Federal Register Vol. 80, No.37,

The current Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) routine data collection requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (NSLP/SBP) have their roots in the paper and early computer eras and reflect concerns with paperwork and reporting burden. Thus, data collected to administer and monitor these programs is typically reported at the State level, with detailed data collected at the service delivery point (e.g., individual meal transactions, school) often aggregated at one or more levels (e.g., school to SFA to State-level) before being submitted to FNS. Data aggregation results in a significant loss of potentially valuable information that could support administration, monitoring, and policy development.

FNS recognizes that, in fact, managing a school food service program is a complex and data intensive operation, and that SFAs collect, generate, and maintain far more data than they report to their State child nutrition agencies. This includes data on costs, revenues, inventories, vendor management, and other business, administrative and regulatory activity. The same is true of State agencies that are responsible for monitoring the work of many SFAs. Some States and SFAs have developed more sophisticated data management systems to manage program data, however there is no comprehensive inventory of NSLP/SBP management information systems (MIS) in use, the number of States and SFAs that use MIS, or the data elements collected to support FNS reporting and general program management.

The Review of Child Nutrition Data and Analysis for Program Management project will fill this knowledge gap by fully documenting SFA and State NSLP/SBP management information systems. This baseline “as is” review will document overall NSLP/SBP information system design, capabilities, functions, development/replacement and maintenance costs, and typical lifespan. The “as is” review is focusing particular attention on NSLP/SBP program management data that are collected or generated at the SFA or State agency levels, but are not required to be reported to FNS on any FNS program report forms. Findings from the RFI and additional review activities will provide a baseline for potential improvements to data collection practices and help support future MIS modernization and paperwork reduction efforts. They will also help identify promising and emerging practices and define models for MIS at both the state and local SFA levels.

FNS requests that vendors respond in detail to the items below. Vendors are encouraged to provide any material that addresses the information requested or any other information that may be pertinent. Additional references or links to materials are welcome.

a. Name of Company

b. Address and Telephone Number

c. Vendor Representative, contact number and email address

Briefly describe your company, your products and services, history, and ownership; for example:

a. Web site address

b. Main product/services

c. Main market/customers

d. Company location(s)

e. Product deployment sites/school systems

1. Number of School District/schools currently deployed

2. Average/typical size of the school system

3. Year of first deployment

4. Years serving schools

a. List and describe the core modules provided by your product. For example:

1. Point of Sale/Service (POS)

2. Prepayment system(s) for parents

3. Nutrient Analysis and Menu Planning

4. Inventory Management

5. Purchasing/Vendor Management

6. Production Records

7. Financial Management

8. Free and Reduced-Price Meals Applications

• Scanning paper applications

• Processing On-line applications

• Making eligibility determinations

• Creating benefit issuance documents

• Conducting verification

9. Direct Certification

• SNAP recipients

• Extended SNAP household members

• Other direct certification—homeless, migrant, foster

10. Meal counting and claiming

11. Administrative Review

12. Reporting

13. Any other not listed above

b. Describe the capabilities and reporting functionalities of your product.

c. Describe your platform—site-based, central office w/satellite, cloud-based, etc.

d. For SFAs, are POS terminals proprietary or third-party?

e. Is your system a commercial off the shelf (COTS) product with application in multiple industry segments or school nutrition specific?

f. Does your firm rely on any `third party software products/systems' for implementation and/or operation?

g. Are any additional licenses required from `third party sources' to utilize your product?

h. What is your product's ability to interface with other vendor systems? What level of customization is available?

i. List the minimum and recommended hardware requirements to implement and utilize your product at each level of installation.

j. Describe the interface capabilities between your product and various within-district student data base systems.

k. Describe the interface capabilities between your product and State agency systems.

l. Does your system adhere to Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) standards?

m. Please provide a list of data elements captured/stored by your product. For example:

1. Name of the data element

2. Description of the data element

3. Possible values

n. Describe the processes/procedures/steps associated with planning, installation, setup, data import and conversion, data migration, quality assurance, deployment, and roll-out for your product.

a. Describe your model for providing customer support, including charge/cost structure (e.g., hours of support, levels of support).

b. Describe your incident reporting and tracking systems, and the ability for customer staff to access those systems directly.

c. List the types of support access that are available (web, email, chat, telephone etc.).

d. Describe the communication and escalation processes/protocols in the event of failure, network outages, degraded service, and/or exceeded planned utilization.

e. Describe your replication, archival and retrieval processes, including your disaster recovery model.

f. Describe the warranty and maintenance plan(s) for your product. Have there been recent upgrades or updates to your product? How often do you typically develop and release upgrades?

g. Is your support agreement integrated into the license agreement?

h. Describe your understanding and system approach to privacy rules, specifically those related to children and students (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, etc.).

i. Describe your process for upgrading your product to meet federal and state regulations.

j. Does your product support access through smartphones, tablets, laptops etc.?

a. Describe your pricing models relevant to each component of your product.

b. Is your pricing model based on purchasing the entire product or individual module(s), or is it based on usage/users?

c. Describe the upgrade process and cost to upgrade.

d. List any additional pricing/cost information that would be useful to evaluate the affordability of the product.

a. What type of technical training do you provide?

b. Describe your product's documentation and in-program help?

Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). 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 CCGP is responsible for dealing with procedural and general matters referred to it by Codex, for proposing amendments to the Codex Procedural Manual, and for reviewing and endorsing procedural provisions and texts forwarded by Codex Committees for inclusion in the Procedural Manual.

The Committee is hosted by France.

The following items on the agenda for the 29th Session of CCGP will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Matters Referred to the Committee

• Proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference of CCGP

• Proposed amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts

• Consistency of the Risk Analysis Texts across the Relevant Committees

• Codex Work Management and Functioning of the Executive Committee

• Other Business

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 February 25, 2015, 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 Mary Frances Lowe, U.S. Delegate for the 29th Session of CCGP (see ADDRESSES). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 29th Session of CCGP.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. 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/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which is available accessed on-line at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative. Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

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

(202) 690-7442.

[email protected].

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

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

Once public involvement is complete, the fee increases will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (“the Act”) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2014). Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trade Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its application. Under 15 CFR 325.6(a), interested parties may, within twenty days after the date of this notice, submit written comments to the Secretary on the application.

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

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 99-8A005.”

Applicant: California Almond Export Association, LLC (“CAEA”), 4800 Sisk Road Modesto, CA 95356.

Contact: Bill Morecraft, Chairman, Telephone: (916) 446-8537.

Application No.: 99-8A005.

Date Deemed Submitted: February 6, 2014.

Proposed Amendment: CAEA seeks to amend its Certificate to delete the following company as a Member of CAEA's Certificate: Minturn Nut Company, Inc., Le Grand, CA.

CAEA's proposed amendment of its Export Trade Certificate of Review would result in the following companies as Members under the Certificate: Almonds California Pride, Inc., Caruthers, CA, Baldwin-Minkler Farms, Orland, CA, Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, CA, Campos Brothers, Caruthers, CA, Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA, Del Rio Nut Company, Inc., Livingston, CA, Fair Trade Corner, Inc., Chico, CA, Fisher Nut Company, Modesto, CA, Hilltop Ranch, Inc., Ballico, CA, Hughson Nut, Inc., Hughson, CA, Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA, Nutco, LLC d.b.a. Spycher Brothers, Turlock, CA, Paramount Farms, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, P-R Farms, Inc., Clovis, CA, Roche Brothers International Family Nut Co., Escalon, CA, South Valley Almond Company, LLC, Wasco, CA, Sunny Gem, LLC, Wasco, CA, Western Nut Company, Chico, CA.

Replacement of Trade Mission Statement.

The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is replacing its Trade Mission to South Africa and Mozambique, With an Optional Stop in Kenya; February 23-27, 2015 with a new trade mission as notified herein. Replacement.

The U. S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing a Trade Mission to Mozambique, Kenya and South Africa, June 18-26, 2015, which will be led by a senior executive of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The mission is designed to help U.S. firms find business partners and sell equipment and services. Target sectors holding high potential for U.S exporters include:

Transportation Infrastructure and Equipment, such as: road, bridge and dam construction and reconstruction; automatic fare collection systems, new and refurbished railroad locomotives, new bulk car and other dedicated rolling freight fleets, smart signaling and rail operation automation, rolling stock depot design, strategic route design and network planning, port mobile, weighbridges and quayside systems and upgrading of existing port equipment and oil and gas development infrastructure.

Energy Equipment and Services, such as: power generation (including renewable energy); transmission and distribution (including smart grid), energy efficiency, oil and gas exploration and production and project development.

Agricultural Equipment, such as: crop production equipment and machinery, irrigation equipment and technology, crop storage and handling, precision farming technologies and fertilizers.

Although focused on the sectors above, the mission also will consider participation from companies in other appropriate sectors as space permits.

This trade mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meetings with national and regional government officials, chambers of commerce, and business groups; and networking receptions. The mission will help participating firms and trade associations gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Mozambique, Kenya and South Africa.

Mozambique, with a population of 23 million, grew its economy from 1994 to 2009 at an average rate of eight percent per year—one of the fastest rates of growth of any sub-Saharan African economy over this period. In 2013, GDP reached $15 billion. While the country was devastated after the civil war ended in 1992, it has since benefited from macroeconomic reforms and large foreign investment projects.

Though infrastructure remains weak and the population is still largely rural, the government is committed to building a strong commercial environment. The United States has traditionally been a relatively minor trading partner, but U.S. investment in the energy sector, particularly off-shore natural gas, is expected to grow tremendously in the next several years. External competition, local labor quotas, periodic flooding, and an often-contentious political situation present some challenges to doing business in Mozambique.

Kenya, with a population of 43 million, is the dominant economy in the East African Community. Given its position as the economic, commercial, and logistical hub of East Africa, more U.S. companies are investing in Kenya and setting up local and regional operations there. Kenya's first election under a new constitution with a devolved government structure was held in April 2013, and should position it for further growth. Investor confidence is high, as demonstrated by Kenya's record-breaking $2 billion debut sovereign bond offering in 2014.

Kenya also boasts a large number of well-educated English-speaking and multi-lingual professionals, and a strong entrepreneurial tradition. Doing business in Kenya includes a number of challenges, such as crime, unemployment, limited infrastructure, and corruption.

South Africa, a country of 52 million people, has the most advanced, broad-based industrial economy in Africa, enjoys relative macroeconomic stability and boasts sound financial, legal and accounting institutions; not to mention an English-speaking workforce. It remains the primary choice for U.S. companies wishing to develop the promising markets of sub-Saharan Africa, although it suffers from large disparities in income distribution and over 25 percent unemployment. In 2014 South Africa's GDP grew by less than two percent to $357 billion. Doing business in South Africa includes a number of challenges including corruption and power shortages, as well as a series of protectionist policies that has precipitated a series of downgrades by the major credit agencies.

Transport networks and infrastructure will be instrumental to developing Mozambique's growth potential in the near and long term. The recently concluded $500 million Millennium Challenge Corporation compact funded extensive rehabilitation of key roads, a dam, and a water supply project in two northern provinces. The Government of Mozambique is investing heavily in expanding rail and port capacity to manage the rising production of mineral resources. A rail line to the deepest natural port on the East Coast of Africa should significantly lower coal transport costs, and two foreign companies have recently been contracted to begin work on a new rail line ending at Macuze port. As total coal exports are projected to reach 40 million tons per year by 2015 and long term estimates are in the range of 100 million tons per year, infrastructure around this sector remains a priority. In addition, rapid investment in infrastructure to support planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in northern Mozambique, one of its least developed regions, could bring vast opportunities to U.S. firms.

Kenya enjoys an extensive, but uneven, infrastructure that is still superior in many cases to that of its neighbors. Nairobi is the undisputed transportation hub of Eastern and Central Africa and the largest city between Cairo and Johannesburg. The Port of Mombasa is the most important deep-water port in the region, supplying the shipping needs of more than a dozen countries despite persistent deficiencies in equipment, inefficiency and corruption. As a result of these deficiencies, the Port of Mombasa has been earmarked for major expansion and re-habilitation.

Kenya's “Vision 2030” infrastructure development plans call for significant improvements to the provision of water, renewable energy, ICT, housing, roads, bridges, railways, seaports and airports over the next 20 years. The construction industry in Kenya is driven primarily by two key infrastructure sectors: Transportation and housing, given the large housing deficit that exists in Kenya. Construction and infrastructure development will also present new opportunities, especially with the passage of the new public-private partnership (PPP) law which will make government procurements more transparent and less risky.

South Africa's Transnet, the largest State Owned Enterprise (SOE) within the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) has announced and allocated funding for significant transportation infrastructure capital investments. In 2012, the government announced the allocation of funding for investments estimated at over $90 billion over 15 years. Though there have been complaints of slow implementation, leading some contractors to re-focus business elsewhere in the continent, in late 2013 and early 2014 commitments were made to procure passenger rolling stock, locomotives, signaling and track upgrades. Also, the development of the significant Durban phase 2 port extension (in the old Durban International Airport precinct) has been initiated.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) of the SA Department of Transport (SADOT) in March 2012 announced a 20-year rail improvement program estimated at more than $13.6 billion. Of this, $1.3 billion will be invested in signaling, new depots, modern stations and integrated ticketing, while $1.1 billion is being spent on new locomotives.

SOE Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) and others are expanding logistics projects such as upgrading the Sishen-Saldanha Bay ore line, the Richard Bay coal line and other new coal line networks in the northwest. Transnet's rail and port projects are reportedly set to cost around $30 billion over seven years and include augmenting the tractive and bulk car fleet, signaling, maintenance, advanced train management systems and network expansion/concession models. For the second large diesel locomotive program of 465 units, one U.S. and one Chinese manufacturer were selected as preferred bidders in February 2014.

Transnet Port Terminals (TPT), the port operating SOE is set to invest $3.3 billion over the next seven years for the expansion and improvement of its bulk and container terminals. Significant capacity-creating projects included the expansion of the Durban Container Terminal's (DCT's) Pier 1 that would increase its capacity from 700,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) to 820,000 TEUs by 2013 and 1.2 million TEUs by 2016/17. Other expansion projects include the Ngqura Container Terminal, Durban Ro-Ro and Maydon Wharf terminal, the iron-ore bulk terminal at the Port of Saldanha and the ageing Richards Bay Terminal where $370 million is set aside for mobile and quayside equipment, as well as weighbridges.

Mozambique is set to become one of the world's largest new suppliers of natural gas. The country's massive offshore discoveries have launched a scramble among exploration and production companies to develop these new-found resources. In early 2014, the Oil and Gas Journal raised Mozambique's proven reserves to 100 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), making it the third-largest proved natural gas holder in Africa. Although much of the Mozambique's offshore acreage still remains underexplored, one U.S. company already has announced recoverable finds totaling some 45-65 Tcf. The country's rich resources could support up to ten LNG trains in one province alone, and a floating LNG facility is under consideration. Developers focusing on Mozambique's LNG infrastructure expect to begin exporting as early as 2018. Additionally, although the United States exported only $25 million of oil and gas field equipment to Mozambique in 2013, this is up from $1 million only five years prior and comprises about 19 percent of the country's relatively small total of $132 million for that year. More than 80 percent of U.S. exports to Mozambique are in pipe products, indicating the early stages of the industry.

Mozambique is a net exporter of energy. But in order to support its growing economy the country requires significant investment to upgrade old infrastructure and conclude new generation projects. The majority of power produced in the country comes from the Cahora Bassa hydro-power scheme in central Mozambique, where the government plans a multi-million dollar “North Bank” expansion. It will add an additional 1,250 MW with transmission lines to South Africa, the South African Power Pool, Maputo, and Northern Mozambique. Planning for a second multi-billion dollar, 1,500-plus MW hydropower dam 35 miles downstream at Mphanda Nkuwa is well underway, and the operators are expected to finalize financing this year, with commercial operations due to start as early as 2017. The government of Mozambique recently approved new renewable feed-in tariffs as part of an ongoing strategy to promote private investment in renewable energy sources.

In response to strong economic growth and increasing demand for electricity, Kenya is focused on developing its power generation and transmission and distribution infrastructure. Today, Kenya is faced with brownouts, blackouts, and power surges that damage equipment and necessitate emergency power, driving up the cost of electricity. The supply deficit and costly short-term solutions impede economic growth, and reduce the competitiveness of Kenya's private sector in the region. With only 25 percent of the population connected to the grid, the Kenyan government is currently implementing a plan to connect an additional 5,000MW to the grid to meet growing demand and help reduce electricity tariffs by 40 percent by 2017, with a goal of achieving universal access by 2030.

In ITA's Renewable Energy Top Markets for U.S.-Exports 2014-2015, Kenya was ranked 13th most promising export market for U.S. renewable energy companies, and first in the geothermal sector, which makes up about 22 percent of Kenya's energy mix (about 583 MW). More than 40 wells per year currently are being drilled, with a target of developing over 5,000 MW, approximately half of its capacity, in the next two decades. Kenya has extensive plans to increase other renewables as well. The country is gradually diversifying its energy mix and is keen to wean off expensive thermal diesel power, whose supply is impacted by recurring droughts; and thermal power, which is sensitive to global fuel prices.

Kenya is also an increasingly promising player in the booming East Africa oil and gas market. The multiple onshore discoveries announced since 2012, largely in Turkana County, have led exploration and production companies to sound optimistic notes about the country's potential. The greatest enthusiasm surrounds offshore resources, where drillers hope to replicate Mozambique and Tanzania's vast natural gas discoveries. To date, Kenya's oil resources are estimated to be 600 million barrels, with at least one firm projecting that Kenya's resource base could amount to as much as 10 billion barrels, though exploration is still in the early stages. While movement on key planned infrastructure projects, such as the $25 billion Lamu Port, South Sudan Ethiopia, Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor, has been slow, if all goes smoothly, a Uganda-Kenya pipeline could be completed by as early as 2019.

Electricity supply constraints are significant and are expected to remain a feature of South Africa's social and economic landscape for several years to come. ESKOM, the government owned power utility, with a virtual monopoly on generation, transmission and distribution (responsible for around 95 percent of local generation) is experiencing budgetary and infrastructure challenges. As a result of these challenges, the government has put a renewed focus on the increased generation of power, increased energy efficiency and decreased consumption. ESKOM's reserve of power has recently become so low that it has been forced to utilize its contractual rights with large industrial users to require them to reduce consumption at critical times, and it has implemented scheduled brownouts or “load-shedding” outages for all users. It has also been forced to use expensive diesel to power generators at peak load periods. Though there is current and planned infrastructure investment to ensure future supply, there have been significant delays in bringing these planned power generation facilities on line.

ESKOM is currently investigating smart grid as an option to manage peak load demand. Renewable energy programs have also been introduced in order to facilitate clean renewable independent energy production. The government's Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement program (REIPPP) has been relatively successful and marks the first time independent power producers have been allowed to sell power back to the grid. In ITA's Renewable Energy Top Markets for U.S.-Exports 2014-2015, South Africa was ranked 12th; however, local content requirements, which have increased in recent months, may limit potential U.S. exports.

Further capital expenditure is ongoing with the two large scale coal-fired plants under construction—Medupi Power Station (4,800 MW) and Kusile Power Station (4800 MW)—as well as a pumped storage project (1,332 MW) and a wind energy facility (1,00MW). With on-going power outages, the government of South Africa has also recently opened bids to independent power producers for the provision of 2,500 MW of base-load (coal) power.

South Africa boasts the world's eighth largest supply of technically recoverable shale gas resources, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. In 2012, the government lifted a moratorium on exploring the country's estimated 390 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of unconventional deposits. While licenses have yet to be issued, President Zuma announced in June 2014 that the government would proceed with shale gas development plans, indicating the government's willingness to move forward with development in the sector.

South Africa has announced plans to add 9,600 MW of nuclear power over the next twenty years and the government is in talks with multiple countries about resources to develop South Africa's civil nuclear energy program. The country currently has two nuclear reactors that generate 5 percent of its electricity.

Mozambique has vast needs and vast opportunities in the agriculture sector. Boasting a landmass about the size of Texas and Louisiana combined, a coastline longer than the eastern seaboard of the United States, and a geographic location well-positioned to export to burgeoning Asian markets, agriculture is still small-scale and subsistence. Growth in agriculture has lagged in relation to GDP growth, largely due to the lack of mechanization and irrigation. Opportunities for U.S. companies vary from cold storage, irrigation and food processing equipment.

Mozambique recognizes agriculture as the key to poverty reduction and employment and is focused on policy reforms to attract more private sector investment. The Government of Mozambique is committed to promoting the use of technology, irrigation, and improved methods to raise yields. This commitment has resulted in plans by U.S. and other foreign agribusiness companies to establish commercial farms.

Agriculture remains the backbone of Kenya's economy. It accounts for about 24 percent of GDP directly and 75 percent of the labor force indirectly. Cash crop (tea, coffee, and horticulture), food crops (maize, wheat and rice), and livestock dominate the agricultural sector. Kenyan agriculture faces many challenges. It is predominately rainfall dependent and thus subject to wide production variances. It is undercapitalized, implying low technological absorption resulting in low productivity. Small-scale farmers contribute about 75 percent to the country's total value of agricultural output and account for nearly 85 percent of total employment in the agricultural sector. These attributes, coupled with challenges arising from limited institutional capacity, poor infrastructure, and risks associated with liberalized markets, explain the relative stagnation of agricultural productivity and incomes.

Kenya's horticulture industry is a major export success in Africa. It is almost entirely dominated by the private sector and provides many opportunities for increased importation of fertilizers, pesticides and equipment. Similar opportunities lie in the floriculture industry in Kenya, which is the leading exporter of fresh cut flowers to the flower auction in Holland. Other important commodities include maize, tea, coffee, sugarcane and wheat, which will require additional use of fertilizers as production grows. The government has embarked on a mechanization program to increase use of more modern means of farming to increase output. In addition, the government has set aside 1.2 million acres of land for irrigation that for growing maize and wheat, and livestock farming. Agricultural equipment is tax exempt under the VAT Act 2013 to provide support to the sector.

Kenya imports virtually all of its agricultural chemicals because local production is insignificant. Kenya's fertilizer use has almost doubled since the liberalization of the market in the 1990s and the removal of government price controls and import licensing quotas. The growth in use has been noted especially among the smallholder farmers in growth of both food crops (maize, domestic horticulture) and export crops (tea, coffee). Growth in the industry is largely due to huge private investment in both importation and retailing of fertilizers. Fertilizer is also tax exempted under the new VAT Act.

South Africa has by far the most modern, productive and diverse agricultural economy in Sub Saharan Africa. Agriculture in South Africa remains an important sector despite its relatively small contribution to the GDP. The sector plays an important role in terms of job creation, especially in rural areas, but is also a foremost earner of foreign exchange.

South Africa has a market-oriented agricultural economy that is highly diversified, including production of all the major grains (except rice), oilseeds, deciduous and subtropical fruits, sugar, citrus, wine and most vegetables. Livestock production includes cattle, dairy, pigs, sheep, and a well-developed broiler and egg industry. Value-added sector activities include slaughtering, processing and preserving of meat; processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables; dairy products; grain mill products; crushing of oilseeds; prepared animal feeds; and sugar refining amongst other food products. South Africa also exports wine, corn, mohair, groundnuts, karakul pelts, sugar, and wool.

South Africa offers U.S. exporters in the agricultural equipment and technology sector a wide range of opportunities. Five percent of all new agriculture equipment is being produced locally; 95 percent of all agriculture equipment and parts are being sourced from international markets, and at least 20 percent of new equipment and technologies are currently being sourced from the U.S.

The goal of this trade mission is to provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, and one-on-one meetings with business contacts, including potential agents, distributors and partners so they can position themselves to enter or expand their presence in these markets.

This mission will visit Maputo, Mozambique, Nairobi, Kenya and Johannesburg, South Africa allowing participants to access the largest markets and business centers in these countries.

All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 20 firms and/or trade associations or organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the mission.

After a company or trade association/organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the mission is $4,600 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME),1 and $6,200 for large firms and trade associations/organizations. The fee for each additional representative (large firm, SME or trade association/organization) is $750.

The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation and air transportation. Delegate members will however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's or association/organization's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation by April 17, 2015. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.

Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the U.S., or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that for each company to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the U.S. or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.

In addition, each applicant must:

Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;

Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce for its evaluation any business pending before the Department that may present the appearance of a conflict of interest;

Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and

Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.

Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting products and services that have interest in entering or expanding their business in markets of Mozambique, Kenya and South Africa. The following criteria will be used in selecting participants:

Suitability of a company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') products or services to these markets.

Company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.

Consistency of the applicant company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.

Referrals from political organizations and any documents, including the application, containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.

Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar (http://www.export.gov/trademissions/) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows.

Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude April 17, 2015. We will inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after April 17, 2015. Applications received after April 17, 2015 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297, provided for the establishment of an AP to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to the development of any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or FMP amendment for Atlantic HMS. NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of AP members when preparing and implementing FMPs or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and sharks.

The AP has previously consulted with NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April 1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003); the Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006); and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008, February and September 2009, May and September 2010, April and September 2011, March and September 2012, January and September 2013, April and September 2014), among other things.

The intent of this meeting is to consider alternatives for the conservation and management of all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries. We anticipate discussing the following Amendments to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP: Draft Amendment 6 on the future of shark fishery, providing updates on Amendment 5b on dusky shark management and Amendment 9 on smoothhound shark management and ongoing stock assessment, reviewing Final Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna management measures, as well as discussing the HMS Essential Fish Habitat 5-Year Review. The meeting will also include discussion of the Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan for Atlantic HMS, implementation of 2014 ICCAT recommendations, and updates on the Atlantic HMS Management-Based Research Priorities document and other research activities, among other updates.

Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/advisory_panels/hms_ap/meetings/ap_meetings.html.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Peter Cooper at (301) 427-8503 at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council is considering establishing federal permits for fishing in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and is conducting scoping meetings to obtain public comments regarding this matter.

A permitting system provides a comprehensive method to achieve this goal. Permitting supports professionalization of individual fisheries, identifying and acknowledging those fishers dedicated to and reliant upon a specific component of the commercial fishery. Permits also allow for direct communication with fishing entities, enabling focused outreach and education opportunities.

A permitting system allows fishery scientists and managers to gather more accurate data, decreasing both scientific and management uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty can be mitigated to some degree by increasing knowledge of the fishery and the health of the fish populations that support that fishery. A permit system that identifies the universe of fishers operating within a fishing sector and allows tracking of the disposition and characteristics of harvested resources would substantially enhance knowledge of the fishery. Data derived from a comprehensive permit system would also contribute to reducing management uncertainty by providing better estimates of harvesting effort and the timing of harvest, thereby improving management design and responsiveness. More accurate and reliable catch data allows for more informed management.

The absence of a federal permit system, or mandatory federal reporting requirements, has been identified as a major contributor to the lack of fishing effort information in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. A permitting system would allow better estimates for measuring fishing effort for the Council-managed fisheries while shedding light on the effectiveness of regulations implemented to manage that effort.

Some of the needs and Issues that a permitting system could address in the EEZ:

1. Provide accurate and timely data on landings.

2. Allow estimation of catch per unit of fishing effort.

3. Identify spatial and temporal trends in effort, including the relative importance of fishing to individual communities.

4. Manage competing interests for the resource.

5. Identify trends in the health of targeted fish stocks.

6. Quantify the socioeconomic importance of permitted fishing sectors and mitigate negative impacts of management to fishing communities.

7. Provide permitted fishers with a better understanding of their fishery and the opportunities and implications of management to that fishery.

There are many aspects to implementing fishing permits in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and many options regarding the design of a permit system. Options for developing and designing a permit system include, but are not limited to:

1. Require commercial fishers to obtain a federal permit to fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ;

2. Require commercial fishers to obtain a commercial fishing license from either Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) to fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ;

3. Require commercial fishers to obtain a federal permit or a commercial fishing license from either Puerto Rico or the USVI to fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ

4. Require a species/species group/fishery-specific permit in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ;

5. Require a gear-specific permit in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ;

6. Require a dealer permit to purchase fish harvested from the U.S. Caribbean EEZ;

7. Conduct a pilot study with some or all fishers from some or all island groups to evaluate the practicality of permits in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.

The goal of these scoping meetings is to allow the public to comment on the options listed above and to provide alternative options not yet considered by the Council and NMFS.

Copy of the Scoping Document to address the Development of Federal Permits in the U.S. Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/index.html under Current Rule Making or and the Caribbean Council Web site at caribbeanfmc.com.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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 April 9, 2014, NMFS received an application from WETA for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the construction of a Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility (Project). The purpose of the Project is to serve as the central San Francisco Bay (Bay) base for WETA's ferry fleet. After NMFS provided comments on the draft IHA application, WETA submitted a revised IHA application on May 15, 2014. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on July 31, 2014. No changes was made for the proposed WETA's construction Project as described in the proposed IHA except the Project duration was changed to December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016, from the original June 15 through October 15, 2014, due to funding and other constraints. Please refer to Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA for a detailed description of the project activities.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to WETA was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55479). That notice described, in detail, WETA's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and 40 private citizens.

All comments specific to WETA's application that address the statutory and regulatory requirements or findings NMFS must make to issue an IHA are addressed in this section of the Federal Register notice.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends NMFS issue the IHA to WETA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures described in the proposed IHA. In addition, the Commission recommends that NMFS only authorize in-season adjustments in the sizes of the exclusion and/or disturbance zones (zones of influence) if the size(s) of the estimated zones are determined to be too small.

Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation and has issued the IHA with mitigation and monitoring measures described below in this document, with the requirement that the exclusion and/or zones of influence be adjusted only of the size(s) of the estimated zones are determined to be too small.

Comment 2: Citing WETA's permit application to BCDC to construct the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project, BCDC points out that an abandoned small craft floating dock located at the proposed project site that harbor seals use as a haul-out site, would be removed for the construction. BCDC states that there are relatively few haul-out locations in the Bay for harbor seals, and BCDC is concerned that removal of a haul-out location may result in harmful impacts to wildlife. The Sierra Club and 40 private citizens also have concerns about the loss of a harbor seal haul-out due to the removal of the floating dock.

BSDC recommends that NMFS review the potential habitat impacts associated with removal of these harbor seal haul-out locations, including suggestions for mitigation and monitoring, where appropriate, as part of the IHA application for the project.

Response: NMFS was not aware this issue during its initial analysis of potential impacts to the loss of one harbor seal haul-out site as a result of the proposed WETA construction project in the Bay. Therefore, the potential impact of marine mammal habitat did not address this in the Federal Register (79 FR 55479; September 17, 2014) for the proposed IHA. Subsequently, NMFS conducted further investigation and worked with NMFS West Coast Regional Office to assess the potential impacts to harbor seal haul-out and habitat in general in the Bay.

The harbor seal haul-out site that would be affected is a small craft dock located at the project site and was abandoned by the Navy when it vacated the Naval Air Station-Alameda in 1997. The unmaintained dock has been deteriorating slowly over the last 17 years and the deterioration has appeared to be accelerating in the last five years. In 2010, the portion connecting the floating dock to land broke off and sank, leaving remnant parts of the floating dock isolated from land. Since 2010, additional remnant parts of the marina have also been lost. During this period of time harbor seals have been opportunistically using the dock for haul-out purposes. At present, seals have been observed by local residents hauling out on the portion of the dock that is furthest from shore.

It is observed that on an average, about 10 to 20 harbor seals use the floating dock as haul-out periodically. Although during the spring of 2014, one pup was observed reared at the floating dock, the site is not a known breeding area for harbor seal. Because the dock has been in a gradual state of decay since the closure of the naval base and will likely continue to fall apart, the haul-out area on the dock provided for harbor seals is expected to decrease and eventually disappear.

Finally, several nearby haul-out sites are available in the Bay that are available to resident harbor seals in the area. These areas include the tip of Breakwater Island (1 mile from the WETA project site) and the haul-out at Yerba Buena Island (4 to 5 miles from the WETA project site) which is identified as one of the five major haul-out sites for harbor seals in the San Francisco Bay (Gibble 2011).

Therefore, the removal of the remnant abandoned dock would have negligible impact to harbor seal habitat in the proposed WETA construction site.

NMFS has thoroughly reviewed WETA's IHA application, including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce potential impacts from the construction activities. These mitigation and monitoring measures include using noise attenuation devices for impact pile driving, power down/shutdown of pile driving hammer if a marine mammal is observed approaching the exclusion zone, and monitoring the exclusion zones and zones of influence. Detailed description of these monitoring and mitigation measures and NMFS analysis is provided in the Federal Register (79 FR 55479; September 17, 2014) for the proposed IHA, therefore, it is not repeated here.

Comment 3: The Sierra Club and several private citizens recommend that NMFS requires WETA to construct a new haul-out dock nearby to compensate and mitigate the loss of harbor seal haul-out, if the current old floating dock is to be removed.

Response: NMFS does not consider building an artificial harbor seal haul-out is a good conservation measure to compensate for the loss of the old floating dock that is being used as a haul-out by 10-20 harbor seals. As the Sierra Club also stated in its comment, “[i]n the case of the WETA ferry facility project, it is not a traditional natural shoreline that will be disturbed or destroyed.” The floating dock proposed to be removed is a manmade structure that is bound to disappear as it deteriorates and falls apart. To build another new structure without maintenance will likely have the same issue in the near future. Therefore, NMFS considers it better conservation practice not to construct a new structure just to replace the current deteriorating artificial one.

The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Although harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer whale (Orcinus orca), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) have been sighted near the vicinity of the proposed construction area, their presence at the activity area is considered unlikely, because the proposed construction area is not typical habitat for these species. The southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris) also may occur in the proposed construction area, but that species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is not considered further in this proposed IHA notice. A list of the marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction and their abundance and Endangered Species Act (ESA) status is provided in Table 1.

Additional information on the marine mammal species found in California waters can be found in Caretta et al. (2013), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2012.pdf, and in the Federal Register notice (79 FR 55479) for the proposed IHA.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to authorize, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if: (1) We make certain findings; (2) the taking is limited to harassment; and (3) we provide a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review.

We shall grant an authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if we find that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Also, the authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. We have 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].

We received an application on July 30, 2014, from Point Blue requesting the taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting seabird and pinniped research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, Point Reyes National Seashore, San Francisco Bay, and the Russian River in central California. We determined the application complete and adequate on December 7, 2014.

Point Blue, along with partners Oikonos Ecosystem Knowledge, Point Reyes National Seashore with the National Park Service, and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary would conduct this research under cooperative agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in consultation with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

The proposed research activities would occur for one year, January 31, 2015, through January 30, 2016, and would involve annual monitoring and censusing of seabird colonies; seabird nesting habitat observations; nesting burrows restoration; breeding elephant seals observations; and the periodic resupply of a field station.

These proposed activities would occur in the vicinity of pinniped haul out sites and could likely result in the incidental take of marine mammals. We anticipate take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of either California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), or Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) to result from the specified activity.

This is the organization's sixth request for an Authorization. To date, we have issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to Point Blue (formerly known as PRBO Conservation Science) for the conduct of similar activities from 2007 to 2013 (72 FR 71121, December 14, 2007; 73 FR 77011, December 18, 2008; 75 FR 8677, February 19, 2010; 77 FR 73989, December 7, 2012, 78 FR 66686, November 6, 2013).

Point Blue proposes to monitor and census seabird colonies; observe seabird nesting habitat; restore nesting burrows; observe breeding elephant and harbor seals; and resupply a field station annually in central California (i.e., Southeast Farallon Island, West End Island, Año Nuevo Island, Point Reyes National Seashore, San Francisco Bay, and the Russian River in Sonoma County).

The purpose of the seabird research is to continue a 30-year monitoring program of the region's seabird populations. Point Blue's long-term pinniped research program monitors pinniped colonies to understand elephant and harbor seal population dynamics and to contribute to the conservation of both species.

The Authorization would be effective from January 31, 2015 through January 30, 2016. Following is a brief summary of the dates and duration of the activities.

Seabird Research on Southeast Farallon Island: Daily observations of seabird colonies would occur at a maximum frequency of three 15-minute visits. Daily observations of breeding common murre (Uria aalge) colonies would occur at a maximum frequency of a single five-hour visit. These activities usually involve one or two observers conducting daily censuses of seabirds or conducting mark/recapture studies of breeding seabirds on the island.

Field Station Resupply on Southeast Farallon Island: Resupply of the field station would occur once every two weeks at a maximum frequency of 26 visits annually. Resupply activities involve personnel approaching either the North Landing or East Landing by motorboat to offload supplies.

Pinniped Research in Central California: Surveys of breeding northern elephant seals on Southeast Farallon and Año Nuevo Islands, the coastline of Point Reyes Peninsula, San Francisco Bay, and the Russian River, would occur in early December and late February, annually. At least three researchers would visit the sites at a maximum frequency of five times per year.

Seabird Research and Field Supply on Año Nuevo Island: Researchers would monitor seabird burrow nesting habitat quality, conduct habitat restoration, and resupply the field station from April through August at a maximum frequency of 20 visits annually. Occasionally, researchers would also conduct intermittent visits to the island throughout the year. These activities involve two to three researchers accessing the island by motorboat.

Seabird Research on Point Reyes National Seashore: The National Park Service in collaboration with Point Blue monitors seabird breeding and roosting colonies; conducts habitat restoration; removes non-native plants; monitors intertidal areas; and maintains coastal dune habitat. Seabird monitoring usually involves one or two observers conducting the survey by small boats along the shoreline. Researchers would visit the site at a maximum frequency of 20 times per year.

Point Blue will conduct their research activities within the vicinity of pinniped haul out sites in the following locations:

South Farallones Islands: The South Farallon Islands consist of Southeast Farallon Island located at 37°41′54.32″ N; 123° 0′8.33″ W and West End Island. The South Farallon Islands have a land area of approximately 120 acres (0.49 square kilometers (km)) and are part of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. The islands are located near the edge of the continental shelf 28 miles (mi) (45.1 km) west of San Francisco, CA, and lie within the waters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Año Nuevo Island: Año Nuevo Island located at 37° 6′29.25″ N; 122°20′12.20″ W is one-quarter mile (402 meters (m)) offshore of Año Nuevo Point in San Mateo County, CA. The island lies within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Año Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area.

Point Reyes National Seashore: Point Reyes National Seashore is approximately 40 miles (64.3 km) north of San Francisco Bay and also lies within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

San Francisco Bay: The main part of San Francisco Bay measures approximately 3 to 12 miles (5 to 20 km) wide east-to-west and between 48 miles (77 km) and 60 miles (97 km) north-to-south.

Russian River: The Russian River coastline stretches for approximately 55 miles just south of San Francisco. Starting at Lake Mendocino, the Russian River flows south through valleys in Mendocino and Sonoma County, and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Jenner, California.

We outlined the purpose of Point Blue's activities in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014). The proposed activities have not changed between the proposed authorization notice and this final notice announcing the issuance of the Authorization. For a more detailed description of the authorized action, we refer the reader to the notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014).

We published a notice of receipt of Point Blue's application and proposed Authorization in the Federal Register on December 23, 2014 (79 FR 76975). During the 30-day comment period, we received one comment from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) which recommended that we issue the requested Authorization, provided that Point Blue carries out the required monitoring and mitigation measures as described in the notice of the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014) and the application. We have included all measures proposed in the notice of the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014) in the Authorization.

The marine mammals most likely to be harassed incidental to conducting seabird and pinniped research at the proposed research areas are primarily California sea lions, northern elephant seals, Pacific harbor seals, and to a lesser extent the eastern distinct population segment (DPS) of the Steller sea lion, which NMFS has removed from the list of threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), effective November 2013. The ESA does not categorize California sea lions, northern elephant seals, Pacific harbor seals as threatened or endangered and the MMPA categorizes these species as not depleted. On the other hand, despite the delisting of Steller sea lions as endangered under the ESA, NMFS still categorizes the species as a strategic stock and depleted species under the MMPA. The agency will consider designating the eastern stock of Steller sea lions as non-strategic and not depleted under the MMPA following review by the Alaska Scientific Review Group in 2014.

We refer the public to Carretta et al., (2014) for general information on these species which we presented in the notice of the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014). The publication is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2012.pdf.

California (southern) sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), listed as threatened under the ESA and categorized as depleted under the MMPA, usually range in coastal waters within 1.24 miles (2 km) of the shoreline. Point Blue has not encountered California sea otters during the course of their seabird or pinniped research activities over the past five years. This species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and we do not consider it further in this notice of issuance of an Authorization.

Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; (2) noise generated during restoration activities and loading operations while resupplying the field station; and (3) human presence during seabird and pinniped research activities, have the potential to cause California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions hauled out in areas within Southeast Farallon Island, West End Island, Año Nuevo Island, Point Reyes National Seashore, San Francisco Bay, and the Russian River to flush into the surrounding water or to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals.

We expect that acoustic and visual stimuli resulting from the proposed motorboat operations and human presence has the potential to harass marine mammals. We also expect that these disturbances would be temporary and result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of certain species of marine mammals.

We included a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with Point Blue's specified activities (i.e., visual and acoustic disturbance) have the potential to impact marine mammals in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014).

Vessel Strike: The potential for striking marine mammals is a concern with vessel traffic. However, it is highly unlikely that the use of small, slow-moving boats to access the research areas would result in injury, serious injury, or mortality to any marine mammal. Typically, the reasons for vessel strikes are fast transit speeds, lack of maneuverability, or not seeing the animal because the boat is so large. Point Blue's researchers will access areas at slow transit speeds in easily maneuverable boats negating any chance of an accidental strike.

Rookeries: No research activities would occur on pinniped rookeries and breeding animals are concentrated in areas where researchers would not visit. Therefore, we do not expect mother and pup separation or crushing of pups during flushing.

The potential effects to marine mammals described in the notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014) did not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting” sections).

We considered these impacts in detail in the notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014). Briefly, we do not anticipate that the proposed research activities would result in any significant or long-term effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). While we anticipate that the specified activity could potentially result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification and human presence, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible. We do not consider behavioral modification to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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

Point Blue has based the mitigation measures which they will implement during the proposed research, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous Point Blue seabird research activities as required by our previous authorizations for these activities; and (2) recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995).

To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Point Blue and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:

(1) Postpone beach landings on Año Nuevo Island until pinnipeds that may be present on the beach have slowly entered the water.

(2) Select a pathway of approach to research sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals harassed.

(3) Avoid visits to sites used by pinnipeds for pupping.

(4) Monitor for offshore predators and do not approach hauled out pinnipeds if great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) or killer whales (Orcinas orca) are present. If Point Blue and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the animals until the area is free of predators.

(5) Keep voices hushed and bodies low to the ground in the visual presence of pinnipeds.

(6) Conduct seabird observations at North Landing on Southeast Farallon Island in an observation blind, shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds.

(7) Crawl slowly to access seabird nest boxes on Año Nuevo Island if pinnipeds are within view.

(8) Coordinate research visits to intertidal areas of Southeast Farallon Island (to reduce potential take) and coordinate research goals for Año Nuevo Island to minimize the number of trips to the island.

(9) Coordinate monitoring schedules on Año Nuevo Island, so that areas near any pinnipeds would be accessed only once per visit.

(10) Have the lead biologist serve as an observer to evaluate incidental take.

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

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, we expect that the successful implementation of the measure would minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

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

(3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of Point Blue's proposed measures, we have determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The Act's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for an incidental take authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the 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 later;

2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual stimuli) 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.

As part of its 2015-2016 application, Point Blue proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the incidental harassment authorization. The Point Blue researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates, location, species, the researcher's activity, behavioral state, numbers of animals that were alert or moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.

Point Blue has complied with the monitoring requirements under the previous authorizations for the 2007 through 2014 seasons. The results from previous Point Blue's monitoring reports support our findings that the proposed mitigation measures, which we also required under the 2007-2014 Authorizations provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock.

Point Blue will submit a monitoring report on the January 31, 2014 through January 30, 2015 research period by April 2015. Upon receipt and review, we will post this annual report on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.

Point Blue must submit a draft final report to NMFS' Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2016 field season. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the Authorization.

Point Blue will submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If Point Blue does not receive any comments from NMFS on the draft report, NMFS and Point Blue will consider the draft final report to be the final report.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the Marine Mammal Protection Act 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].

NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment only for the proposed seabird research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore. Acoustic (i.e., increased sound) and visual stimuli generated during these proposed activities may have the potential to cause marine mammals in the harbor area to experience temporary, short-term changes in behavior.

Based on Point Blue's previous research experiences, with the same activities conducted in the proposed research area, and on marine mammal research activities in these areas, we estimate that approximately 9,871 California sea lions, 343 harbor seals, 196 northern elephant seals, and 106 Steller sea lions could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment over the course of the effective period of the proposed Authorization.

The authorized take differs from Point Blue's original request for California sea lions (10,092), northern elephant seals (261), harbor seals (526) and Steller sea lions (185). NMFS bases these new estimates on historical data from previous monitoring reports and anecdotal data for the same activities conducted in the proposed research area. In brief, for each species, we created a statistical model to derive an estimate of the average annual increase of reported take based on a best fit regression analysis (i.e., linear or polynomial regression) of reported take from 2007 to 2013. Next, we added the predicted annual increase in take to a baseline of take reported for 2013-2014 season to project the estimated take for each species for the 2015-2016 Authorization. We carried through the same predicted annual increase in take for future Authorizations (2014-2017) to obtain a mean projected take for each species. Last, we analyzed the reported take for each activity by calculating the upper bound of the 99 percent confidence interval of the mean reported take (2007-2013) and mean projected take (2014-2017) for each species. Our use of the upper confidence interval represents the best available information that supports our precautionary deliberation of how much take could occur annually.

There is no evidence that Point Blue's planned activities could result in injury, serious injury or mortality within the action area. Moreover, the required mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize further any potential risk for injury, serious injury, or mortality. Thus, we do not authorize any injury, serious injury or mortality. We expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.

Point Blue will continue to coordinate monitoring of pinnipeds during the research activities occurring on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore. Point Blue conducts bone fide research on marine mammals, the results of which may contribute to the basic knowledge of marine mammal biology or ecology, or are likely to identify, evaluate, or resolve conservation problems.

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.” The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding.

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, feeding, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species.

In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:

(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;

(2) The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;

(3) The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);

(4) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);

(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and

(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.

For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect Point Blue's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haulout area, injury, serious injury, or mortality:

(1) The effects of the pinniped and seabird research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities. Minor and brief responses, such as short-duration startle or alert reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

(2) The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances from the research operations. Results from previous monitoring reports also show that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Point Blue conducted their pinniped and research activities.

(3) There is no potential for large-scale movements leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality because the researchers must delay ingress into the landing areas until after the pinnipeds present have slowly entered the water.

(4) The limited access of Point Blue's researchers to Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore during the pupping season.

We do not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Point Blue's proposed activities, and we do not authorize injury, serious injury or mortality. These species may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the proposed seabird and pinniped research activities to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances. Further, these proposed activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, the activities are not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.

NMFS does not expect pinnipeds to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual monitoring counts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from Point Blue's seabird research activities will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival and therefore will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that four species of marine mammals could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the proposed Authorization. Because these are maximum estimates, actual take numbers are likely to be lower, as some animals may select other haulout sites the day the researchers are present. For each species, these numbers are small numbers (each, less than or equal to two percent) relative to the population size. These incidental harassment numbers represent approximately 3.33 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 1.74 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.16 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.17 percent of the eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lion.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires us to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Thus, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

On October 23, 2013 NMFS announced the removal of the eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions from the list of threatened species under the ESA. No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are anticipated to occur in the action area. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

In 2014, we prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential effects to the human environment from NMFS' issuance of a proposed Authorization to Point Blue for their seabird research activities. In January 2014, NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the issuance of an Authorization for Point Blue's research activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). Point Blue's proposed activities and impacts for 2015-2016 are within the scope of the 2014 EA and FONSI. NMFS has reviewed the 2014 EA and determined that there are no new direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the human and natural environment associated with the Authorization requiring evaluation in a supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, reaffirms the 2014 FONSI.

As a result of these determinations, we have issued an Authorization to Point Blue for the take of marine mammals incidental to proposed seabird and pinniped research activities, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

I. Introduction

The CFPB issues this compliance bulletin as a reminder that, with limited exceptions, persons in possession of confidential information, including CSI, may not disclose such information to third parties.1 More particularly, this bulletin:

1. Sets forth the definition of CSI;

2. Provides examples of CSI;

3. Highlights certain legal restrictions on the disclosure of CSI; and

4. Explains that private confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) neither alter the legal restrictions on the disclosure of CSI nor impact the CFPB's authority to obtain information from covered persons 2 and service providers 3 in the exercise of its supervisory authority.

The CFPB has supervisory authority over certain covered persons, including very large depository institutions, credit unions and their affiliates; 4 certain nonbanks; 5 and service providers 6 (collectively, supervised financial institutions).7 Many supervised financial institutions became subject to federal supervision for the first time under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).8

Pursuant to authority granted under the Dodd-Frank Act,9 the CFPB has issued regulations that govern the use and disclosure of CSI.10 The CFPB expects all supervised financial institutions to know and comply with the regulations governing CSI, and provides the following guidance to assist with such compliance.

Under the CFPB's regulations, “confidential supervisory information” means:

• Reports of examination, inspection and visitation, non-public operating, condition, and compliance reports, and any information contained in, derived from, or related to such reports;

• Any documents, including reports of examination, prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of the CFPB or any other Federal, State, or foreign government agency in the exercise of supervisory authority over a financial institution, and any supervision information derived from such documents;

• Any communications between the CFPB and a supervised financial institution or a Federal, State, or foreign government agency related to the CFPB's supervision of the institution;

• Any information provided to the CFPB by a financial institution to enable the CFPB to monitor for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services, or to assess whether an institution should be considered a covered person, as that term is defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481, or is subject to the CFPB's supervisory authority; and/or

• Information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).11

CSI does not include documents prepared by a financial institution for its own business purposes and that the CFPB does not possess.12

Supervised financial institutions and other persons that may come into possession of CSI should understand what constitutes CSI in order to comply with the applicable rules.13 Examples of CSI include, but are not limited to:

• CFPB examination reports and supervisory letters;

• All information contained in, derived from, or related to those documents, including an institution's supervisory Compliance rating;

• Communications between the CFPB and the supervised financial institution related to the CFPB's examination of the institution or other supervisory activities; and

• Other information created by the CFPB in the exercise of its supervisory authority.

Thus, CSI includes any workpapers or other documentation that CFPB examiners have prepared in the course of an examination. CSI also includes supervisory information requests from the CFPB to a supervised financial institution, along with the institution's responses. In addition, any CFPB supervisory actions, such as memoranda of understanding between the CFPB and an institution, and related submissions and correspondence, are CSI.

Subject to limited exceptions, supervised financial institutions and other persons in possession of CSI of the CFPB may not disclose such information.14

There are certain exceptions to the general prohibition against disclosing CSI to third parties. A supervised financial institution may disclose CSI of the CFPB lawfully in its possession to:

• Its affiliates;

• Its directors, officers, trustees, members, general partners, or employees, to the extent that the disclosure of such CSI is relevant to the performance of such individuals' assigned duties;

• The directors, officers, trustees, members, general partners, or employees of its affiliates, to the extent that the disclosure of such CSI is relevant to the performance of such individuals' assigned duties;

• Its certified public accountant, legal counsel, contractor, consultant, or service provider.15

Supervised financial institutions may also in certain instances disclose CSI to others with the prior written approval of the Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, or his or her delegee (Associate Director).16 The recipient of CSI shall not, without the prior written approval of the Associate Director, utilize, make, or retain copies of, or disclose CSI for any purpose, except as is necessary to provide advice or services to the supervised financial institution or its affiliate.17 Moreover, any supervised financial institution or affiliate disclosing CSI shall take reasonable steps as specified in the regulations to ensure that the recipient complies with the rules governing CSI.18

Confidential information made available by the CFPB pursuant to 12 CFR part 1070 remains the property of the CFPB. There are other important requirements relating to the disclosure of confidential information, including disclosure pursuant to third-party legally enforceable demands, such as subpoenas or Freedom of Information Act requests. Among a number of other requirements, a recipient of a demand for confidential information must inform the CFPB's General Counsel of the demand.19

The CFPB recognizes that some supervised financial institutions may have entered into third-party NDAs that, in part, purport to: (1) Restrict the supervised financial institution from sharing certain information with a supervisory agency; and/or (2) require the supervised financial institution to advise the third party when the institution shares with a supervisory agency information subject to the NDA. However, such provisions in NDAs between supervised financial institutions and third parties do not alter or limit the CFPB's supervisory authority or the supervised financial institution's obligations relating to CSI.

A supervised financial institution should not attempt to use an NDA as the basis for failing to provide information sought pursuant to supervisory authority. The CFPB has the authority to require supervised financial institutions and certain other persons to provide it with reports and other information to conduct supervisory activities, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.20 Failure to provide information required by the CFPB is a violation of law for which the CFPB will pursue all available remedies.21

In addition, a supervised financial institution may risk violating the law if it relies upon provisions of an NDA to justify disclosing CSI in a manner not otherwise permitted. As noted above, any disclosure of CSI outside of the applicable exceptions would require the prior written approval of the Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (or his or her delegee).22

Supervised financial institutions should contact appropriate CFPB supervisory personnel with any questions regarding this Bulletin.

This compliance bulletin provides nonbinding guidance on matters including limitations on disclosure of CSI under applicable law. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.23 In addition, the CFPB has determined that this bulletin summarizes existing requirements and does not establish any new nor revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.24

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: The DISAM Information Technology Mission System (DISM) Collection; DISAM Form GSI-001 and Student Registration Form; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The DISAM Information Technology Mission System (DISM): Is a web based portal designed to hold several web applications for the purposes of efficient administration of U.S. and international students, and the effective management of DISAM personnel and guest lecturers. The portal provides DISAM personnel the ability to submit travel request and travel arrangements. Finally, the web based portal uses a relational database to record, manage and report information about students, personnel, travel. Reports of annual training of Foreign nationals to Congress as required by 22 U.S. Code 2394 (Foreign Assistance Act (FAA)) and 22 U.S. Code 2770A (Arms Export Control Act (AECA)).

Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Disam Student Registration Form:

Annual Burden Hours: 2388 hours.

Number of Respondents: 4775.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 9551.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Disam Guest Speaker Form: (Still in development).

Annual Burden Hours: 62.

Number of Respondents: 249.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 249.

Average Burden per Response: 15 min.

Frequency: On occasion.

Average Totals:

Annual Burden Hours: 1884 hours.

Number of Respondents: 5024.

Responses per Respondent: 1.5.

Annual Responses: 7536.

Average Burden per Response: 15 min.

Respondents are contractor personnel, non-DOD U.S. Federal Government, Foreign Service nationals and industry students, guest speakers and lecturers involved in the Security Cooperation initiatives as prescribed by the President of the United States, Congress and Departments of State and Defense. Security Cooperation and Assistance programs as authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) are required to be administered by qualified personnel receiving formal education through the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) or other authorized Security Cooperation agencies. If the information collected on the student registration form is not collected, personnel looking to verify the qualifications of individuals in the Security Cooperation workforce database on the SAN, DISAM Student Database or the DISAM Personnel Database would be unable to match personnel to training and ensure compliance with DepSecDef directive and federal law requiring the reporting of training of foreign nationals (ref. AECA). The DISAM Personnel Database in conjunction with the Travel Forms maintains records of the personnel TDY travel and reimbursement as required by federal law and DoD regulations.

Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Screening and Monitoring of DoD Personnel Deployed to Ebola Outbreak Areas; DD Form 2990, DD Form 2991; OMB Control Number 0720-0056.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 2,400.

Average Burden per Response: 12 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 480.

Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to ensure DoD personnel deployed in support of Operation UNITED ASSISTANCE are promptly evaluated for possible exposure(s) to the Ebola virus during deployment to, and within 12 hours prior to departing from, an Ebola outbreak country or region (West Africa). Ebola is a Quarantinable Communicable Disease as named in Executive Order 13295 and supported by several DoD regulations and Federal laws. This information will be used by DoD medical and public health officials to (1) ensure Ebola exposure risk is evaluated, (2) proper prevention and quarantine efforts are implemented, (3) appropriate medical care is provided, (4) medical surveillance programs are robust and (5) the spread of Ebola beyond West Africa is minimized. The DoD has consulted with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and several Defense Agencies regarding disease control efforts and health surveillance in response to the public health emergency in West Africa. DoD has also specifically discussed these new information collections with representatives of the various Military Services, representing deploying military members who have participated in the development of the content of these forms.

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: Mr. Frederick Licari.

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

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

Purpose of the Meeting: In Section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112—81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will consider the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the UCMJ, and develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution. Specifically, the Panel will consider options for providing the forfeited wages of incarcerated members of the Armed Forces to victims of offenses as compensation; including bodily harm among the injuries meriting compensation for redress under section 939 of title 10, United States Code (article 139 of the UCMJ); and requiring restitution by members of the Armed Forces to victims of their offenses upon the direction of a court-martial. The Panel is interested in written and oral comments from the public, including non-governmental organizations, relevant to these issues or any of the Panel's tasks.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the March 13, 2015 meeting agenda or any updates to the agenda, to include individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials presented related to the meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

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

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Julie Carson at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by Ms. Julie Carson at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to Ms. Carson at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement must be submitted along with a request to provide an oral statement. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted between 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2015 in front of the Panel. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public on a first-come basis. After reviewing the requests for oral presentation, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will, having determined the statement to be relevant to the Panel's mission, allot five minutes to persons desiring to make an oral presentation.

Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The Panel's Designated Federal Officer is Ms. Maria Fried, Judicial Proceedings Panel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

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

Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the committee's advice and recommendations. The primary purpose of the Remember Subcommittee is to review and provide recommendations on preservation and care for the marble components of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, including addressing the cracks in the large marble sarcophagus, the adjacent marble slabs, and the disposition of the dye block already gifted to the Army.

Proposed Agenda: The subcommittee will review the current status of monument preservation as well as request for a Commemorative Monument to be placed at Arlington National Cemetery from the Vietnam Helicopter Association. Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Women in Military Service to America Memorial is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the subcommittee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the subcommittee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the subcommittee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement or a request to speak for consideration by the subcommittee. After reviewing any written statements or requests submitted, the subcommittee Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the subcommittee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

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

Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the committee's advice and recommendations. The primary purpose of the Honor Subcommittee is to review and provide recommendations to the parent committee on extending the future locations and availability of active burial gravesites at Arlington National Cemetery, veteran eligibility criteria, and master planning.

Proposed Agenda: The subcommittee will receive an update on the status of all major infrastructure and expansion projects. Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Women in Military Service to America Memorial is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the subcommittee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the subcommittee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the subcommittee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement or a request to speak for consideration by the subcommittee. After reviewing any written statements or requests submitted, the subcommittee Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the subcommittee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

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

Title of Collection: Annual Report on Appeals Process RSA-722.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0563.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 80.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 160.

Abstract: Pursuant to subsection 102(c)(8)(A) and (B) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act the RSA-722 is needed to meet specific data collection requirements on the number of requests for mediations, hearings, administrative reviews and other methods of dispute resolution requested and the manner in which they were resolved. The information collected is used to evaluate the types of complaints made by applicants and eligible individuals of the vocational rehabilitation program and the final resolution of appeals filed. Respondents are State agencies that administer the Federal/State Program for Vocational Rehabilitation.

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: Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant Award Database.

OMB Control Number: 1855-0016.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 81.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 139.

Abstract: This request is for an extension of OMB approval to collect data for the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant Awards Database. This current data collection is being coordinated with the EDFacts Initiative to reduce respondent burden and fully utilize data submitted by States and available to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Specifically, under the current data collection, ED collects CSP grant award information from grantees (State agencies, charter management organizations, and some schools) to create a new database of current CSP-funded charter schools. Together, these data allow ED to monitor CSP grant performance and analyze data related to accountability for academic purposes, financial integrity, and program effectiveness.

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: HBCU All Star Student Program.

OMB Control Number: 1894-New.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 105.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 367.

Abstract: This program was designed to recognize current HBCU students for their dedication to academics, leadership and civic engagement. Nominees were asked to submit a nomination package containing a signed nomination form, unofficial transcripts, short essay, resume, and endorsement letter. Items in this package provide the tools necessary to select current HBCU students who are excelling academically and making differences in their community.

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: Quarterly Cumulative Caseload Report.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0013.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 320.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 320.

Abstract: State agencies that administer vocational rehabilitation programs provide key caseload data on this form, including numbers of persons who are applicants, determined eligible/ineligible, waiting for services, and their program outcomes. The Rehabilitation Services Administration collects this information quarterly from states and reports it in the Annual Report to Congress on the Rehabilitation Act.

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: 21st Century Community Learning Centers Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0668.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,433.

Abstract: The purpose of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as authorized under title IV, part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sections 4201 et seq., (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq., attached to submission package), is to provide expanded academic enrichment opportunities for children attending low-performing schools. Tutorial services and academic enrichment activities are designed to help students meet local and state academic standards in subjects such as reading and math. In addition, 21st CCLC programs provide youth development activities, drug and violence prevention programs, technology education programs, art, music and recreation programs, counseling, and character education to enhance the academic component of the program. In support of this program, Congress appropriated nearly $1.1 billion for 21st CCLC programs for fiscal year 2013. Consisting of public and nonprofit agencies, community- and faith-based organizations, local businesses, postsecondary institutions, scientific/cultural and other community entities, 4,077 subgrantees—operating 9,989 centers—provided academic and enrichment services and activities to over 1.7 million children.

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

Abstract: Respondents are owners or operators of calciners and dryers at mineral processing plants that either process or produce any of the following minerals and their concentrates or any mixture of which the majority is any of the following minerals or a combination of these minerals: Alumina, ball clay, bentonite, diatomite, feldspar, fire clay, fuller's earth, gypsum, industrial sand, kaolin, lightweight aggregate, magnesium compounds, perlite, roofing granules, talc, titanium dioxide, and vermiculite. Particulate matter is the pollutant regulated under this subpart. Feed and product conveyors are not considered part of the affected facility. Facilities subject to NSPS Subpart LL, Metallic Mineral Processing Plants, are not subject to these standards. There are additional processes and process units at mineral processing plants listed at section 60.730(b) which are not subject to the provisions of this subpart.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS. Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of calciners and dryers at mineral processing plants.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU).

Estimated number of respondents: 167 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 6,436 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $738,649 (per year), which includes $108,550 in either annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs or both.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of two hours in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. In the previous ICR, the burden associated with writing the “notification of physical or operation change” was incorrectly calculated with zero respondents. In this ICR, it was corrected to one respondent.

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

Abstract: The respondents are owners or operators of shipbuilding and ship repair facilities. Operations covered include: primer and top coat application in manufacturing processes and in ship repair processes. Owners or operators of shipbuilding and ship repair facilities are required to report startup, initial performance test, and retest information. Facilities will also periodically report emission exceedances, changes to equipment, and comply with other requirements of the NESHAP.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

Estimated number of respondents: 56 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 28,594 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,799,388 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates:

There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

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

Abstract: These regulations apply to MSW landfills for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commences on or after May 30, 1991. A MSW landfill is an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on. An MSW landfill may also receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (§ 257.2 of this title) such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned, and may be a new landfill, an existing landfill, or a lateral expansion. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS. Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commences on or after May 30, 1991.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW).

Estimated number of respondents: 195 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly and annually.

Total estimated burden: 111,471 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $11,677,667 (per year), includes $764,400 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The change resulted from incorporating comments received, addressing respondent activities that were not included in the previous ICR and increased the burden estimate for activities that were already included.

There is also an increase in the total estimated Capital/Startup and O&M costs. This increase occurred as a result of incorporating comments received, which stated that the previous ICR did not include the purchase price and O&M costs of three additional devices that respondents are required to use.

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

Abstract: The affected sources are (1) fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) catalyst regenerator or fuel gas combustion device (FGCD) other than a flare that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973 and on or before May 14, 2007; (2) FGCD fuel gas combustion device that is also a flare that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973 and on or before June 24, 2008; or (3) any Claus sulfur recovery plant which commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after October 4, 1976 and on or before May 14, 2007. Units that are constructed, reconstructed or modified after the end date of Subpart J applicability are subject to the requirements under regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. At the time of this ICR renewal, all refinery flares are complying with the NSPS Subpart Ja requirements.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refineries.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart J).

Estimated number of respondents: 150 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 15,784 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,264,370 (per year), includes $719,100 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the respondent labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR because the 2012 rule amendments did not require additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements under NSPS J. Modified or reconstructed sources under NSPS Subpart J would trigger NSPS Subpart Ja applicability.

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

Abstract: Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA issues certificates of conformity for motor vehicle designs and engines that comply with applicable emission standards set under section 202(a)(1) of the CAA, such as those for CO2, N2O, and CH4 in the final regulation. Under 49 U.S.C. 32902, NHTSA is mandated to require manufacturers comply with fuel economy and consumption standards. Manufacturers will submit applications to certify their products and respond to the information collection activities detailed in the HD National Program. They will also submit reports, conduct compliance testing, label certified vehicles, provide final year-end-reports and retain records of information.

Manufacturer test results will be used by EPA to perform confirmatory testing on a sufficient number of engines and vehicles to confirm manufacturer-reported results. EPA's emission certification programs and NHTSA's fuel efficiency programs are statutorily mandated. EPA does not have discretion to cease these functions under Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521).

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; owners of heavy-duty truck fleets.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7521) (40 CFR 1036.730 and 1037.730).

Estimated number of respondents: 34 (total).

Frequency of response: Quarterly, Annually, On Occasion.

Total estimated burden: 41,305 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

Total estimated cost: $4,565,145 (per year), includes $1,458,333 annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

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

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR part 60, subpart TT) were: Proposed on January 5, 1981; promulgated on November 1, 1982; and amended on June 24, 1986 and October 17, 2000. These regulations apply to the following surface coating lines in the metal coil surface coating industry: Each prime coat operation; each finish coat operation; and each prime and finish coat operation cured simultaneously, where the finish coat is applied wet-on-wet over the prime coat. These regulations apply to facilities commencing construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of primary copper smelter.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart TT).

Estimated number of respondents: 158 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 15,643 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $1,863,362 (per year), includes $331,800 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

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