (Table 6). DWBIT's calculations do not take into account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Table 5 are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during vibratory pile driving (i.e., DWBIT assumes that each exposure event is a different animal). These estimates do not account for mitigation measures that DWBIT will implement during vibratory pile driving.

DWBIT used a zone of influence of 23.0 km 2 and a maximum installation period of 42 days to estimate take from use of the DP vessel thruster during cable installation. The zone of influence represents the average ensonified area across the three representative water depths along the cable route (7m, 10 m, 20 m, and 40 m). DWBIT expects cable installation to occur between April and August; to be conservative, DWBIT used the highest seasonal species density to calculate take. Again, DWBIT's calculations do not take into account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Table 5 are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during cable installation. These estimates do not account for mitigation measures that DWBIT will implement during the cable installation.

DWBIT did not request, and NMFS is not authorizing, take from vessel strike. NMFS does not anticipate marine mammals to be impacted by vessel movement because a limited number of vessels will be involved in construction activities and they will move at slow speeds (10 knots or less) throughout construction.

Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

DWBIT did not request, and NMFS is not authorizing, take of marine mammals by injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that take will be in the form of behavioral harassment. Exposure to sound levels above 120 dB during vibratory pile driving will not last for more than 12 hours per day for 4 non-consecutive days. Exposure to sound levels above 120 dB during use of the DP vessel thruster may last for 24 hours per day for 42 days. While use of the DP thruster may last for consecutive days, the vessel will be moving and therefore not focused on one specific area for the entire duration. Given the duration and intensity of the activity, and the fact that shipping contributes to the ambient sound levels around Rhode Island, NMFS does not anticipate the take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels and sediment disturbance, but these impacts will be temporary. Furthermore, there are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by (1) giving animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before the pile driver reaches full energy; (2) reducing the intensity of exposure within a certain distance by reducing the DP vessel thruster power; and (3) preventing animals from being exposed to increased sound levels within 200 m of vibratory pile driving.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from DWBIT's BITS project will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

The number of individual animals that may be exposed to sound levels above 120 dB is small relative to the species or stock size (Table 6). The authorized take numbers are the maximum numbers of animals that are expected to be harassed during the BITS project; it is possible that some of these exposures may occur to the same individual. NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

There are three marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA: Fin whale, humpback whale, and North Atlantic right whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, the USACE (the federal permitting agency for the actual BITS construction) consulted with NMFS on the proposed BITS project. NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. NMFS Northeast Region (now known as the Greater Atlantic Region) issued a Biological Opinion on January 30, 2014, concluding that the Block Island Wind Farm project (which includes the BITS) may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale, humpback whale, or North Atlantic right whale. The effects of the IHA on listed marine mammal species fall within the scope of effects analyzed in the Biological Opinion for the Block Island Wind Farm project. Therefore, a new consultation is not required for issuance of this IHA. Following the issuance of the IHA, an incidental take statement (ITS), with associated reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions, will be issued to exempt any take of listed marine mammal species from the take prohibition in section 9 of the ESA. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) of the ESA, taking that results from, but is not the purpose of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorized Incidental Take Statement. The ITS will be appended to the January 30, 2014 Biological Opinion.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential impacts of the issuance of an IHA for the proposed activities. The final EA was prepared in August 2014 and NMFS made a Finding of No Significant Impact for this action. These documents are available on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required and none was prepared.

Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Medical Screening of Military Personnel; DD Form 2807-1: Report of Medical History; DD Form 2807-2: Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report; OMB Number: 0704-0413.

Type of Request: Revision.

DD Form 2807-2:

Number of Respondents: 423,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 423,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 70,500.

DD Form 2807-1:

Number of Respondents: 350,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 350,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 58,333.

Total Responses:

Annual Responses: 773,000.

Annual Burden Hours: 128,833.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary per Title 10, U.S.C. Chapter 31: Section 504 and 505, and Chapter 33, section 532, which requires applicants to meet accession medical standards prior to enlistment into the Armed Forces (including the Coast Guard). If applicants' medical history reveals a medical condition that does not meet the accession medical standards, they are medically disqualified for military entrance. This form also will be used by all Service members not only in their initial medical examination but also for periodic medical examinations.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

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

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

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

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Privilege Management Program (PMP); DD Form 2249A and Pentagon Tours Web site; OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to facilitate background investigations and properly assign privileges to the customer utilized within the Pentagon Reservation and National Capital Region (NCR). The collection is also required to facilitate verification of background investigations for individuals applying for access to the Pentagon in connection with Pentagon Visitor Tours.

The Visitor & Parking Management feature of the Privilege Management Program (PMP—Access Control System) utilizes DD Form 2249A as evidence that the customer has been properly vetted and provides justification for access to the locations needed to perform their occupational duties. The information collection requirement is necessary to facilitate background investigations and properly assign physical access and parking privileges to the customer utilized within the Pentagon Reservation.

The Electronic Security System of the PMP is related to the Pentagon Tours feature of the PMP whereby the information is provided by the individual requesting the tour and is entered directly into the PFPA Web site.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,208.

Number of Respondents: 26,500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 26,500.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 12,917.

Number of Respondents: 155,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 155,000.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Annual Burden Hours: 15,125.

Number of Respondents: 181,500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 181,500.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondents are tenants and visitors who are provided identification badges, submit biometric attributes for collection, and/or have access privileges assigned. The PMP Access Control System is the authoritative system which integrates into American Magnetics System, AMAG, for the Pentagon, and SoftwareHouse C-Cure-9000 for the Mark Center and the Defense Health Headquarters.

The PMP Visitor Management & Parking Management Systems utilize the DD Form 2249A and records customer information to facilitate verification of background investigations for individuals applying for access and parking to DOD buildings in connection with their official duties. If DD Form 2249A is not completed by the customer at time of enrollment, the enrollment agent cannot issue credential(s). Having qualified agents provide credentialing and enrollment services is essential to maintaining daily operations and access rights to various installations throughout the NCR. The data are collected and stored in the PMP database at the time of enrollment.

Regarding the Pentagon tours Web site, respondents are visitors who wish to be conducted on a tour of the Pentagon. The Pentagon Visitor Tour Online Web site records customer information to facilitate verification of background investigations for individuals applying for access to Pentagon in connection with Pentagon Visitor Tours. If the online information is not presented by customers they will not be scheduled or allowed access into the Pentagon. The data are collected and stored in the PMP Electronic Security System Database at the time of tour scheduling.

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

Title of Collection: Implementation Study of the Ramp Up to Readiness Program.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0907.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 21,573.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,059.

Abstract: This study will examine the implementation of Ramp-Up to Readiness, a schoolwide guidance intervention aimed at increasing the college readiness of students. This intervention (called Phase one) is at present being implemented in 34 high schools in Minnesota, and the developers intend to make the intervention available to a much larger set of Minnesota schools. No independently gathered high-quality evidence exists, however, on whether schools are able to implement this comprehensive intervention as intended or how its core components compare to the college-readiness supports in other high schools. The project for which OMB clearance is requested will attempt to gather such evidence from 22 public Minnesota high schools through the least burdensome means. The school-level implementation study will focus on assessing whether Ramp-Up school staff implement the program as intended, on identifying the extent to which the Ramp-Up program differs from the college-readiness supports offered in schools without Ramp-Up, and on the validity of a measure of personal college readiness, which the developers hypothesize is a key mechanism through which the program impacts later outcomes. The study will collect data from school staff in the following activities: Administrative data collection, focus groups in January and June, extant document collection, instructional logs, student and staff surveys, and student personal readiness assessment. The findings produced through analysis of these data will help (1) state education agencies seeking strategies and programs to endorse as a potential means of improving students college readiness and college enrollment, (2) local education agencies that are considering the challenges of implementing Ramp-Up, (3) the developer of this intervention (the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota) and developers of other college readiness interventions who continually seek to improve their programs by using information from studies like this, and (4) a group of education stakeholders in the Midwest interested in considering whether to conduct a study of the impacts of the Ramp-Up intervention on student outcomes. The revision to the collection being requested is to add a phase two to the evaluation. For this second phase, the impact of the program is being examined in addition to the implementation of the program. Data will be collected from an additional 54 schools for this second phase of the evaluation.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 27, 2014, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0093, which is available for public viewing on-line at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: Clean Air Act Tribal Authority.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1676.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0306.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 08/31/2014. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) seeks authorization for tribes to demonstrate their eligibility to be treated in the same manner as states under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to submit applications to implement a CAA program. This ICR extends the collection period of information for determining eligibility, which expires August 31, 2014. The ICR maintains the estimates of burden costs for tribes in completing a CAA application.

The program regulation provides for Indian tribes, if they so choose, to assume responsibility for the development and implementation of CAA programs. The regulation, Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management (Tribal Authority Rule [TAR] 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50 and 81) sets forth how tribes may seek authority to implement their own air quality planning and management programs. The rule establishes: 1) Which CAA provisions Indian tribes may seek authority to implement, 2) what requirements the tribes must meet when seeking such authorization, and 3) what Federal financial assistance may be available to help tribes establish and manage their air quality programs. The TAR provides tribes the authority to administer air quality programs over all air resources, including non-Indian owned fee lands, within the exterior boundaries of a reservation and other areas over which the tribe can demonstrate jurisdiction. An Indian tribe that takes responsibility for a CAA program would essentially be treated in the same way as a state would be treated for that program.

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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Responses to the collection of information are required to obtain a benefit (40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50 and 81). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). There is no sensitive information required.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Respondents/Affected Entities: States, locals, Indian tribes.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.

Frequency of Response: One-time application.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 320.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $18,896.00, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

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

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including those interested in environmental assessment, the chemical industry, chemical users, consumer product companies, and members of the public interested in the assessment of chemical risks. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0516, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

The objective of this workshop is to better understand the state of the science for evaluating chemical substances which are difficult-to-test in aquatic test systems. Such chemical substances include, for example, those that have very low water solubility, high volatility, and that are difficult to measure/quantify in aquatic solutions. As a workshop, the primary participants will be invited based on their expertise in aquatic toxicity testing and risk assessment; however, the meeting will be open to the public and observers will be encouraged to attend and will have an opportunity to contribute to the workshop. Members of the public may register to attend and participate in the workshop as observers (see Unit III.).

Members of the public may register to attend the workshop as observers, or register to speak, if planning to offer oral comments during the workshop. To attend the workshop as an observer or to register to speak, you must register for the meeting no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, on Friday, September 5, 2014, by either sending an email to Eileen White ( white.eileen@epa.gov ) or through the U.S. Postal Service or by overnight/priority mail. When registering provide the following information: Name, address, affiliation, and contact information (email and telephone number). If you register to speak, you must also indicate if you have any special requirements related to your oral comments (e.g., translation).

Because there will be no on-site registration, members of the public who do not register by the deadline using one of the methods described in this notice may not be able to attend in person; seating will be on a first-come, first-serve basis for observers who have registered for on-site attendance.

A copy of a draft agenda is provided in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0516. Members of the public are invited to review and comment during the public comment period at the meeting on the following topics for the one-and-a-half day workshop:

1. What characterizes a substance as being difficult-to-test in aquatic systems (i.e., physical/chemical properties, presence of impurities, etc.)?

2. After a substance is released into the environment, what determines its distribution in the environment? How should this information be used to determine which environmental medium/organism should be tested?

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current test methods and approaches for poorly water soluble substances?

• Water accommodated fraction (WAF) methodology.

• Use of solvents.

• Role of Static/Semi-static/Continuous flow-through systems.

4. How can current test methods be changed, or, are there new methods available to better test the toxicity of difficult-to-test substances in the aquatic ecosystem?

The workshop will be held via Web connect and teleconferencing for those interested. All registered participants will receive information on how to connect to the workshop prior to its start.

Environmental protection, Aquatic toxicity, Business and industry, Chemicals, Ecotoxicity, Health and safety, Industrial chemicals, Unknown or Variable Compositions, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials (UVCBs), Water.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1124.

Title: 80.231, Technical Requirements for Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) Equipment.

Form No.: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 20 respondents; 50,020 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour per requirement.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 50,020 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $25,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: On September 19, 2008, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, FCC 08-208, which added a new section 80.231, which requires that manufacturers of Class B Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) transmitters for the Marine Radio Service include with each transmitting device a statement explaining how to enter static information accurately and a warning statement that entering inaccurate information is prohibited. The Commission is seeking to extend this collection in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB. Specifically, the information collection requires that manufacturers of AIS transmitters label each transmitting device with the following statement:

Additionally, prior to submitting a certification application (FCC Form 731, OMB Control Number 3060-0057) for a Class B AIS device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the Commandant (CG-521), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001: (1) The name of the manufacturer or grantee and the model number of the AIS device; and (2) copies of the test report and test data obtained from the test facility showing that the device complies with the environmental and operational requirements identified in IEC 62287-1. After reviewing the information described in the certification application, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue a letter stating whether the AIS device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1. A certification application for an AIS device submitted to the Commission must contain a copy of the U.S. Coast Guard letter stating that the device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC-62287-1, a copy of the technical test data and the instruction manual(s).

These reporting and third party disclosure requirements aid the Commission monitoring advance marine vessel tracking and navigation information transmitted from Class B AIS devices to ensure that they are accurate and reliable, while promoting marine safety.

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

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