Twenty-two members were appointed from nominations of more than 150 well-qualified individuals, representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, State government, consumer and community development groups, the medical profession, and academic researchers. Equal opportunity practices were followed in appointing committee members. To assure that recommendations of the advisory committee take into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership includes, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

The following appointments to the AC21 have been made:

Russell C. Redding, Interim Dean of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Delaware Valley College, in Aspers, Pennsylvania, who will serve as Chair of the AC21;

Isaura Andaluz, Executive Director, Cuatro Puertas, of Albuquerque, New Mexico;

Paul C. Anderson, Executive Director, International Programs, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, in St. Louis, Missouri;

Laura L. Batcha, Chief of Policy and External Relations, Organic Trade Association, in Putney, Vermont;

Charles M. Benbrook, Chief Scientist, The Organic Center, in Enterprise, Oregon;

Barry R. Bushue, Farmer, Vice-President of the American Farm Bureau Federation and President of the Oregon Farm Bureau, in Boring, Oregon;

Daryl D. Buss, Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin;

Lynn E. Clarkson, Farmer and President, Clarkson Grain Company, in Cerro Gordo, Illinois;

Leon C. Corzine, Farmer, in Assumption, Illinois;

Michael S. Funk, Chairman, United Natural Foods, Inc., in Nevada City, California;

Douglas C. Goehring, North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture, in Menoken, North Dakota;

Melissa L. Hughes, Corporate Counsel and Director, Government Affairs, CROPP Cooperative/Organic Valley Family of Farms, in Viroqua, Wisconsin;

Darrin Ihnen, Farmer and Chair, National Corn Growers Association, in Hurley, South Dakota;

Gregory A. Jaffe, Director, Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, in McLean,Virginia;

David W. Johnson, Assistant Director of Research, Cal/West Seeds, in La Crosse, Wisconsin;

Keith F. Kisling, Farmer and Chairman, Oklahoma Wheat Commission, in Burlington, Oklahoma;

Josephine O. (Josette) Lewis, Director, Agricultural Development, Arcadia Biosciences, in Davis, California;

Mary-Howell R. Martens, Farmer and Manager, Lakeview Organic Grain LLC, in Penn Yan, New York;

Marty D. Matlock, Professor of Ecological Engineering, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas, in Fayetteville, Arkansas;

Angela M. Olsen, Senior Advisor and Associate General Counsel, DuPont Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred, in Arlington, Virginia;

Jerome B. Slocum, Farmer and President, North Mississippi Grain Company, in Coldwater, Mississippi;

Latresia A. Wilson, Vice-President, Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Florida Chapter, farmer, and physician, in Ocala, Florida.

Committee members will initially serve one- or two-year terms, and may be reappointed to serve up to six consecutive years. In the event of a vacancy, the Secretary will appoint a new member as appropriate and subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. Under its Charter, the AC21 is charged with examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the U.S. food and agriculture system and USDA, and providing guidance to USDA on pressing individual issues, identified by the Office of the Secretary, related to the application of biotechnology in agriculture. The immediate task for the committee within the overall charge will be to provide practical recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on ways to strengthen coexistence among different agricultural crop production methods.

The Committee will meet in Washington, DC, up to four (4) times per year.

Committee members will serve without pay. Reimbursement of travel expenses and per diem costs shall be made to Committee members who would be unable to attend Committee meetings without such reimbursement.

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-50, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.

APHIS received a request from the Government of Thailand to allow the importation of fresh dragon fruit (multiple genera and species) into the continental United States. Currently, fresh dragon fruit is not authorized for entry from Thailand. We have completed a pest risk analysis for the purpose of evaluating the pest risks associated with the importation of fresh dragon fruit into the continental United States. The analysis consists of a pest list identifying pests of quarantine significance that are present in Thailand and could follow the pathway of importation into the United States and a risk management document identifying phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the commodity to mitigate the pest risk.

We have concluded that fresh dragon fruit can be safely imported into the continental United States from Thailand using one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in § 319.56-4(b). These measures are:

• The dragon fruit may be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.

• The dragon fruit must be irradiated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy.

• If the irradiation treatment is applied outside the United States, each consignment of fruit must be jointly inspected by APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Thailand and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate attesting that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment.

• If the irradiation treatment is applied upon arrival in the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected by the NPPO of Thailand prior to departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.

• The commodity is subject to inspection at the U.S. port of entry.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk analysis for public review and comment. The pest risk analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (seeADDRESSESabove for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the pest risk analysis by calling or writing to the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the subject of the pest risk analysis you wish to review when requesting copies.

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh dragon fruit from Thailand in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize the importation of fresh dragon fruit from Thailand into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the risk management documents.

The existing forest plans are 20 years old. Economic, social, and ecological conditions changed during the past two decades; new laws, regulations and policies are in place; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research is available. The Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests are revising their 1988, 1989, and 1990 Forest Plans to meet the legal requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976; to address changed conditions and provide consistent management direction (as appropriate) across the two national forests; to incorporate changes in law, regulation, and policy; and to utilize new scientific information. In particular, the interdisciplinary planning team is addressing the following areas in the revised forest plans:

1. Improve protection of terrestrial plant and animal species and their habitats. Two objectives in the Strategic Plan for the Forest Service are to “provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for management indicator and focal species.” The Columbia Basin Strategy (2000) identifies key elements to be addressed in planning efforts, such as source habitats, that are not addressed in the 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans. The structural arrangement of vegetation, both vertical and horizontal, and the size and arrangement of trees, grasses, and shrubs are important components of wildlife habitat. Many changes to forest stand structure have occurred due to disturbances such as uncharacteristic fire, timber harvest, and insects and disease. Old multistory, old single story, and stand initiation forest structures have declined with a corresponding increase in area and connectivity of dense, multilayered, intermediate forest structures. Forests are now dominated by shade-tolerant conifers, with elevated fuel loads, severe fire behavior, and increased incidence of certain defoliaters, bark beetles, and root diseases. All of these changes have led to reductions in habitat for some species and increases for others. The 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans need to be updated to reflect current science relating to plant and animal species and their habitats. The habitat goals and objectives of the Late Successional Reserve (LSR) system for the northern spotted owl and other terrestrial species would be met through a landscape management approach consistent with current science for the dry forest types. LSRs established through the Northwest Forest Plan amendment would no longer be specific management areas.

2. To address management of fuels and fire risk. Several factors have contributed to an increased susceptibility to disturbances, such as uncharacteristically severe fires, and insects and disease outbreaks. These are the cumulative effects of a periodic and sometimes extended drought, climate change, increasing vegetative density, shifts in forest species composition, and modified landscape patterns. The dry and mesic forest types on the Forests are susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks and large-scale uncharacteristic wildfires. The 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans' desired conditions, and standards and guidelines do not adequately address the multiple factors that have created the existing uncharacteristic conditions nor do they adequately address the varied nature of the landscape. Neither do they address the need for management strategies that recognize the unique qualities of various landscapes. An integrated strategy that recognizes multiple risk factors and addresses variability in conditions and site potentials is needed.

3. To more adequately protect watersheds and aquatic habitats. The Columbia Basin Strategy (2000) emphasizes restoring the processes responsible for creating and maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats andrestoring naturally functioning riparian ecosystems. It also outlines specific components to be included in revised forest plans. The 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans include by amendment interim direction,i.e.,the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995) and the Decision Notice for the Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens, 1994); and the Okanogan-Wenatchee forest plans also include by amendment the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH, USDA and USDI 1995), for management of threatened or endangered fish species. However, the 1988, 1989, and 1990 plan language was never changed to integrate this interim direction or resolve conflicts between the existing plan language and the interim direction language. The 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans do not adequately provide integrated management strategies for maintenance and restoration of properly functioning watersheds that provide a range of benefits on and off the national forests. These include, but are not limited to, providing habitat for terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian-dependent species; maintaining water quality; providing channel stability; reducing erosion; moderating floods; and maintaining reliable stream flows for downstream users. The combination of interim direction (PACFISH/INFISH) and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan will be adjusted into one consistent aquatic and riparian conservation strategy across the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests.

4. To address climate change. The 1988, 1989, and 1990 forest plans do not consider climate change. Climate change is expected to affect plant species range and composition and alter competitive relationships between plant species. Changes in the composition and structure of plant communities will, in turn, alter the character and distribution of wildlife habitats. Future conditions may be more favorable to some undesired non-native plant and animal species. The full extent of changes in response to climate change on natural resources in the planning area is uncertain, but integrated management direction is needed to maintain or increase the resilience of the national forests in the face of these changes.

5. To recognize the interdependency of social and economic components with national forest management. The revised forest plans will place more emphasis on the relationships among the people who live, work, and play on the national forests. National forests provide a variety of recreation opportunities, work opportunities, and opportunities to practice cultural and spiritual traditions. Local communities provide infrastructure that contributes to the capacity of the national forests to restore and maintain ecological systems. Recognizing the mutual benefits of the relationships between social and economic components and the national forests is important to providing integrated management direction. This forest plan revision will be coordinated with equivalent and related planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes.

The proposed action is a revision of the land management plans for the Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests designed to meet the purpose and need. It includes revised goals/desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, suitable uses and activities, management area designations including special areas, and monitoring items. The proposed action can be found at the forest plan revision Web site:http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

The Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests began this forest plan revision process in 2003. Public participation began in 2004 with community workshops. Workshops were held in Yakima, Cle Elum, North Bend, Wenatchee, Winthrop, Okanogan, Tonasket, Republic, Colville, Ione, Newport, and Spokane, Washington. Workshops were also held from 2005 to 2008. Meetings with representatives of the counties where the forests are located began in 2004 and are continuing. Government-to-government consultation with tribal nations and staff-to-staff consultation with their resource specialists began early in the process and will continue.

Public meeting dates are yet to be determined. At this time meetings are expected to be in the following locations: Yakima, Cle Elum, Seattle area, Wenatchee, Winthrop, Okanogan, Tonasket, Republic, Colville, Ione, and Spokane. Formal consultation with the governments of American Indian tribes is ongoing.

The Forest Service, USDA, is the lead agency. Cooperating agencies: State of Washington and its agencies, the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Ecology.

Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW. 1st Street, PO Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

The Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests are preparing an EIS to revise the current forest plans. The EIS process is meant to inform the Regional Forester so that he can decide which alternative best meets the need to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people while protecting the forests' resources, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.

The revised forest plans provide guidance for all resource management activities on the Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. Approval of the revised forest plans will result in the following plan components to guide management for the next 10 to 15 years:

• Goals/desired conditions;

• Objectives;

• Forest-wide standards and guidelines;

• Management area desired conditions, standards, and guidelines;

• Suitability of lands for uses and activities;

• Monitoring and evaluation requirements; and

• Recommendations may be made for special areas, such as Research Natural Areas, or areas that can only be designated by statute, such as Wilderness.

Goals/desired conditions provide a description of desired outcomes of forest management. Objectives provide projections of measurable outcomes intended to promote achievement of forest plan goals/desired conditions. Forest-wide standards and guidelines provide management direction and guidance that is applicable across the each national forest. Management Area desired conditions, standards, and guidelines provide direction that applies to specific geographic areas within the national forest. Identification of characteristics of lands for specificuses and activities provides integration between particular uses and desired conditions and objectives for areas on the national forest. Monitoring and evaluation indicates whether areas are trending toward goals/desired conditions so that needed adjustments can be made in the future. Special areas are places or areas within the National Forest System designated because of their unique or special characteristics. Some can be designated by the responsible official, such as a Botanical Area. Others, such as Wilderness or Wild and Scenic River designations, are recommended for designation by the responsible official, but Congressional act designates.

As important as the decisions to be made is the identification of the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest plan. The authorization of project-level activities on the forests is not a decision made in the forest plan but occurs through subsequent project specific decision-making. The designation of routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel are not considered during plan revision. Some issues (e.g.,hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the national forests and will not be considered. In addition, some tasks, such as Wild and Scenic river suitability determinations, may not be undertaken at this time, but addressed later as a future forest plan amendment. Some process requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan would no longer be forest plan direction. Some of these requirements would be retained through administrative direction outside of forest plan revision.

On December 18, 2009 the Department reinstated the previous planning rule, commonly known as the 2000 planning rule in theFederal Register(Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 242, Friday, December 18, 2009, pages 67059 thru 67075). The transition provisions of the reinstated rule (36 CFR 219.35 and appendices A and B) allow use of the provisions of the National Forest System land and resource management planning rule in effect prior to the effective date of the 2000 Rule (November 9, 2000), commonly called the 1982 planning rule, to amend or revise plans. The Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests have elected to use the provisions of the 1982 planning rule including the requirement to prepare an EIS, to complete plan revisions.

Although the 2008 planning rule is no longer in effect, information gathered prior to the court's injunction is useful for completing the plan revisions using the provisions of the 1982 planning rule. The revision team has concluded that the analyses begun or developed during the revision process to date are appropriate for continued use in the revision process.

The proposed action includes management direction for all national forest lands within the planning area, including lands identified as inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). There is currently a legal dispute regarding the status of the RACR, with one Federal Court (Wyoming District Federal Court, Judge Brimmer) finding the rule to be in conflict with law and enjoining its implementation and a different Federal Court (Northern California District Federal Court, Judge Laporte) reinstating that rule and prohibiting the Forest Service from taking any action that would have been prohibited under the RACR. The Forest Service is hopeful that current legal proceedings will resolve these conflicting court rulings.

The proposed action includes plan direction that retains the undeveloped character of Colville, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests by including management areas that restrict road construction and timber harvest. This is based on analysis of the resources and management situation that the Forest Service has done in developing the proposed action and on extensive public involvement.

Comments received in the scoping process will help the agency determine the scope of issues related to roadless area management and guide the development of alternatives and analysis of environmental effects. The decision for the final plan will be consistent with the legal status of the RACR at the time the plan is signed.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the draft EIS. In scoping, the agency, with the assistance of the public, determines the scope of the issues to be addressed and identifies the significant issues related to the proposed action (see 40 CFR 1501.7).

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the revised plan and the draft EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewers' concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review.

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

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-80 October 16, 2009) (Appropriations Act, 2010) provided that the Secretary of the USDA shall carry out the Rural Development Voucher Program as follows:

This notice outlines the process for providing voucher assistance to the eligible impacted families when an owner prepays a Section 515 loan or USDA action results in a foreclosure after September 30, 2005.

This section sets forth the design features of the Rural Development Voucher Program, including the eligibility of families, the inspection of the units, and the calculation of the subsidy amount.

Rural Development Vouchers under this part are administered by the Rural Housing Service; an Agency under the Rural Development mission area, in accordance with requirements set forth in this Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) and further explained in, “The Rural Development Voucher Program Guide,” which can be obtained by contacting any Rural Development office. Contact information for Rural Development offices can be found athttp://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app.These requirements are generally based on the housing choice voucher program regulations of HUD set forth at 24 CFR Part 982, unless otherwise noted by this NOFA.

The Rural Development Voucher Program is intended to offer protection to eligible multifamily housing tenants in properties financed through Rural Development's Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program (515 property) who may be subject to economic hardship through prepayment of the Rural Development mortgage. When the owner of a 515 property pays off the loan prior to the loan's maturity date (either through prepayment or foreclosure action), the Rural Development affordable housing requirements and rental assistance subsidies generally cease to exist. Rents may increase, thereby making the housing unaffordable to tenants. When a prepayment occurs, whether or not the rent increases, the tenant may be responsible for the full payment of rent. The Rural Development Voucher Program applies to any 515 property where the mortgage is paid off prior to the maturity date in the promissory note and the payment occurs after September 30, 2005. This includes foreclosed properties. Tenants in foreclosed properties are eligible for a Rural Development Voucher under the same conditions as properties that go through the standard prepayment process.

The Rural Development Voucher will help tenants by providing an annual rental subsidy, renewable on the terms and conditions set forth herein and subject to the availability of funds, that will supplement the tenant's rent payment. This program enables a tenant to make an informed decision about remaining in the property, moving to a new property, or obtaining other financial housing assistance. Low-income tenants in the prepaying property are eligible to receive a voucher to use at their current rental property, or to take to any other rental unit in the United States and its territories.

There are some general limitations on the use of a voucher:

(1) The rental unit must pass a Rural Development health and safety inspection, and the owner must be willing to accept a Rural Development Voucher;

(2) Also, Rural Development Vouchers cannot be used for units in subsidized housing like Section 8 and public housing where two housing subsidies would result. The Rural Development Voucher may be used for rental units in other properties financed by Rural Development, but it will not be used in combination with the Rural Development Rental Assistance program.

(3) The Rural Development Voucher may not be used to purchase a home.

In order to be eligible for the Rural Development Voucher under this NOFA, a family must (a) be residing in the Section 515 project on the date of the prepayment of the Section 515 loan or upon foreclosure by Rural Development; (b) the date of the prepayment or foreclosure must be after September 30, 2005; (c) as required by Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 [42 U.S.C. 1436a] the primary tenant and co-tenant, if applicable, must be a United States citizen, United States non-citizen national or qualified alien. (1) For each family member who contends that he or she is a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen with eligible immigration status, the family must submit to Rural Development a written declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, by which the family member declares whether he or she is a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen with eligible immigration status. (i) For each adult, the declaration must be signed by the adult. (ii) For each child, the declaration must be signed by an adult residing in the assisted dwelling unit who is responsible for the child. Each family member, regardless of age, must submit the following evidence to the responsible entity. (1) For citizens, the evidence consists of a signed declaration of U.S. citizenship. Rural Development may request verification of the declaration by requiring presentation of a United States passport, social security card, or other appropriate documentation. (2) For noncitizens who are 62 years of age or older, the evidence consists of: (i) A signed declaration of eligible immigration status; and (ii) Proof of age document. (3) For all other noncitizens, the evidence consists of: (i) A signed declaration of eligible immigration status; (ii) alien registration documentation or other proof of immigration registration from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that contains the individual's alien admission number or alien file number; and (iii) a signed verification consent form, which provides that evidence of eligible immigration status may be released to Rural Development and USCIS for purposes of verifying the immigration status of the individual.Rural Development shall provide a reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 30 days, to submit evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status, or to appeal to the Immigration and Naturalization Service the verification determination of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and; (d) the family must be a low-income family on the date of the prepayment or foreclosure. A low-income family is a family whose annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the family median income for the area as defined by HUD. HUD's definition of median income can be found at:http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il10/index_mfi.html.

During the prepayment or foreclosure process, Rural Development will evaluate every tenant family to determine if it is low income. If Rural Development determines a family is low-income, immediately following the foreclosure or prepayment Rural Development will send the primary tenant a letter offering the family a voucher and will enclose a Voucher Obligation Request Form. If the family wants to participate in the Rural Development Voucher Program, the tenant has 10 months from the date of prepayment or foreclosure to return the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the citizenship declaration to the local Rural Development office. If Rural Development determines that the tenant is ineligible, Rural Development will provide administrative appeal rights pursuant to 7 CFR Part 11.

Rural Development will monitor the prepayment request process or foreclosure process, as applicable. As part of prepayment or foreclosure Rural Development will obtain a rent comparability study for the property ninety days prior to the date of prepayment or foreclosure. The rent comparability study will be used to calculate the amount of voucher each tenant is entitled to receive. All tenants will be notified if they are eligible and the amount of the voucher within 90 days following the date of prepayment or foreclosure. The tenant notice will include a description of the Rural Development Voucher Program, a Voucher Obligation Request Form, and letter from Rural Development offering the tenant participation in Rural Development Voucher Program. The tenant has ten (10) months from the date of prepayment or foreclosure to return the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the signed citizenship declaration. Failure to submit the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the signed citizenship declaration within the required timeframes will terminate the tenant's the voucher. A tenant's failure to respond within the required timeframes is not appealable. Once the primary tenant returns the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the citizenship declaration to Rural Development, a voucher will be issued within 30 days. All information necessary for a housing search, explanations of unit acceptability, and Rural Development contact information will be provided by Rural Development to the tenant at the time the Voucher Obligation Form and citizenship declaration is received.

The family receiving a Rural Development Voucher has an initial period of 60 calendar days from issuance of the voucher to find a housing unit. At its discretion, Rural Development may grant one or more extensions of the initial period for up to an additional 60 days. The maximum voucher period for any family participating in the Rural Development Voucher Program is 120 days. If the family needs and requests an extension of the initial period as a reasonable accommodation to make the program accessible to a disabled family member, Rural Development will extend the voucher search period. If the Rural Development Voucher remains unused after a period of 150 days from original issuance, the Rural Development Voucher will become void, any funding will be cancelled, and the tenant will no longer be eligible to receive a Rural Development Voucher.

The initial lease term for the housing unit where the family wishes to use the Rural Development Voucher must be for one year.

Once the family finds a housing unit, Rural Development will inspect and determine if the housing standard is acceptable within 30 days of Rural Development's receipt of the HUD Form 52517 “Request for Tenancy Approval Housing Choice Voucher Program” found athttp://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/forms/files/52517.pdfand the Disclosure of Information on Lead-Based Paint Hazards. The inspection standards currently in effect for the Rural Development Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Program apply to the Rural Development Voucher Program. Rural Development must inspect the unit and ensure that the unit meets the housing inspection standards set forth at 7 CFR 3560.103. Under no circumstances may Rural Development make voucher rental payments for any period of time prior to the date that Rural Development physically inspects the unit and determines the unit meets the housing inspection standards. In the case of properties financed by Rural Development under the Section 515 program, Rural Development may accept the results of physical inspections performed no more than one year prior to the date of receipt by Rural Development of Form HUD 52517, in order to make determinations on acceptable housing standards. Before approving a family's assisted tenancy or executing a Housing Assistance Payments contract, Rural Development must determine that the following conditions are met: (1) The unit has been inspected by Rural Development and passes the housing standards inspection or has otherwise been found acceptable as noted previously; and (2) the lease includes the HUD Tenancy Addendum. A copy of the HUD Tenancy Addendum will be provided by Rural Development when the tenant is informed he/she is eligible for a voucher.

Once the conditions in the above paragraph are met, Rural Development will approve the unit for leasing. Rural Development will then execute with the owner a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract, Form HUD-52641. The HAP contract must be executed before Rural Development Voucher payments can be made. Rural Development will use its best efforts to execute the HAP contract on behalf of the family before the beginning of the lease term. In the event that this does not occur, the HAP contract may be executed up to 60 calendar days after the beginning of the lease term. If the HAP contract is executed during this 60-day period, Rural Development will pay retroactive housing assistance payments to cover the portion of the approved lease term before execution of the HAP contract. Any HAP contract executed after the 60-day period is untimely, and Rural Development will not pay any housing assistance payment to the owner for that period. In establishing the effective date of the voucher HAP contracts, Rural Development may not execute a HAP contract that is effective prior to the Section 515 loan prepayment.

As stated earlier, if eligible, the tenant will be notified of the maximum voucher amount within 90 days following prepayment or foreclosure. The maximum voucher amount for the Rural Development Voucher Program is the difference between the comparablemarket rent for the family's former Section 515 unit and the tenant's rent contribution on the date of the prepayment. The voucher amount will be based on the comparable market rent; the voucher amount will never exceed the comparable market rent at the time of prepayment for the tenant's unit if the tenant chooses to stay in-place. Also, in no event may the Rural Development Voucher payment exceed the actual tenant lease rent. The amount of the voucher does not change either over time or if the tenant chooses to move to a more expensive location.

An eligible family that is issued a Rural Development Voucher may elect to use the assistance in the same project or may choose to move to another location. The Rural Development Voucher may be used at the prepaid property or any other rental unit in the United States and its territories that passes Rural Development physical inspection standards, and where the owner will accept a Rural Development Voucher and execute a Form HUD 52641. Tenants and landlords must inform Rural Development if the tenant plans to move during the HAP agreement term, even to a new unit in the same complex. All moves (within a complex or to another complex) require a new obligation, a new inspection and a new HAP agreement. In addition, HUD Section 8 and federally assisted public housing is excluded from the Rural Development Voucher Program because these units are already federally subsidized. Tenants with a Rural Development Voucher would have to give up the Rural Development Voucher to accept the assistance at those properties. The Rural Development Voucher may be used in other properties financed by Rural Development, but it cannot be used in combination with the Rural Development Rental Assistance program. Tenants with a Rural Development Voucher that apply for housing in a Rural Development-financed property must choose between using the voucher or Rental Assistance. If the tenant relinquishes the Rural Development Voucher in favor of Rental Assistance, the tenant is not eligible to receive another Rural Development Voucher.

The Rural Development Voucher Program provides voucher assistance for 12 monthly payments. The voucher is issued to the household in the name of the primary tenant. If the primary tenant dies during the term of the voucher, after Rural Development receives notice of the death, the use of the voucher passes to the co-tenant.

The voucher is renewable subject to the availability of appropriations to the USDA. In order to renew a voucher, a tenant must return a signed Voucher Obligation Form which will be sent to the tenant within 60-90 days before the current voucher expires.

In order to ensure continued eligibility to use the Rural Development Voucher, at the time they apply for renewal of the voucher, tenants must certify that the current family income does not exceed 80 percent of family median income. Rural Development will advise the tenant of the maximum income level when the renewal Voucher Obligation Form is sent.

Renewal requests will have no preference and will be processed as a new application as described in this NOFA.

The information collection requirements contained in this document are those of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0169. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Title:Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

Abstract:This information collection activity will gather qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

The Access Board received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in theFederal Registerof December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80542).

Below we provide the Access Board's projected average estimates for the next three years:1

Current Actions:New collection of information.

Type of Review:New collection.

Affected Public:Individuals and households, businesses and organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Average Expected Annual Number of Activities:7.

Respondents:1,100.

Annual responses:1,100.

Frequency of Response:Once per request.

Average minutes per response:6 minutes.

Burden hours:103 hours.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

On August 13, 2010, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition (“DSMC”) filed a submission to the Department requesting that it conduct a CCR of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) to determine whether Hebei Husqvarna is the successor-in-interest to Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (“Electrolux”), Husqvarna Holding AB, or is an altogether new entity that would therefore be subject the PRC-wide rate. On August 20, 2010, the DSMC submitted further information supporting its claim that Hebei Husqvarna should be found to be the successor-in-interest to Electrolux, Husqvarna Holding AB, or found to be a new entity. On September 13, 2010, Respondent1 submitted to the Department a request for a CCR, contending that Hebei Husqvarna should be considered the successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai. On September 30, 2010, the Department initiated a CCR based on these two requests but did not expedite the review, as requested by Respondent, because the Department required additional information to perform the successor-in-interest analysis.2

Between October 13, 2010, and April 12, 2011, Hebei Husqvarna and the DSMC submitted questionnaire responses and comments regarding the successor-in-interest factors that the Department considers in making a determination. In its April 12, 2011, submission, the DSMC argued that the Department should apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Hebei Husqvarna and terminate the review because Hebei Husqvarna failed to provide complete information for two of the four criteria (described below) that the Department typically examines in a successor-in-interest analysis.

The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part thatis comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).

Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”'). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

In its August 13, 2010, and August 20, 2010, submissions, the DSMC requested that the Department initiate a CCR and find that Hebei Husqvarna is a successor-in-interest to Electrolux, Husqvarna Holding AB, or is an altogether new entity. Operationally, a finding that Hebei Husqvarna is the successor-in-interest to Electrolux, Husqvarna Holding AB, or an altogether new entity, would result in a continuation of the status quo in terms of cash deposit requirements. Unless the Department concludes that Hebei Husqvarna is the successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai, all exports to the United States should be subject to the PRC-wide antidumping duty rate of 164.09 percent. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily terminating this review under the request submitted by the DSMC, as the completion of the review based upon its request would not result in any possible change with respect to Hebei Husqvarna's appropriate antidumping duty cash deposit rate.

In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.3 While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.4 Respondent provided complete information with respect to management, production facilities, and Hebei Husqvarna's and Electrolux's suppliers and customers. The Department requested information regarding Hebei Jikai. Specifically, the Department requested the quantity and value of subject merchandise that it had sold to its largest customers, as well as the percentage of inputs accounted for by Hebei Jikai's largest suppliers. Hebei Husqvarna did not provide this information to the Department.5

On September 14, 2006, Husqvarna Holding AB and Hebei Jikai agreed to form a joint venture company, Hebei Husqvarna, in China to produce and sell diamond tools, including diamond sawblades.6 Based on the facts surrounding the formation of the joint venture and the subsequent restructuring described in the accompanying memorandum, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily determine that Hebei Husqvarna is not the successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai but is instead a new entity.7 The Department disagreed with the DSMC in its request to terminate the review, given Respondent's failure to provide the Department with information regarding Hebei Jikai's customers and suppliers. The Department finds that Hebei Husqvarna's and Hebei Jikai's omission does not provide a sufficient basis to terminate the review, as the Department could continue to perform the successor-in-interest analysis. With respect to the four factors that the Department typically examines, we preliminarily find that, first, the management and board of directors that had been in place at Hebei Jikai have significantly changed. Second, we find that production facilities of Hebei Husqvarna are substantially the same as those of Hebei Jikai. Finally, because Respondent provided incomplete information regarding changes in customers and suppliers, we cannot conclude that for those two factors Hebei Husqvarna is materially the same as Hebei Jikai. We note that even with the limited information regarding Hebei Jikai's customers and suppliers on the record, there appears to have been a significant change in customer base. Therefore, in considering the totality of the information we have on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Hebei Husqvarna is not the successor-in-interest to Hebei Jikai. Furthermore, the Department finds the application of AFA, as argued by the DSMC, is unnecessary.

In conclusion, as a result of this determination, we preliminarily find that Hebei Husqvarna remains subject to the PRC-wide antidumping duty cash deposit rate of 164.09 percent with respect to the subject merchandise. If the above preliminary results are affirmed in the Department's final results, the cash deposit rate resulting from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subjectmerchandise from Hebei Husqvarna, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review.8 Finally, we note that the 48.5 percent rate that Hebei Jikai received in the investigation continues to apply only to subject merchandise that was both produced and exported by Hebei Jikai and would not be applicable to merchandise produced by Hebei Husqvarna and exported by Hebei Jikai.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Written comments may be submitted no later than seven days after the publication of these preliminary results.9 Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than 12 days after the publication of these preliminary results.10 All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.11 Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter.12 Persons interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the date and time of hearing.

In theInitiation,the Department stated that it would issue the final results of the review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review was initiated. However, it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period. Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), we are extending the time limit by 55 days.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame as it is granting interested parties seven days from the date of publication of this notice to submit comments, five additional days to submit rebuttal comments. Furthermore, the Department is providing parties the opportunity to request a hearing pertaining to these preliminary results. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results in this review by 55 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than August 18, 2011.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2011.

The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

Background

On February 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in theFederal Registera notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011). The Department received a timely request from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (Domestic Producers) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil. On April 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil with respect to seven companies.See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,76 FR 18157 (April 1, 2011) (Initiation Notice).

The Department stated in its initiation of this review that it intended to rely on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data to select respondents.See Initiation Notice.However, our review of the CBP database, with respect to the companies for which reviews were requested, showed no entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp originating in Brazil, subject to AD/CVD duties, during the POR.SeeApril 1, 2011, Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson entitled “Release of POR Entry Data from CBP,” as revised on April 11, 2011. We released the results of our CBP data query to the Domestic Producers and invited them to comment on the CBP data and respondent selection, which they did on April 6, 2011. On April 12, 2011, we conducted another query of the CBP database which showed no entries of subject merchandise subject to AD/CVD duties from companies other than those for which reviews were requested.

On May 24, 2011, we sent a “No Shipments Inquiry” to CBP to confirm that there were no shipments or entries of frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil during the POR. We received no information from CBP to contradict the results of our data query that there were no shipments or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

On June 10, 2011, we addressed the Domestic Producers' April 6, 2011, comments in a Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Senior Case Analysts, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Intent to Rescind Administrative Review” and invited parties to comment on our intent to rescind this administrative review. We did not receive comments from any interested party.

Section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations stipulates that the Secretary may rescind an administrative review if there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. As there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

This workshop will provide an update to the climate science surrounding extreme events. The intent is to make key input available to the National Climate Assessment (NCA) for consideration. Further information regarding the NCA is available athttp://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment). NOAA is sponsoring this workshop in support of the National Climate Assessment process.

As workshop materials become available, they may be found athttps://sites.google.com/a/noaa.gov/severe-storms-workshop/.

Topics To Be Addressed:This conference will address all aspects of trend monitoring for severe storms. Specific topics include: Severe Thunderstorms (and associated hail and winds), tornadoes, extreme precipitation, hurricanes (winds and rainfall) and typhoons, severe snowstorms and ice storms. The workshop will consider monitoring both physical measurements of these events as well as proxy information such as socio-economic impact.

Participants will consider:

• what determinations can be made regarding the detection of trends;

• what determinations can be made regarding possible causes of any observed trends; and

• what degree of confidence is implied by the best available science regarding the detection and possible causes of trends

The workshop will feature invited speakers and discussions. The workshop is designed to produce a draft detailed outline of an article for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

The report from this workshop will also include the following:

(1) Maintenance/updates of the data sets related to the events considered.

(2) What are the key impediments in detecting changes in the events?

(3) How can the impediments be overcome?

On December 3, 2010, notice was published in theFederal Register(75 FR 75458) that a request for a permit to conduct research on North Atlantic right whales had been submitted by the applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The permit authorizes harassment of North Atlantic right whales off the coast of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina. Annual activities include aerial surveys and close approach by vessel to collect right whale photo-identification and behavioral data from up to 350 whales. An additional 50 adult or juvenile whales and 20 whales older than one month would be approached by vessel to collect photo-identification and behavioral data and skin/blubber biopsy samples. The purpose of the research is to monitor North Atlantic right whale population status, demographics, habitat and anthropogenic impacts. Up to 350 bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and 200 Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) would be harassed incidental to research. The permit is valid for five years.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.). Based on the analyses in the EA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on June 23, 2011.

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

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to authorize, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking by harassment 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 certain findings are made and a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds 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). The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and monitoring and reporting of such takings. 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.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to any Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands, that is, in the EEZ around the Pacific remote island areas (PRIA). The PRIA are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll. Before entering into a PIAFA for the PRIA, the Council must develop a 3-year Marine Conservation Plan (MCP) providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any payments received under a PIAFA, and any funds or contributions received in support of conservation and management objectives for the PRIA to be deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund (Fund) for use by the Council. Additionally, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for violations by foreign vessels occurring within the EEZ off any PRIA are also deposited into the Fund for use by the Council.

An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing is being considered at this time, the Council, at its 151st meeting held June 15-18, 2011, approved its PRIA MCP. On June 18, 2011, the Council submitted the MCP to NMFS for review and approval.

The MCP contains five conservation and management objectives, and identifies major task areas under which nine planned activities are described, as follows:

Objective 1.Support quality research and obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach.

a. Support cooperative research on U.S. purse seine vessels fishing on fish aggregation devices in the PRIA.

b. Support tagging studies in the PRIA to provide better understanding of pelagic species.

c. Support collection and analysis of life history characteristics of federally managed species through bio-sampling.

Objective 2.Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council decision-making process by supporting education and outreach activities related to sustainable fisheries management of pelagic fisheries in the PRIA.

Objective 3.Promote regional cooperation to manage domestic and international fisheries, by participating in international fishery policy development in Pacific Regional Fishery Management Organizations.

Objective 4.Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance and to ensure safety at sea.

a. Support pilot programs to test new technologies for information gathering,in coordination with federal, state, and industry representatives.

b. Support observer programs or other monitoring efforts that are adequate to monitor the harvest, bycatch, and compliance of foreign fishing vessels that fish under a PIAFA in the PRIA.

c. Participate in Pacific-wide vessel monitoring system consultations.

Objective 5.Support activities that promote western Pacific community demonstration projects and the western Pacific community development program.

The MCP also outlines a process by which the Council's Executive Committee could revisit the project ranking to adapt to changing management needs.

This notice announces that NMFS has determined that the PRIA MCP satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and approves the MCP for the 3-year period from June 24, 2011, through June 23, 2014.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5156; (2)Information Collection Request Title:Utility Billing; (3)Type of Request:Extension of Emergency ICR; (4)Purpose:The Authorization form will allow an evaluator specified by DOE to obtain grantee project site's energy usage and cost (electricity and natural gas). Thepurpose of the information collection is to estimate the direct impacts on energy and cost savings of energy efficiency programs; (5)Annual Estimated Number of Respondents:60,629; (6)Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses:60,629; (7)Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours:29,998; (8)Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden:$41,085.

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465 which is available for online viewing athttp://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

Usehttp://www.regulations.govto obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified underDATES.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, andFederal Registercitation.

Affected entities:Entities potentially affected by this action are all States and certain authorized Indian Tribes that adopt water quality standards under the Clean Water Act; and water dischargers subject to certain requirements related to water quality standards in the Great Lakes system, including dischargers in the following SIC categories: Mining (SIC codes 10, 14); Food (20); Pulp and Paper (26); Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (281); Organic Chemical Manufacturing (28); Petroleum Refining (29); Metal Manufacturing (33), Metal Finishing (34-37); Steam Electric (4911), and Publically Owned Treatment Works (4952). For the purposes of the Regulation, the term “State” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Title:Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal).

ICR Number:EPA ICR No. 988.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0049.

ICR status:This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40of the CFR, after appearing in theFederal Registerwhen approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in theFederal Registeror by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract:Water quality standards are provisions of State, Tribal, and Federal law that consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States and authorized Tribes to establish water quality standards, and to review and, if appropriate, revise their water quality standards once every three years. The Act also requires EPA to review and either approve or disapprove the new or revised standards, and to promulgate replacement Federal standards if necessary. Section 118(c)(2) of the Act specifies additional water quality standards requirements for waters of the Great Lakes system.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water quality standards program. The Regulation describes requirements and procedures for States and authorized Tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing and approving the water quality standards. The regulation requires the development and submission of information to EPA, including:

The Regulation establishes specific additional requirements for water quality standards and their implementation in the waters of the Great Lakes system, contained in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132). This portion of the Regulation includes the following requirements for information collection: bioassay tests to support the development of water quality criteria; studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system; and information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request regulatory relief from Guidance requirements. The Guidance includes additional information collections that are addressed in separate Information Collection Requests for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1060 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The following estimates are based on estimates from the previous ICR renewal and will be revised prior to OMB submission. The public will have a second opportunity to comment before then. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents:1 2,809 (56 States and Territories, 43 Tribes; 2,710 Great Lakes dischargers).

Frequency of response:On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:0.095.

Estimated total annual burden hours:293,214 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:$14,866,862 with no annualized capital or O&M cost.

This FR Notice shows the burden estimate from the ICR renewal in 2008. EPA will be revising the burden estimate to include adjustments for changes in the number of tribes authorized to administer a water quality standards program, adjustments for the number of permits expected to be subject to requirements of the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132), and adjustments for changes in labor cost. EPA is not aware of any programmatic changes needed to the burden estimate. These revisions will be reported in the second FR Notice. Changes from 2008 are not expected to be large. If you know of significant changes to the burden that are not listed in this notice, EPA asks you to submit comments containing that information, or contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue anotherFederal Registernotice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR toOMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

I. Information About IRIS

EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more than 540 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments. Combined with specific exposure information, government and private entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public health.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0204, by one of the following methods:

•http://www.regulations.gov:Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

•E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

•Facsimile:202-566-1753.

•Mail:Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is 202-566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

•Hand Delivery:The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0204. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online athttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected throughhttp://www.regulations.govor e-mail. Thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going throughhttp://www.regulations.gov,your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage athttp://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket:All documents in the docket are listed in thehttp://www.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inhttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

The Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC or Corporation) insures the timely payment of principal and interest on insured debt obligations issued by Farm Credit System banks under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act). The Corporation collects premiums from Farm Credit System (FCS) institutions to fund the Farm Credit Insurance Fund (Fund).

On March 23, 2007, the Corporation's Board of Directors (Board) adopted a legislative proposal requesting that the Congress amend the Act to,inter alia,base premiums on the outstanding insured debt obligations instead of loans, and permit the Corporation to collect a broader range of premiums on insured debt. The legislative proposal reflected the Corporation's concern that, despite generally collecting premiums at the maximum statutory rates, the Fund was trending away from the “secure base amount,” the Corporation's target for the Fund. Provisions incorporating the Corporation's legislative proposal became a part of versions of proposed Farm Bills in the House and Senate. Ultimately, enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCE Act) in 2008 amended the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 that govern FCSIC premiums to include the Corporation's proposed changes.

The Corporation took action to ensure that the amended provisions of the Act were implemented promptly and that there was a measured and structured transition to the new premium structure. In June 2008, the Corporation's Board of Directors took action to implement the amendments of the Act's premium provisions. The Board implemented (effective on July 1, 2008) the new premium rates and calculation method and adjusted the premiums pursuant to the Corporation's authority under section 5.55 of the Act, as amended by the FCE Act. The Corporation also took action to amend its long-standing regulations concerning premiums.See12 CFR part 1410. The Corporation amended its regulations, effective June 9, 2009, to withdraw regulations that were inconsistent with the FCE Act and clarify the effect of the premium provisions of the Act as amended by the FCE Act.See74 FR 28156 (June 15, 2009); 74 FR 17371 (April 15, 2009).1

The Corporation is now publishing for comment a revised “Policy Statement Concerning Adjustments to the Insurance Premiums.” As revised, the policy statement will reflect the FCE Act amendments of the Farm Credit Act. However, the policy statement will maintain the existing semiannual consideration of premium rates and the five policy factors that are contained in the present policy. In addition, the Corporation is now publishing for comment a revised “Policy Statementon the Secure Base Amount and Allocated Insurance Reserves Accounts.” As revised, this policy statement will reflect the FCE Act amendments of the Farm Credit Act that affect the secure base amount and Allocated Insurance Reserves Accounts and will clarify how the policy will apply under the new statutory provisions.

As amended, the Act's provisions assess premiums that are generally based on each bank's pro rata share of outstanding insured debt obligations (rather than on loans), aligning premiums with the obligations that FCSIC insures. The amendments reduce the total insured debt obligations on which premiums are assessed by 90 percent of Federal government-guaranteed loans and investments and 80 percent of State government-guaranteed loans and investments, and deduct similar percentages of such guaranteed loans and investments when calculating the “secure base amount.” If the Farm Credit Insurance Fund is below the secure base amount, the amended Act requires that each insured Farm Credit System bank pay FCSIC the premium due from the bank, which shall be equal to (a) The adjusted average outstanding insured obligations multiplied by 0.0020; and (b) the average principal outstanding on loans in nonaccrual status and average amount outstanding of other than temporarily impaired investments multiplied by 0.0010; subject to FCSIC's power to reduce the premium in its sole discretion.

In addition to changes concerning premiums and the secure base amount, the FCE Act amended the Act to simplify provisions concerning allocation of amounts to AIRAs, and payment of amounts from AIRAs to accountholders. At year-end 2009, the Insurance Fund was $165.4 million above the SBA. This amount was allocated to the six Allocated Insurance Reserves Accounts (AIRAs). In January 2010, the Board of Directors authorized payment of $39.9 million from the AIRAs to the accountholders. This amount had been transferred into the AIRAs at year-end 2003. In March, the Board authorized the payment of the $165.4 million transferred into the AIRAs at year-end 2009 to the accountholders. During 2010, a total of $20.5 million was paid to the former FAC stockholders.

We note that the two policy statements published today largely maintain the interpretations that the Corporation adopted when it approved the earlier policy statements, with changes necessary to reflect the changes in the statute. Thus, much of the discussion contained in theFederal Registerpublication of the predecessor policy statement concerning adjustments in premiums,see61 FR 16788, (April 17, 1996); 61 FR 39453 (July 29, 1996), and theFederal Registerpublication of the predecessor policy statement concerning AIRAs,see65 FR 5340 (February 3, 2000); 63 FR 53423, (October 5, 1998), continues to apply.

The text of the “Policy Statement Concerning Adjustments to the Insurance Premiums” is set out below:

Background:

The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act) established the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC or Corporation) to, among other things, insure the timely payment of principal and interest on Farm Credit System obligations.2 Section 5.55 of the Act mandates that the Corporation build and manage the Farm Credit Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund) to attain and maintain a secure base amount (SBA), defined as 2 percent of the aggregate outstanding insured obligations of all insured System banks (excluding a percentage of State and Federally guaranteed loans and investments) or such other percentage of the aggregate amount as the Corporation in its sole discretion determines is actuarially sound. The Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996,3 amended section 5.55 of the Act to establish in the Insurance Fund an Allocated Insurance Reserves Account (AIRA) for the benefit of each insured System bank and an AIRA for the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation (FAC) stockholders; allocate any excess balances above the SBA to these AIRAs; and make partial distributions of the excess funds in the AIRAs. Congress, by enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCE Act),4 amended the provisions of the Act that govern FCSIC premiums, the SBA, and AIRAs to incorporate the Corporation's recommendations concerning calculation of premiums and the SBA, and the simplification of the provisions governing AIRAs. In 2009 the Corporation adopted final regulations implementing the amended provisions of the Act governing FCSIC premiums, the SBA and AIRAs.

Applicability:

This policy statement will govern adjustments to premiums in response to changing conditions.

Policy Statement:

The Corporation's Board of Directors (Board) will review the premium assessment schedule at least semiannually in order to determine whether to exercise its discretion to adjust the premium assessments in response to changing conditions. The Board may reduce the premiums when the Farm Credit System demonstrates good health and sound risk management and other conditions warrant, and raise premiums to the statutory level if, for example, the amount of insured obligations increases, or the Insurance Fund suffers a significant loss or if bank capital or collateral decreases significantly before the secure base amount is achieved.

As a basis for its decision the Board will consider the following:

1. The current level of the Insurance Fund and the amount of money and time needed to reach the secure base amount in light of potential growth;

2. The likelihood and probable amount of any losses to the Insurance Fund;

3. The overall condition of the Farm Credit System, including the level and quality of capital, earnings, asset growth, asset quality, loss allowance levels, asset liability management, as well as the collateral ratios of the five banks;

4. The health and prospects for the agricultural economy, including the potential impact of governmental farm policy and the effect of the globalization of agriculture on opportunities and competition for U.S. producers; and

5. The risks in the financial environment that may cause a problem, even when there is no imminent threat, such as volatility in the level of interest rates, the use of sophisticated investment securities and derivative instruments, and increasing competition from non-System financial institutions.

In its review of the premium assessments, the Board will consider multiple scenarios that reflect the impact of potential growth in Farm Credit System debt levels on the time required to achieve the secure base amount. The secure base amount should be achieved while the Farm Credit System is in good health with very few problem institutions. Thus, the premium on adjusted average outstanding insured obligations will be set between zero and the statutory rate of 20 basis points. The Board will notreduce the 10 basis points premium on the average principal outstanding on loans in nonaccrual status and the average amount outstanding of other than temporarily impaired investments, to continue providing an incentive for sound credit extension and administration and sound investment policy.

The text of the “Policy Statement on the Secure Base Amount and Allocated Insurance Reserves Accounts” is set out below:

Background:

The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act) established the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC or Corporation) to, among other things, insure the timely payment of principal and interest on Farm Credit System obligations.5 Section 5.55 of the Act mandates that the Corporation build and manage the Farm Credit Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund) to attain and maintain a secure base amount (SBA), defined as 2 percent of the aggregate outstanding insured obligations of all insured System banks (excluding a percentage of State and Federally guaranteed loans and investments) or such other percentage of the aggregate amount as the Corporation in its sole discretion determines is actuarially sound. The Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996,6 amended section 5.55 of the Act to establish in the Insurance Fund an Allocated Insurance Reserves Account (AIRA) for the benefit of each insured System bank and an AIRA for the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation (FAC) stockholders; allocate any excess balances above the SBA to these AIRAs; and make partial distributions of the excess funds in the AIRAs. Congress, by enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCE Act),7 amended the provisions of the Act that govern FCSIC premiums, the SBA, and AIRAs to incorporate the Corporation's recommendations concerning calculation of premiums and the SBA, and the simplification of the provisions governing AIRAs. In 2009, the Corporation adopted final regulations implementing the amended provisions of the Act governing FCSIC premiums, the SBA and AIRAs.

Applicability:

This policy statement will govern the calculation of the secure base amount, the determination of any excess above the SBA, the method for allocating any excess to the AIRAs, and the method for making payments from the AIRAs to accountholders.

Policy Statement:

As stated in the Corporation's Policy Statement Concerning Adjustments to the Insurance Premiums, the Corporation's Board of Directors (Board) will review the premium assessments at least semiannually to determine whether to adjust premiums in response to changing conditions. The Board continues to engage in this review even after the Insurance Fund achieves the SBA because the law requires the Corporation to maintain the SBA. Thus, the Corporation must ensure that as the Farm Credit System's insured debt grows, or if the Insurance Fund suffers a significant loss, the Insurance Fund builds back to the SBA.

The Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996 established a process for making partial distributions of the Insurance Fund's balance above the SBA. On March 23, 2007, the Corporation's Board of Directors adopted a legislative proposal requesting that the Congress amend the Act to,inter alia,base premiums on the outstanding insured debt obligations instead of loans, permit the Corporation to collect a broader range of premiums on insured debt, and simplify the provisions concerning allocation of funds to the AIRAs and the payment of funds from the AIRAs to accountholders. Ultimately, enactment of the FCE Act in 2008 amended the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 that govern FCSIC premiums to include the Corporation's proposed changes.

As amended, the Act's provisions also reduce the total insured debt obligations on which premiums are assessed by 90 percent of Federal government-guaranteed loans and investments and 80 percent of State government-guaranteed loans and investments, and deduct similar percentages of such guaranteed loans and investments when calculating the secure base amount. The amendments also simplified the method of paying out AIRAs, prescribing that, if the aggregate of the amounts in the Farm Credit Insurance Fund exceeds the secure base amount at the end of any calendar year, the Corporation shall allocate to the AIRAs the excess amount less the amount that the Corporation, in its sole discretion, maintains for estimated operating expenses and estimated insurance obligations of the Corporation for the following calendar year.

To begin the process, the Corporation must define the aggregate outstanding insured obligations of all the System banks. Then it must follow the steps in the statute to determine the SBA. Finally, at the end of any calendar year in which the Insurance Fund attains the secure base amount, the Corporation must determine whether any excess funds exist for allocation to the AIRAs.

The principal calculation for determining whether the Insurance Fund is at the SBA amount will be 2 percent of the aggregate adjusted insured obligations defined as follows:

(1) “Insured obligation” means any note, bond, debenture, or other obligation issued under subsection (c) or (d) of section 4.2 of the Farm Credit Act on or before January 5, 1989, on behalf of any System bank; and after such date which, when issued, is issued on behalf of any insured System bank and is outstanding at the quarter-end. The balance outstanding at the quarter-end shall include principal and accrued interest payable as reported by the banks in the call reports submitted to the Farm Credit Administration.

(2) The aggregate outstanding insured obligations of all insured System banks determined under paragraph (1) Of Section I shall be adjusted downward to exclude an amount equal to the sum of (as determined by the Corporation):

(A) Ninety (90) percent of each of

(i) The guaranteed portions of principal outstanding on Federal government-guaranteed loans in accrual status made by the banks; and

(ii) The guaranteed portions of the amount of Federal government-guaranteed investments made by the banks that are not permanently impaired; and

(B) Eighty (80) percent of each of

(i) The guaranteed portions of principal outstanding on State government-guaranteed loans in accrual status made by the banks; and

(ii) The guaranteed portions of the amount of State government-guaranteed investments made by the

For the purpose of this paragraph (2), the principal outstanding on all loans made by an insured System bank, and the amount outstanding on all investments made by an insured System bank, shall be determined based on

(a) All loans or investments made by any production credit association, or any other association making direct loans under authority provided under section 7.6 of the Act, that is able tomake such loans or investments because such association is receiving, or has received, funds provided through the insured System bank;

(b) All loans or investments made by any bank, company, institution, corporation, union, or association described in section 1.7(b)(1)(B) of the Act, that is able to make such loans or investments because such entity is receiving, or has received, funds provided through the insured System bank; and

(c) All loans or investments made by such insured System bank (other than loans made to any party described in paragraph (a) or (b)).

At the end of any calendar year when the Insurance Fund balance exceeds the SBA, calculated using December 31, balances, the Corporation will determine whether any excess funds exist for allocation to the AIRAs.

An AIRA shall be established in the Insurance Fund for each insured System bank and for FAC stockholders. Amounts representing excess Insurance Fund balances will be allocated to the AIRAs. The AIRAs remain a part of the Insurance Fund and are available to the Corporation.

If, at the end of any calendar year, the aggregate of the amounts in the Farm Credit Insurance Fund exceeds the secure base amount, the Corporation shall allocate to the AIRAs the excess amount less the amount that the Corporation, in its sole discretion, determines to be the sum of the estimated operating expenses and estimated insurance obligations of the Corporation for the immediately succeeding calendar year. The Corporation will budget for the next calendar year operating expenses and it will deduct the operating expenses it expects to incur. When determining estimated insurance obligations, the Corporation will include all anticipated allowances for insurance losses, claims, and other potential statutory uses of the Insurance Fund.

The excess Fund balance shall be allocated to the accounts of each insured System bank and to the FAC stockholders. The AIRA balances will be fixed at year-end until paid to account holders or used under paragraph (c). The Act provides that, not later than 60 days after receipt of a payment from the AIRAs established for the insured System banks, each insured System bank, in consultation with affiliated associations of the insured System bank, and taking into account the direct or indirect payment of insurance premiums by the associations, shall develop and implement an equitable plan to distribute payments received among the bank and associations of the bank. The Corporation will request that each insured System bank promptly transmit to the Corporation a copy of the plan that the institution develops for the distribution of such AIRA payments.8

(1) Ten (10) percent of the excess Insurance Fund balance shall be credited to the AIRAs for all holders, in the aggregate, of FAC stock. The total amount that may be allocated to this AIRA is limited to $35.5 million ($56 million less the $20.5 million that was paid out in 2010).

(2) The remaining amount of the excess Insurance Fund balance shall be credited to the AIRA for each insured System bank. There shall be credited to the AIRA of each insured system bank an amount that bears the same ratio to the total amount (less any amount credited under paragraph (b)(1) of this Section II) as—

(i) The average principal outstanding for the calendar year on insured obligations issued by the bank (after deducting from the principal the percentages of the guaranteed portions of loans and investments described in paragraph (2) of Section I above); bears to

(ii) The average principal outstanding for the calendar year on insured obligations issued by all insured System banks (after deducting from the principal the percentages of the guaranteed portions of loans and investments described in paragraph (2) of Section I above).

(3) An example of the allocation formula is shown in the attached Exhibit 1.

To the extent that the sum of the operating expenses of the Corporation and the insurance obligations of the Corporation for a calendar year exceeds the sum of operating expenses and insurance obligations determined under paragraph (a) Of this Section II for the calendar year, the Corporation shall cover the expenses and obligations by reducing each AIRA by the same proportion, and expending the amounts so obtained before expending other amounts in the Fund.

When the Corporation's actual operating expenses and insurance obligations exceed the estimated amounts used to determine any year's AIRA balances, the Act requires AIRA balances to absorb such excess expenses before using other amounts in the Insurance Fund.9 To the extent reductions are made in AIRA balances to absorb Corporation expenses and actual insurance obligations, each AIRA will be reduced by its proportional amount in accordance with the statute. The same formula used to make allocations of excess Insurance Fund balances shall be used to reduce AIRA balances when necessary. Ten (10) percent of any necessary AIRA reduction will be applied to the FAC stockholder AIRA. The remaining 90 percent will be applied to the System insured banks' AIRAs on the basis of the ratio of described in paragraph (b)(2) of this Section II.

Each of the revised policy statements has been approved for publication by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. After considering any comments received on each of these policy statements, the Board of Directorswill decide whether to give final approval to, modify, or withdraw, each of the revised policy statements.

OMB Control Number:3060-1022.

Title:Sections 101.1403, 101.103(f), 101.1413, 101.1440 and 101.1417, MVDDS and DBS Reporting and Third Party Disclosure Requirements.

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents:17 respondents; 108 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:0.5 hour-40 hours.

Frequency of Response:Annual and other reporting requirements, and third-party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308 and 309(j).

Total Annual Burden:565 hours.

Total Annual Cost:$3,000.

Privacy Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses:The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from OMB. Although there are adjustments to the burden hours and cost estimates, there are no changes in any of the reporting and third party disclosure requirements.

The Commission uses the information in the following manner:

Section 101.1403—Multichannel Video Distribution and Data (MVDDS) licensees that meet the broadcast carriage requirements of 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1) are required to send a letter to broadcast stations directly (or otherwise obtain the prior, express authority of a broadcast station before transmitting that station's signal;

Section 101.103(f)—The Commission's licensees will use the required notice and information to ensure that prior to operation the MVDDS antennas meet the minimum spacing requirement;

Section 101.1413—The Commission uses the information to determine whether a licensee is providing substantial service, as required, and for whether to apply a renewal expectancy;

Section 101.1440—The information collected and disclosed by this rule section will ensure that MVDDS licensees protect Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) customers of record from interference as required by the Commission's rules; and

Section 101.1417—The reporting requirement is necessary for the Commission to keep track of the MVDDS service. The information compiled in the annual report will assist the Commission in analyzing trends and competition in the marketplace.

This information requirement consists of reports that do not impose collection burdens upon the public. These collections require information which is already available to the public at large or that is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. A general control number for these collections decreases the amount of paperwork generated by the approval process.

GSA has published rules in theFederal Registerthat fall under information collection 3090-0250. The rule that prescribed clause 552.238-70 “Identification of Electronic Office Equipment Providing Accessibility for the Handicapped” was published at 56 FR 29442, June 27, 1991, titled “Implementation of Public Law 99-506”, with an effective date of July 8, 1991; and Clause 552.238-74 “Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting” published at 68 FR 41286, July 11, 2003.

None.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals:Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20407, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports, in all correspondence.

DHHS reports, dating back to the landmark 1985 Secretary's Task Force on Black and Minority Health, note the critical importance of rich data systems and culturally competent research to understand and reduce health disparities among population subgroups. Such disparities reflect the interactive effects of multiple social, economic, behavioral, and environmental determinants of health, including access to high quality health care services. Data improvement efforts enhance the ability of the public health and healthcare systems to identify and track disparities in health and health care, and facilitate greater accountability for reducing them. Although there have been government-wide standards for the collection of race and ethnicity for many years, the lack of standards related to data collection on population subgroups defined by other characteristics—such as primary language and disability—remains a challenge for reporting and tracking data on health disparities.

The Affordable Care Act includes multiple provisions aimed at eliminating health disparities in America. Section 4302 (Understanding health disparities: Data collection and analysis) of the Affordable Care Act focuses on the standardization, collection, analysis, and reporting of health disparities data. While data alone will not reduce disparities, it can be foundational to our efforts to characterize the disparities, design effective responses, and evaluate our progress.

Section 4302 begins by requiring the Secretary of DHHS to establish data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status. The law requires that, once established, these data collection standards be used, to the extent practicable, in HHS national population health surveys. The law also requires that any DHHS data standards be in compliance with standards created by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), such as those for race and ethnicity. As such, OMB's standards are not the subject of comment in this notice.

The focus of this announcement is for data collection standards related to race, ethnicity, primary language, sex, and disability status, as outlined in Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act. The law also requires that these data collection standards be used for the purposes of measuring quality and reporting for any federally sponsored, federally conducted, or supported health care or public health program, activity, or survey. Additional subsections of the law relate to data collection standards require the Department to develop data collection standards for access to care for persons with disabilities. The law also gives the Secretary the authority to require that additional demographic data be collected on all Departmental surveys and to develop appropriate data collection standards. The full text of Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act can be found atminorityhealth.hhs.gov/section4302.

The Department proposed data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language and disability status were guided by existing federal data standards, the results of studies and public reports, consultation with statistical agencies and programs, and the expertise of subject matter experts who have leadership roles with collecting and analyzing this type of data. The focus was to develop data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language and disability status that are appropriate for the purposes and methods of population health surveys for self-reported data.

The proposed data collection standards and rationale are for race, ethnicity, primary language, sex, and disability status and pertain only to self-reported data. These proposed data collection standards represent the first round of implementation of Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act related to race, ethnicity, sex, primary language and disability status. Implementation efforts related to additional subsections of Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act continue.

The Department is also in the process of developing and validating standard approaches for collecting data about sexual orientation and gender identity.

With this notice, the Office of Minority Health requests comment from the public and interested stakeholders on the proposed data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status.

The text of the proposed data standards is available in HTML and PDF formats through the Office of Minority Health Web site atminorityhealth.hhs.gov/section4302and thehttp://www.regulations.gov,docket ID number HHS-OMH-2011-0013. The full text of Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act can be found atminorityhealth.hhs.gov/section4302.For those who may not have Internet access, a hard copy can be requested from the point of contact, Rochelle Rollins, PhD, MPH, Office of the Minority Health, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, MD 20852; Phone (800) 444-6472; E-mailACASection4302@hhs.gov.

Proposed Project Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component 2012-2013

Employer-sponsored health insurance is the source of coverage for 85 million current and former workers, plus many of their family members, and is a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) measures the extent, cost, and coverage of employer-sponsored health insurance on an annual basis. These statistics are produced at the National, State, and sub-State (metropolitan area) level for private industry. Statistics are also produced for State and Local governments.

This research has the following goals:

(1) To provide data for Federal policymakers evaluating the effects of National and State health care reforms;

(2) To provide descriptive data on the current employer-sponsored health insurance system and data for modeling the differential impacts of proposed health policy initiatives; and

(3) To supply critical State and National estimates of health insurance spending for the National Health Accounts and Gross Domestic Product.

This study is being conducted by AHRQ through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau and pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct surveys to collect data on the cost, use and quality of health care, including the types and costs of private health insurance. 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(a).

To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections for both private sector and state and local government employers will be implemented:

(1) Prescreener Questionnaire—The purpose of the Prescreener Questionnaire, which is collected via telephone, varies depending on the insurance status of the establishment contacted. (Establishment is defined as a single, physical location in the private sector and a governmental unit in state and local governments.) For establishments that do not offer health insurance to their employees, the prescreener is used to collect basic information such as number of employees. Collection is completed for these establishments through this telephone call. For establishments that do offer health insurance, contact name and address information is collected that is used for the mailout of the establishment and plan questionnaires. Obtaining this contact information helps ensure that the questionnaires are directed to the person in the establishment best equipped to complete them.

(2) Establishment Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Establishment Questionnaire is to obtain general information from employers that provide health insurance to their employees. Information such as total active enrollment in health insurance, other employee benefits, waiting periods, and retiree health insurance is collected through the establishment questionnaire.

(3) Plan Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Plan Questionnaire is to collect plan-specific information on each plan (up to four plans) offered by establishments that provide health insurance to their employees. This questionnaire obtains information on total premiums, employer and employee contributions to the premium, and plan enrollment for each type of coverage offered—single, employee-plus-one, and family—within a plan. It also asks for information on deductibles, copays, and other plan characteristics.This information is needed in order to provide the tools for Federal, State, and academic researchers to evaluate current and proposed health policies and to support the production of important statistical measures for other Federal agencies.

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to provide the requested data. The Prescreener questionnaire will be completed by 31,552 respondents and takes about 51/2minutes to complete. The Establishment questionnaire will be completed by 25,839 respondents and takes about 23 minutes to complete. The Plan questionnaire will be completed by 23,230 respondents and will require an average of 2.1 responses per respondent. Each Plan questionnaire takes about 11 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden hours are estimated to be 21,440 hours.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. The annualized cost burden is estimated to be $614,256.

I. Background

Since 1997, the Office of Public Health Genomics (OPHG) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has worked to integrate genomics into public health research, policy, and programs, which could improve interventions designed to prevent and control the country's leading chronic, infectious, environmental, and occupational diseases. OPHG's efforts focus on conducting population-basedgenomic research, assessing the role of family health history in disease risk and prevention, supporting a systematic process for evaluating genetic tests, translating genomics into public health research and programs, and strengthening capacity for public health genomics in disease prevention programs. OPHG engages many partners to identify opportunities and challenges for using genomics to impact population health, by addressing important public health issues and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of public health programs.

To help inform the assessment process and strategically plan for the next five years, HHS/CDC is requesting public input to the following questions on public health genomics: (1) What are the most important activities that should be carried out by the public health system in 2012-2017 to apply genomic knowledge to public health goals? (2) What outcomes specific to public health might be achieved as the result of carrying out these activities? (3) What policies are needed in order to achieve these outcomes? (4) What institutions, organizations and agencies need to participate in achieving these outcomes and what roles should they play? (5) What barriers are anticipated in achieving these outcomes and how might they best be overcome?

Interested persons may submit comments, data, and information (seeADDRESSES) either electronically or written regarding this request. Submitted comments will be available for public review from Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, at 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Please call ahead to 404-498-0001 and ask for a representative in the Office of Public Health Genomics to schedule your visit.

HUD has the authority to address deficiencies in the performance of lenders' loans as provided in HUD's mortgagee approval regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 1999 HUD published a notice (64 FR 26769), on its procedures for terminating Origination Approval Agreements with FHA lenders and placement of FHA lenders on Credit Watch status (an evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 notice, HUD advised that it would publish in theFederal Registera list of mortgagees, which have had their Origination Approval Agreements terminated.

Termination of Origination Approval Agreement:Approval of a mortgagee by HUD/FHA to participate in FHA mortgage insurance programs includes an Origination Approval Agreement (Agreement) between HUD and the mortgagee. Under the Agreement, the mortgagee is authorized to originate single-family mortgage loans and submitthem to FHA for insurance endorsement. The Agreement may be terminated on the basis of poor performance of FHA-insured mortgage loans originated by the mortgagee. The termination of a mortgagee's Agreement is separate and apart from any action taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 25.

Cause:HUD's regulations permit HUD to terminate the Agreement with any mortgagee having a default and claim rate for loans endorsed within the preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 percent of the default and claim rate within the geographic area served by a HUD field office, and also exceeds the national default and claim rate. For the quarterly review period ending December 31, 2010, HUD is terminating the Agreement of mortgagees whose default and claim rate exceeds both the national rate and 200 percent of the field office rate.

Effect:Termination of the Agreement precludes branch(es) of the mortgagee from originating FHA-insured single-family mortgages within the area of the HUD field office(s) listed in this notice. Mortgagees authorized to purchase, hold, or service FHA-insured mortgages may continue to do so.

Loans that closed or were approved before the termination became effective may be submitted for insurance endorsement. Approved loans are those already underwritten and approved by a DE underwriter, and cases covered by a firm commitment issued by HUD. Cases at earlier stages of processing cannot be submitted for insurance by the terminated branch; however, they may be transferred for completion of processing and underwriting to anotherFHA-insured mortgagee with direct endorsement approval for the area covered by the termination. Mortgagees are obligated to continue to pay existing insurance premiums and meet all other obligations associated with insured mortgages.

A terminated mortgagee may apply for reinstatement of the Origination Approval Agreement if the approval for the affected branch or branches has been terminated for at least six months and the mortgagee continues to be an approved mortgagee meeting the requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 202.7, 202.8 and 202.12. However, Mortgagee Letter 2010-20 and Final Rule 5356-F-02 at 24 CFR Part 202 eliminates FHA approval for loan correspondents after December 31, 2010. Therefore, HUD will not accept requests for reinstatement from loan correspondents after that date. The mortgagee's application for reinstatement must be in a format prescribed by the Secretary and signed by the mortgagee. In addition, the application must be accompanied by an independent analysis of the terminated office's operations as well as its mortgage production, specifically including the FHA-insured mortgages cited in its termination notice. This independent analysis shall identify the underlying cause for the mortgagee's high default and claim rate. The analysis must be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to perform audits under Government Auditing Standards as provided by the Government Accountability Office. The mortgagee must also submit a written corrective action plan to address each of the issues identified in the CPA's report, along with evidence that the plan has been implemented. The application for a new Agreement should be in the form of a letter, accompanied by the CPA's report and corrective action plan. The request should be sent to the Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000 or by courier to 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East, SW., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20024-8000.

Action:The following mortgagees have had their Origination Agreements terminated by HUD:

HUD has the authority to address deficiencies in the performance of lenders' loans as provided in HUD's mortgagee approval regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 1999 HUD published a notice (64 FR 26769), on its procedures for terminating Origination Approval Agreements with FHA lenders and placement of FHA lenders on Credit Watch status (an evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 notice, HUD advised that it would publish in theFederal Registera list of mortgagees, which have had their Approval Agreements terminated. On January 21, 2010 HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2010-03 which advised the extended procedures forterminating Underwriting Authority of Direct Endorsement mortgagees.

Termination of Direct Endorsement Approval:Approval of a DE mortgagee by HUD/FHA authorizes the mortgagee to underwrite single family mortgage loans and submit them to FHA for insurance endorsement. The Approval may be terminated on the basis of poor performance of FHA-insured mortgage loans underwritten by the mortgagee. The termination of a mortgagee's DE Approval is separate and apart from any action taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 25.

Cause:HUD's regulations permit HUD to terminate the DE Approval with any mortgagee having a default and claim rate for loans endorsed within the preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 percent of the default and claim rate within the geographic area served by a HUD field office, and also exceeds the national default and claim rate. For the quarterly review period ending December 31, 2010, HUD is terminating the DE Approval of mortgagees whose default and claim rate exceeds both the national rate and 200 percent of the field office rate.

Effect:Termination of the DE Approval precludes the mortgagee from underwriting FHA-insured single-family mortgages within the area of the HUD field office(s) listed in this notice. Mortgagees authorized to purchase, hold, or service FHA-insured mortgages may continue to do so.

Loans that closed or were approved before the Termination became effective may be submitted for insurance endorsement. Approved loans are those already underwritten and approved by a DE underwriter, and cases covered by a firm commitment issued by HUD. Cases at earlier stages of processing cannot be submitted for insurance by the terminated mortgagee; however, the cases may be transferred for completion of processing and underwriting to another mortgagee with DE Approval in that area. Mortgagees are obligated to continue to pay existing insurance premiums and meet all other obligations associated with insured mortgages.

A terminated mortgagee may apply for reinstatement of the DE Approval if the DE Approval for the affected area or areas has been terminated for at least six months and the mortgagee continues to be an approved mortgagee meeting the requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 202.7, 202.10 and 202.12. The mortgagee's application for reinstatement must be in a format prescribed by the Secretary and signed by the mortgagee. In addition, the application must be accompanied by an independent analysis of the terminated office's operations as well as its mortgage production, specifically including the FHA-insured mortgages cited in its termination notice. This independent analysis shall identify the underlying cause for the mortgagee's high default and claim rate. The analysis must be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to perform audits under Government Auditing Standards as provided by the Government Accountability Office. The mortgagee must also submit a written corrective action plan to address each of the issues identified in the CPA's report, along with evidence that the plan has been implemented. The application for a new Agreement should be in the form of a letter, accompanied by the CPA's report and corrective action plan. The request should be sent to the Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000 or by courier to 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East, SW., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20024-8000.

Action:The following mortgagees have had their DE Approvals terminated by HUD:

Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with Sections 10(a) and (b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under Section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3). The Committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured home construction and safety standards and procedural and enforcement regulations, and with developing and recommending proposed model installation standards to the Secretary.

The purpose of this conference call meeting is for the Committee to conduct routine business, receive subcommittee status reports, receive subcommittee recommendations/proposals (if any), and any other business that may come before the Committee.

This meeting is open to the public. Up to a half hour will be set aside for public comment. Persons wishing to make a brief presentation (up to 5 minutes) are asked to provide a written request with a description of the general subject to Ms. Norton at the above address no later than July 7, 2010. It is requested that 65 copies of a written statement be submitted at the time of the meeting for distribution to members of the ACWI and placement in the official file. Any member of the public may submit written information and (or) comments to Ms. Norton for distribution at the ACWI meeting.

Title:30 CFR Part 250, Subpart C, Pollution Prevention and Control.

OMB Control Number:1010-0057.

Abstract:The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.,and 43 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to manage the mineral resources of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease, right-of-use and easement, and pipeline right-of-way. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Section 1332(6) states that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” Section 1334(a)(8) requires that regulations prescribed by the Secretary include provisions “for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401et seq.), to the extent that activities authorized under this Act significantly affect the air quality of any State.” Section 1843(b) calls for “regulations requiring all materials, equipment, tools, containers, and all other items used on the Outer Continental Shelf to be properly color coded, stamped, or labeled, wherever practicable, with the owner's identification prior to actual use.”

This is a routine information collection request (ICR) concerning the regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart C, Pollution Prevention and Control. It also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BOEMRE issues to clarify and provide additional guidance on some aspects of the regulations.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited release.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency:On occasion, monthly, or annually, daily for inspection recordkeeping; varies by section.

Description of Respondents:Potential respondents comprise Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees and 17 states.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 198,866 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden:We have identified no non-hour cost burdens for this collection.

Public Disclosure Statement:The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments:Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *”. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part ofcustomary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures:Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

BOEMRE Information Collection Clearance Officer:Arlene Bajusz (703) 787-1025.

Title:30 CFR Part 251, Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf.

BOEMRE Form(s):MMS-0327.

OMB Control Number:1010-0048.

Abstract:The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.and 43 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

The OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1340) also states that “any person authorized by the Secretary may conduct geological and geophysical explorations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with or endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this OCS Lands Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.” The section further requires that permits to conduct such activities may only be issued if it is determined that the applicant is qualified; the activities are not polluting, hazardous, or unsafe; they do not interfere with other users of the area; and do not disturb a site, structure, or object of historical or archaeological significance. Applicants for permits are required to submit BOEMRE Form MMS-0327 to provide the information necessary to evaluate their qualifications.

The OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1352) further requires that certain costs be reimbursed to the parties submitting required G&G information and data. Under the OCS Lands Act, permittees are to be reimbursed for the costs of reproducing any G&G data required to be submitted. Permittees are to be reimbursed also for the reasonable cost of processing geophysical information required to be submitted when processing is in a form or manner required by the Director of BOEMRE and is not used in the normal conduct of the business of the permittee.

The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BOEMRE is required to charge the full cost for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those that accrue to the public at large. The G&G permits are subject to cost recovery, and BOEMRE regulations specify the filing fee for the application.

Regulations at 30 CFR part 251 implement these statutory requirements. We use the information to ensure there is no environmental degradation, personal harm or unsafe operations and conditions, damage to historical or archaeological sites, or interference with other uses; to analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned drilling activities; to monitor progress and activities in the OCS; to acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; and to determine eligibility for reimbursement from the government for certain costs. The information is necessary to determine if the applicants for permits or filers of notices meet the qualifications specified by the OCS Lands Act. BOEMRE uses information collected to understand the G&G characteristics of oil- and gas-bearing physiographic regions of the OCS. It aids the Secretary in obtaining a properbalance among the potentials for environmental damage, the discovery of oil and gas, and adverse impacts on affected coastal States. Information from permittees is necessary to determine the propriety and amount of reimbursement. Also, we are revising BOEMRE Form MMS-0327 to adapt to new advances in technology (electronic options) and clarifying requirements for environmental compliance.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), and under regulations at 30 CFR parts 250, 251, and 252.

No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency:On occasion, annual; and as specified in permits.

Description of Respondents:Potential respondents comprise Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur permittees or notice filers.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 1,246 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

We started the CCP planning process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in theFederal Registeron December 1, 2008 (74 FR 8564), announcing our intention to complete a CCP/EA for the James Campbell and Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuges (the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge CCP was completed in fall 2010). Simultaneously, we released Planning Update 1. We invited the public to two open house meetings and requested public comments in the NOI and Planning Update 1. We held the open house meetings in Pearl City, Hawai`i, on December 9, 2008; and in Kahuku, Hawai`i on January 8, 2009. In Planning Update 2, distributed in June 2009, we provided a summary of the comments we received and described Refuge resources. Planning Update 3, distributed in August 2010, provided a preview of the management goals as well as a summary of each management alternative designed to accomplish these goals. All of the public comments wehave received to date were considered during development of the Draft CCP/EA.

Under Alternative A, we would continue current management. This includes focusing threatened and endangered species management on protection and successful nesting, in support of the statewide effort to implement the Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan. Public use programs would remain virtually unchanged. Units would remain closed to general public entry except for seasonal docent-guided tours and Special Use Permits issued on a case-by-case basis for environmental education, research, and other compatible uses. Newly acquired expansion lands would receive custodial oversight only, no habitat restoration would occur, and no additional visitor services would be provided. Both current commercial aquaculture leases would remain in effect until 2023 at which time, by prior agreement, they would expire.

Current habitat management programs would continue. On newly acquired Refuge lands, only the highest priority wetlands and coastal dunes would be restored and fenced to exclude large predators. Within five years of acquiring new Refuge lands, a Visitor Services Plan (VSP) would be developed to identify, evaluate, and carefully select the types of wildlife-oriented activities we would provide the public, and the sites and locations for infrastructure needed to fully support safe, meaningful, and high-quality programs for the public. Infrastructure needs identified by the VSP would include safe roads, parking areas, trails, and an overlook. We would also identify and develop any new special regulations in the VSP, which may be needed to protect sensitive wildlife resources, the fragile coastline, and the visiting public. During the interim five-year period until the VSP is prepared, the current public use program would continue under Alternative B, with slight increases in opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. The Refuge would participate and partner with other agencies and the community of Kahuku, to develop, evaluate, and implement projects to mitigate flood damage to the local area, if practical and feasible. Both current commercial aquaculture leases will remain in effect until 2023, at which time, by prior agreement, they will expire.

In addition to management actions identified in Alternative B, all wetlands, coastal dunes/strand, and scrub/shrub habitats would be restored and managed. Trial use of predator-proof fencing would be initiated on selected dune or wetland sites, to protect seabirds or waterbirds. Abandoned aquaculture facilities would be cleaned up, and the habitat would be restored to natural conditions or other approved uses.

We encourage you to stay involved in the CCP planning process by reviewing and commenting on the proposals we have developed in the Draft CCP/EA. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA are available by request from David Ellis, Project Leader, O`ahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 66-590 Kamehameha Highway, Room 2C, Hale`iwa, HI 96712. The Draft CCP/EA will also be available for viewing and downloading on the Internet athttp://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning.

After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the Final CCP and decision document.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurveys and subdivision of Section 36, in Township 15 South, Range 98 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on November 4, 2010.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey in Township 15 South, Range 97 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on November 4, 2010.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 4 South, Range 3 East, Ute Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on November 4, 2010.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Fractional Township 12 South, Range 99 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on November 9, 2010.

The supplemental plat of Section 36, in Township 38 North, Range 9 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on December 3, 2010.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of Section 18, in Township 12 South, Range 71 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on December 15, 2010.

The plat and field notes of the corrective dependent resurvey in Township 1 North, Range 2 West, Ute Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on December 28, 2010.

The plat incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 37, in Township 15 South, Range 77 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on March 2, 2011.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 15 South, Range 81 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 10, 2011.

The plat incorporating the field notes of the corrective dependent resurvey in Township 11 South, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 17, 2011.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of Section 4, in Township 15 South, Range 75 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 27, 2011.

The plat incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of Section 33, in Township 17 South, Range 72 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 27, 2011.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey of H.E.S. No. 77, in Township 11 North, Range 82 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on June 7, 2011.

The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 15 South, Range 68 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on June 7, 2011.

If a protest of any of these projects is received prior to the date of the official filing, the official filing of that project will be stayed pending consideration of the merits of the protest.

This survey was executed at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Region 1, Bozeman, Montana, and was necessary to determine the boundaries of Federal interest lands.

The lands we surveyed are:

The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and Homestead Entry Survey No. 866 and the survey of a portion of the westerly boundary of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and certain tracts and parcels, in Protraction Block 39, in Township 6 South, Range 10 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted June 21, 2011.

We will place a copy of the plat, in three sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in three sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file this plat, in three sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

The BLM has requested the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, subject to valid existing rights, approximately 677,384 acres of public lands located in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the public land laws, including the mining laws, but not the mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, and the mineral material laws for a period of 5 years. On June 30, 2009, a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting was published in theFederal Register(74 FR 31308), which closed the lands from surface entry and mining for a 2-year period. This closure period will expire on June 29, 2011. In order to prevent opening of the lands on this date, the BLM is segregating the lands under the authority contained in 43 CFR 2091.3-1(e) and 43 CFR 2804.25(e) for a period of 2 years, subject to valid existing rights. This 2-year segregation period will commence on June 30, 2011. The public lands involved in this notice will be segregated from appropriation under the public land and mining laws, but not the mineral leasing or material sale laws. It has been determined that this segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands that have been identified by the BLM as having the potential for solar energy generation.

The segregation period will terminate and the lands will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, 2 yearsfrom the effective date of publication in theFederal Registerunless, prior to the end of the 2-year period, the BLM publishes aFederal Registernotice terminating the segregation.

The lands to be segregated are identified in the proposed withdrawal notice that was published in theFederal Registeron April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22414).

The Commission instituted the instant investigation on December 16, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Pioneer Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively, “Pioneer”). 74 FR 66676 (Dec. 16, 2009). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain multimedia display and navigation devices and systems, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (“the '448 patent”), 5,424,951 (“the '951 patent”), and 6,122,592 (“the '592 patent”). The complaint named Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin Corporation of Taiwan (collectively, “Garmin”) and Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (“Honeywell”) as the proposed respondents. Honeywell was subsequently terminated from the investigation.

On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued a final ID. In his final ID, the ALJ found no violation of section 337 by Garmin. Specifically, the ALJ found that the accused products do not infringe claims 1 and 2 of the '448 patent, claims 1 and 2 of the '951 patent, or claims 1 and 2 of the '592 patent. The ALJ found that the '592 patent was not proven to be invalid and that Pioneer has established a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 23, 2011, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. On April 18, 2011, the Commission determined to extend the target date and requested supplemental briefing.

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined to affirm, on modified grounds, the ALJ's finding that Garmin has not violated section 337. In particular, the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's finding that Garmin's products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '951 patent, affirm his finding that Garmin's products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '592 patent, reverse his finding that the asserted claims of the '592 patent are not invalid under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and reverse his finding that Pioneer has established a licensing-based domestic industry for the '951 and `592 patents. The `448 patent is no longer asserted. The investigation is terminated.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42-.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.50).