This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

65960 

Vol. 78, No. 213 

Monday, November 4, 2013 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND 

RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION 

COMMISSION 

Solicitation of Written Comments by 

the Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization 

Commission; Correction 

AGENCY: Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Commission published a 

document in the Federal Register of 

October 1, 2013, concerning request for 

comments on measures to modernize 

the military compensation and 

retirement systems. The document 

contained an incorrect telephone 

number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Nuneviller, 703–692–2080. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of October 1, 

2013, in FR Doc. 2013–23969, on page 

60243, in the first column, correct the 

information under the caption FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to read: 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Nuneviller, Associate 

Director Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization Commission, 

P.O. Box 13170. Arlington, VA 22209, 

telephone 703–692–2080, fax 703–697– 

8330, email christopher.nuneviller@

mcrmc.gov. 

Dated: October 17, 2013. 

Christopher Nuneviller, 

Associate Director, Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26341 Filed 11–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. 

UDALL FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 

Tuesday, November 12, 2013. (This 

meeting has been rescheduled from 

October 10, 2013, due to the lapse in 

appropriations and the federal 

government shutdown, and the Matters 

To Be Considered section has been 

updated.) 

PLACE: The offices of the Morris K. 

Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 

130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 

85701. 

STATUS: This meeting of the Board of 

Trustees will be open to the public, 

unless it is necessary for the Board to 

consider items in executive session. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) Minutes 

of the June 10–11, 2013, Board of 

Trustees Meeting and resolution 

conferring upon David J. Hayes the 

position of Trustee Emeritus of the 

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall 

Foundation; (2) Appropriations Update; 

(3) Financial and Management Report 

and resolution to ratify the Executive 

Committee vote approving the new 

Udall Foundation Senior Management 

structure; (4) Ethics Training Update 

and General Counsel’s Report; (5) U.S. 

Institute for Environmental Conflict 

Resolution Report; (6) Education 

Programs Report; (7) Udall Center for 

Studies in Public Policy, Native Nations 

Institute, and Udall Archives Report 6, 

Work Plan and resolutions regarding 

allocation and transfer of funds; and (8) 

personnel matters. 

PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: All 

agenda items except as noted below. 

PORTION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC: 

Executive session to review personnel 

matters. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Philip J. Lemanski, Executive Director, 

130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 

85701, (520) 901–8500. 

Dated: October 25, 2013. 

Philip J. Lemanski, 

Executive Director, Morris K. Udall and 

Stewart L. Udall Foundation, and Federal 

Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25866 Filed 11–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–FN–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0047] 

Enhancing Agricultural Coexistence; 

Request for Public Input 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: We are informing the public 

that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is soliciting comments to 

identify ways to foster communication 

and collaboration among those involved 

in diverse agricultural production 

systems in order to further agricultural 

coexistence. We are taking this action in 

response to recommendations from the 

USDA’s Advisory Committee on 

Biotechnology & 21st Century 

Agriculture. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before January 3, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0047, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2013-0047 or in our reading 

room, which is located in room 1141 of 

the USDA South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 799–7039 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Meghan Klingel, Acting Advisor for 

State and Stakeholder Relations, Office 

of the Deputy Administrator, LPA, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 51, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

4055, email: meghan.k.klingel@aphis.

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 213 / Monday, November 4, 2013 / Notices 65961 

1An identity preserved crop is a crop of an 

assured quality in which the identity of the material 

is maintained from the germplasm or breeding stock 

to the processed product on a retail shelf. 

2To view the report and learn more about the 

AC21, go to http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ 

usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=

AC21Main.xml. 

3The AC21 report (see footnote 2) recommends 

that USDA consider supporting the development of 

such plans among neighboring farmers. 

Background 

Agricultural coexistence refers to the 

concurrent cultivation of crops 

produced through diverse agricultural 

systems, including traditionally 

produced, organic, identity preserved 

(IP),1 and genetically engineered crops. 

As the complexity and diversity of U.S. 

agriculture increases, so does the 

importance of managing issues that 

affect agricultural coexistence, such as 

seed purity, gene flow, post-harvest 

mixing, identity testing, and market 

requirements. 

On November 19, 2012, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Advisory Committee on Biotechnology 

& 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) 

presented a report 2 to Secretary Thomas 

J. Vilsack entitled, ‘‘Enhancing 

Coexistence: A Report of the AC21 to 

the Secretary of Agriculture.’’ The AC21 

report on coexistence made 

recommendations in five major areas 

regarding agricultural coexistence: (1) 

Potential compensation mechanisms, (2) 

stewardship, (3) education and 

outreach, (4) research, and (5) seed 

quality. In the area of education and 

outreach, we are seeking public input 

regarding the implementation of the 

recommendation that USDA foster 

communication and collaboration to 

strengthen coexistence. Following the 

comment period, USDA intends to hold 

a public forum to discuss input 

provided by commenters and further 

explore ways to implement the 

recommendations in the AC21 report on 

enhancing coexistence, particularly in 

the area of education and outreach. 

USDA’s goal in seeking comment is to 

determine how we can best foster 

communication and collaboration 

among those involved in diverse 

agricultural systems on the topic of 

coexistence as well as how USDA can 

best communicate and collaborate with 

those entities. To do this, USDA needs 

to better understand our stakeholders’ 

needs and the challenges they face 

when it comes to communicating and 

collaborating about coexistence. 

Specific topics for input are discussed 

below. To aid in our evaluation of 

comments, we request that commenters 

identify which topic number(s) they are 

addressing in their comment when 

practicable. We also request that 

commenters indicate where any tools or 

information that they identify in their 

comment can be obtained. 

1. As we seek improved 

communication and collaboration 

among agricultural stakeholders, we are 

interested in identifying information 

needs and exploring successful 

communication methods. 

• When you or members of your 

organization seek information related to 

coexistence, what type of information 

are you seeking and where do you go to 

get it? Why? 

• What information regarding 

coexistence, in what format, is currently 

available (printed or electronic 

brochures, factsheets, blog posts, Web 

sites, discussion forums, etc.)? Is this 

information useful? Why or why not? 

What additional information, in what 

format, would be useful to you or 

members of your organization? 

• Please indicate your preferences 

with respect to receiving information or 

communications from USDA. Would 

you be interested in receiving 

information or communications from 

non-USDA sources? How might you or 

your organization, as agricultural 

stakeholders, want to be involved in 

disseminating information? 

• Where should USDA focus its 

efforts to best foster communication and 

collaboration amongst stakeholders? 

What would best facilitate farmer-tofarmer communication and 

collaboration? 

• Please share any examples of and 

feedback regarding successful 

communication models, including those 

that have worked well for other issues. 

2. As part of USDA’s outreach and 

education efforts, we are interested in 

identifying education needs and 

exploring the creation of ‘‘outreach 

toolkits’’ that will encourage 

communication, planning, and cropspecific practices to facilitate successful 

coexistence. 

• What tools and educational services 

are already available? Are these tools 

and services useful? What tools and 

educational services would be useful to 

you? 

• How might USDA assist farmers to 

better understand the contracts they 

enter into (e.g., contracts to provide 

organic products and IP products for 

specialty markets) and their 

commitments with respect to 

coexistence? 

• What geographic information, in 

what format, is available regarding the 

location of crops that are planted and 

grown using different types of 

agricultural systems (e.g., pinning 

maps)? Is the information updated 

regularly? What are stakeholders doing 

to make this type of geographic 

information more widely available? 

What can USDA do to assist in these 

efforts? 

• Would a decision support system, 

i.e., a computer-based information 

system that could be used to support 

data-based, planting-related decisions, 

with topics such as when and where to 

plant, suitable isolation distances, and 

gene flow, be useful? Why or why not? 

If such a decision support system would 

be useful, what data would be needed 

for the system to be effective? 

3. Farmers and others in the food and 

feed production chain have an 

important role in collaborating to make 

coexistence work, particularly with 

reference to stewardship, contracting, 

and attention to gene flow. As we seek 

to improve collaboration among those 

involved in diverse agricultural systems, 

we are interested in hearing what 

practices and activities that support 

collaboration are available or in use and 

how USDA can help make collaboration 

and coexistence work for everyone 

involved. 

• What are factors that might prevent 

or promote the broad adoption of local, 

voluntary solutions aimed at facilitating 

coexistence? 

• Please provide examples of effective 

coexistence practices (e.g., between 

neighboring farmers or among regional 

networks of farms) and on-farm and offfarm techniques for mitigating the 

potential economic risks from 

occurrences that affect successful 

coexistence. How might they be made to 

be more effective? 

• What types of coexistence practices 

could be supported in potential joint 

coexistence plans,3 i.e., voluntary 

written plans specifying farming 

practices (such as farmer-to-farmer 

communication, cropping plans, 

temporal and physical isolation, and 

harvesting techniques) that can be used 

to support coexistence and identitypreserved production? What might an 

effective, supportable, joint coexistence 

plan look like? How might USDA 

encourage adoption of joint coexistence 

plans? 

4. We also welcome any 

recommendations regarding 

collaborative meeting formats that 

would best ensure coexistence issues 

will be frankly and fully explored at the 

public forum that USDA intends to hold 

following the close of the public 

comment period. 

Any comments submitted will be 

available for review as indicated under 

ADDRESSES above. USDA will evaluate 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65962 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 213 / Monday, November 4, 2013 / Notices 

all the comments received during the 

comment period. Input provided by 

commenters and ways to implement the 

recommendations in the AC21 report on 

enhancing coexistence (see footnote 2), 

particularly in the area of education and 

outreach, will be further explored at a 

public forum that USDA intends to hold 

following the close of the public 

comment period. The time and place of 

the public forum will be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

Dated: October 28, 2013. 

Thomas J. Vilsack, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26288 Filed 11–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Revision of the Land Management Plan 

for the Flathead National Forest 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of initiating the 

development of a land management 

plan revision for the Flathead National 

Forest. 

SUMMARY: The Flathead National Forest, 

located in Montana, is initiating the 

forest planning process pursuant to the 

2012 Forest Planning Rule. This process 

results in a Forest Land Management 

Plan which describes the strategic 

direction for management of forest 

resources for the next ten to fifteen years 

on the Flathead National Forest. The 

first phase of the process, the 

assessment phase, has begun and 

interested parties have been invited to 

contribute in the development of the 

assessment (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest 

has posted preliminary assessment 

information to its Web site as well as 

hosted field tours and an open house. 

The assessment is expected to be 

completed in December 2013. The 

trends and conditions identified in the 

assessment will help in identifying the 

need for plan components. The Forest is 

inviting the public to help us identify 

the appropriate plan components that 

will become a proposed action for the 

land management plan revision. 

DATES: The assessment for the Flathead 

National Forest is expected to be 

completed by December 31, 2013 and 

will be posted on the following Web site 

at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/

forestplanrevision. 

From October 2013 through June 

2014, the public is invited to engage in 

a collaborative process to identify 

appropriate plan components to be 

considered for the proposed action. The 

Forest will then initiate procedures 

pursuant to the NEPA and prepare a 

forest plan revision. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments or 

questions concerning this notice should 

be addressed to Flathead National 

Forest, Attn.: Plan Revision, 650 

Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana, 

59901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Krueger, Planning Team Leader, 406– 

758–5243. Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. 

More information on the planning 

process can also be found on the 

Flathead National Forest Web site at 

www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/

forestplanrevision. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) of 1976 requires that every 

National Forest System (NFS) unit 

develop a land management plan. On 

April 9, 2012, the Forest Service 

finalized its land management planning 

rule (2012 Planning Rule), which 

provides broad programmatic direction 

to National Forests and National 

Grasslands for developing and 

implementing their land management 

plans. Forest plans describe the strategic 

direction for management of forest 

resources for ten to fifteen years, and are 

adaptive and amendable as conditions 

change over time. 

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the 

assessment of ecological, social, and 

economic trends and conditions is the 

first stage of the planning process. The 

second stage is a development and 

decision process guided, in part, by the 

National Environment Policy Act 

(NEPA) and includes the preparation of 

a draft environmental impact statement 

and revised Forest Plan for public 

review and comment, and the 

preparation of the final environmental 

impact statement and revised Forest 

Plan. The third stage of the process is 

monitoring and feedback, which is 

ongoing over the life of the revised 

forest plans. 

With this notice, the agency invites 

other governments, non-governmental 

parties, and the public to contribute to 

the development of the proposed action. 

The intent of public engagement during 

development of the proposed action is 

to identify the appropriate plan 

components that the Forest Service 

should consider in developing its land 

management plan. We encourage 

contributors to share material about 

desired conditions, standards and 

guidelines, land suitability 

determinations, management area 

designations, and plan monitoring. 

Collaboration in the development of the 

proposed action supports the 

development of relationships of key 

stakeholders throughout the plan 

development process and is an essential 

step to understanding current 

conditions, available data, and feedback 

needed to support a strategic, efficient 

planning process. 

As public meetings, other 

opportunities for public engagement, 

and public review and comment 

opportunities are identified to assist 

with the development of the forest plan 

revision, public announcements will be 

made, notifications will be posted on 

the Forest’s Web site at 

www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/

forestplanrevision and information will 

be sent out to the Forest’s mailing list. 

If anyone is interested in being on the 

Forest’s mailing list to receive these 

notifications, please contact Joe Krueger, 

Planning Team Leader, at the mailing 

address identified above, by sending an 

email to flatheadplanrevision@fs.fed.us, 

or by telephone 406–758–5243. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official for the 

revision of the land management plan 

for the Flathead National Forest is Chip 

Weber, Forest Supervisor, Flathead 

National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, 

Kalispell, MT 59901. 

Dated: October 28, 2013. 

Chip Weber, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26289 Filed 11–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–83–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest Advisory 

Board 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of 

meeting of the Black Hills National 

Forest Advisory Board. 

SUMMARY: The U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest cancelled the October 

16, 2013 meeting of the Black Hills 

National Forest Advisory Board (Board), 

due to the Federal Government furlough 

which began on October 1, 2013. The 

original Notice of Meeting for the 

October 16, 2013 meeting was published 

in the Federal Register, Volume 78, 

Number 187, Thursday, September 26, 

2013, pages 59337–59338. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES