The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Colorado Serum Company of Denver, Colorado has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this variety as the California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

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

The AFTF is responsible for:

(a) The development of guidelines intended for governments on how to apply the existing Codex risk assessment methodologies to the various types of hazards related to contaminants/residues in feed ingredients, including feed additives used in feeding stuffs for food producing animals. The guidelines should include specific science based risk assessment criteria to apply to feed contaminants/residues. These criteria should be consistent with existing Codex methodologies.

The guidelines should also consider the need to address the establishment of rates of transfer and accumulation from feed to edible tissues in animal-derived products according to the characteristics of the hazard.

The guidelines should be drawn up in such a way as to enable countries to prioritize and assess risks based upon local conditions, use, exposure of animals and the impact, if any, on human health.

(b) Develop a prioritized list of hazards in feed ingredients and feed additives for governmental use. The list should contain hazards of international relevance that are reasonably likely to occur, and are thus likely to warrant future attention.

In doing so, due consideration should be given to the prioritized list of hazards as recommended by the FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Animal Feed Impact on Food Safety. Clear criteria should be used to prioritize the list of hazards and to take account of the potential transfer of contaminants/residues in feed to edible animal products (e.g.meat, fish meat, milk and eggs).

The AFTF is hosted by Switzerland.

The following items on the agenda for the 6th Session of the AFTF will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Matters referred to the AFTF by Codex and other Codex Committees and Task Forces.

• Report on activities of the FAO, WHO and other International Intergovernmental Organizations.

• Proposed draft guidelines on application of risk assessment for feed.

• Proposed draft prioritized list of hazards in feed.

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (seeADDRESSES).

At the January 18, 2012, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Daniel McChesney, U.S. Delegate for the 6th Session of the AFTF (seeADDRESSES). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 6th Session of the AFTF.

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

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

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

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located athttp://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp.

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

Title:Suspension of Distillers Co-Products Survey.

OMB Control Number:0535-0247.

Expiration Date of Approval:September 30, 2014.

Type of Request:To suspend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract:The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to conduct surveys in order to prepare national, State, and county estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, prices, and collect information on related environmental and economic factors.

Timeline:NASS will suspend this information collection as of November 17, 2011 due to increased budget constraints. Also, NASS will not publish any publications that would normally be generated from these data collections, unless there is a change in the anticipated budget shortfall.

Authority:These data were collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) (General Duties of the Secretary of Agriculture). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden:There will be no further public reporting burden for this collection of information.

Title:Reduction in the Frequency of the Chemical Use Surveys Currently Approved.

OMB Control Numbers:0535-0218.

Expiration Dates of Approval:December 31, 2011.

Type of Request:To reduce the frequency of some of the chemical use surveys currently approved, along with the resulting publications.

Abstract:The primary functions of the National Agricultural Statistics Service include the collection of data and the preparation and issuance of state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, prices, and environmental and economic factors.

Timeline:NASS will suspend this information collection as of November 17, 2011 due to budget constraints. NASS will not issue any publications that would normally be generated from any of the suspended chemical use surveys, unless there is a change in the anticipated budget shortfall.

Authority:These data were collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) (General Duties of the Secretary of Agriculture). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden:There will be no further public reporting burden for this collection of information.

Title:Suspension of the Bee and Honey Surveys and Publications.

OMB Control Number:0535-0153.

Expiration Dates of Approval:May 31, 2013.

Type of Request:To suspend the currently approved information collection for bee and honey data and the resulting publications.

Abstract:The primary functions of the National Agricultural Statistics Service include the collection of data and the preparation and issuance of state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, prices, and environmental and economic factors.

Timeline:NASS will suspend this information collection as of November 17, 2011 due to budget constraints. NASS will not issue any publications that would normally be generated from the Bee and Honey surveys, unless there is a change in the anticipated budget shortfall.

Authority:These data were collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) (General Duties of the Secretary of Agriculture). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden:There will be no further public reporting burden for this collection of information.

On July 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy.1 Pursuant to requests from interested parties, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe notice of initiation and deferral of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Pastificio Attilio Mastromauro-Pasta Granoro S.r.L. (“Granoro”) for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.2 On August 26, 2011, the Department published the notice of initiation for the deferred administrative review of pasta from Italy in theFederal Register. 3 On November 7, 2011, Granoro withdrew its request for a deferred review of pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010.4

Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, by Codex S.r.L., by Bioagricert S.r.L., or by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale. Effective July 1, 2008, gluten free pasta is also excluded from this order.See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part,74 FR 41120 (August 14, 2009). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under items 1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States(“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUSsubheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The instant review was initiated on August 26, 2011.See Deferred Review Initiation Notice.Granoro's request for withdrawal falls within the 90-day deadline for rescission by the Department, and no other party requested an administrative review of Granoro. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this deferred review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy for Granoro.5

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Granoro, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

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

This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

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

Background:The Secretary of Commerce established the RE&EEAC pursuant to his discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) on July 14, 2010. The RE&EEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.

Topics to be considered:The agenda for the November 30, 2011 RE&EEAC meeting is as follows:

Closed Session (8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Open Session (9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.).

1. Report of Subcommittees.

2. Discussion of RE&EEAC Workplan through July 2012.

3. Discussion of Guiding Questions.

4. Public comment period.

The meeting room is disabled-accessible. Public seating for the open session of the meeting is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Jen Derstine at the contact information above by 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 23, 2011, in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any request for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. A limited amount of time, from 3 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the RE&EEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to jennifer.derstine@trade.gov or to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, Officeof Energy and Environmental Technologies Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 23, 2011, to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 2, 2011, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

Copies of RE&EEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days of the meeting.

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened upper Willamette River (UWR); threatened lower Columbia River (LCR); endangered upper Columbia River (UCR); threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/sum); threatened SR fall;

Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened PS; threatened UWR, threatened LCR; threatened UCR; threatened SR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR).

Chum salmon (O. nerka): threatened Hood Canal (HC) summer-run, threatened CR.

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): threatened LCR, threatened Oregon Coast (OC).

Rockfish: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis); PS/GB canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus).

Eulachon: the southern Distinct Populations Segment (SDPS) of Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus).

Pacific green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris): Threatened SDPS. Authority

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (seeADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew a permit that currently allows it to take listed salmonids while conducting research in the lower Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the river. The fish would be drawn from the following species: UCR Chinook and steelhead, SR spr/sum and fall Chinook, SR steelhead, SR sockeye, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, CR chum, UWR Chinook and steelhead. The purposes of the research are to (1) characterize salmonid species and population level abundance and timing, (2) determine growth rate, size, food habits, and pathogen prevalence and intensity, and (3) investigate the relationship between forage fish and salmonid populations. The research would benefit salmonids and their recovery planning by gathering information on species- and population-level abundance in the Lower Columbia River and helping determine the extent to which diseases and forage fish affect the fishes' growth and survival during the transition from the estuarine to marine environments. The NWFSC would use purse seines to capture the fish; they would then anesthetize them, measure them, scan them for tags, and fin-clip them. Some of the juvenile fish would be intentionally killed for laboratory analyses. The NWFSC would also collect and intentionally kill juvenile salmonids at the Bonneville Dam juvenile bypass facility. Any fish killed unintentionally would be retained in place of those that otherwise would be sacrificed. A small number of adult salmonids, SDPS green sturgeon, and SDPS eulachon may be captured and immediately released during the course of the research. The NWFSC does not intend to kill SDPS eulachon, but a few may die as a result of the research. No sturgeon are expected to be killed.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking to renew its permit to take juvenile UCR Chinook and steelhead, SR spr/sum and fall Chinook, SR steelhead, SR sockeye, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, CR chum, UWR Chinook and steelhead, and OC coho in streams in the Willamette and Columbia basins, and on the Oregon coast. The permit would cover the following projects: (1) Warm water fish management surveys; (2) investigations of natural production of spring Chinook salmon in the Mohawk system; (3) genetic characterization of rainbow trout in the Upper Willamette System; (4) fish abundance, population status, genetics and disease surveys in the Upper Willamette Basin; (5) native rainbow and cutthroat trout surveys for abundance, size composition, and migration patterns in the mainstem McKenzie River; (6) resident redband population estimates in the Deschutes River; (7) resident redband population estimates in the Crooked River; and (8) fish population sampling in the North Willamette Watershed District. The research would benefit the fish by providing information on population structure, abundance, genetics, disease occurrence, and species interactions. That information would be used to direct management actions to benefit listed species. Juvenile salmonids would be collected via boat electrofishing, and then some of them would be anesthetized, sampled for length and weight, allowed to recover from the anesthesia, and released. Most salmonids would only be shocked and allowed to swim away, or be netted and released immediately. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

Weyerhaeuser Company (WeyCo) is seeking to renew its permit to annually take juvenile LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead while conducting research designed to determine salmonid abundance, distribution, and productivity in the Toutle River subbasin and on lands owned by WeyCo around Mt. St. Helens in Washington. The information would be used to help develop and implement effective fish-conscious forest management practices and regulations. The research would benefit listed species by contributing information to help WeyCo maintain high quality habitat and development recovery plans for listed species. Juvenile salmonids would be collected using backpack electrofishing equipment, anesthetized, sampled for biological data (identified, measured, weighed), allowed to recover from the anesthesia, and released. WeyCo does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintentional result of the activities.

The Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) under the authorization of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is seeking to renew its permit to annually take adult and juvenile SR spr/sum Chinook salmon and SR steelhead while conducting research in a number of the tributaries to the Imnaha River (Cow, Lightning, Horse, Big Sheep, Camp, Little Sheep, Freezeout, Grouse, Crazyman, Mahogany, and Gumboot Creeks), the Grande Ronde River (Joseph Creek, Wenaha and Minam rivers) the Clearwater River (South Fork Clearwater River and Lolo Creek), and the Snake River (Lower Granite Dam adult trap). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde Rivers are in Northeast Oregon, the Clearwater is in Idaho, and the work in the Snake River would take place in Washington. The permit would be a renewal and expansion of work the NPT has been conducting for over a decade in the Northwest.

The purpose of the research is to acquire information on the status (escapement abundance, genetic structure, life history traits) of juvenile and adult steelhead in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, and Clearwater River basins. The research would benefit the listed species by providing information on current status that fishery managers can use to determine if recovery actions are helping increase wild Snake River salmonid populations. Baseline information on steelhead populations in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, and Clearwater River basins would also be used to help guide future management actions. Adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be observed, harassed, handled, and marked. The researchers would use temporary/portable picket and resistance board weirs and rotary screw traps to capture the fish and would then sample them for biological information (fin tissue and scale samples). They may also mark some of the fish with opercule punches, fin clips, dyes, and PIT, floy, and/or Tyvek disk tags. Adult steelhead carcasses would also be collected and sampled. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes) are seeking to renew and modify their permit to take SR sockeye salmon and SR spr/sum Chinook salmon while conducting research designed to estimate their overwinter survival and downstream migration survival and timing. The researchers would also conduct limnological studies on the lakes and monitor sockeye rearing. This research—which has been conducted every year since 1996—would continue to provide information on the relative success of the Pettit and Alturas Lakes sockeye salmon reintroduction programs and thereby benefit the listed fish by improving those programs. Juvenile SR sockeye salmon, spr/sum Chinook salmon, and steelhead would be collected at Pettit and Alturas Lakes, ID, using rotary screw traps and weirs. The fish would be sampled for biological information and released or tagged with passive integrated transponders and released. In addition, to determine trap efficiencies, a portion of the captured juvenile SR sockeye salmon would be marked with a small cut on their caudal fins, released upstream of the traps, captured at the traps a second time, and released. The Tribes do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, and PS steelhead. The WDFW administers a multitude of water bodies through the state of Washington, and this permit would provide them with coverage throughout Puget Sound and the Lower Columbia River basin. The purpose of the warmwater fish surveys is to provide stock assessment of inland game fish communities and thereby improve fishery management. The research would benefit salmonids by helping managers write warmwater fish species harvest regulations that reduce potential impacts on listed salmonids. The WDFW proposes capturing fish using boat electrofishing, fyke nets, and gillnets. After being captured, the listed salmon and steelhead would be placed in aerated live wells, identified, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is seeking to renew a permit that currently allows them to take listed salmonids (UCR steelhead and Chinook; LCR steelhead and Chinook; MCR steelhead; and SR steelhead, spr/sum Chinook, fall Chinook, and sockeye) while conducting research designed to increase what we know about the status and productivity of various fish populations, collect data on migratory and exploitation (harvest) patterns, and develop baseline information on various population and habitat parameters in order to guide salmonid restoration strategies. Much of the work in the permit has been conducted for at least 14 years—first under permit 1134, and then under five previous versions of 1379. The permit would comprise four studies: Project 1—Juvenile Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Sampling at the Hanford Reach; Project 2—Adult Chinook, Sockeye, and Coho Sampling at Bonneville Dam; Project 3—Adult Sockeye Sampling at Tumwater and Wells Dams; and Project 4—Acoustic trawl survey for Lake Wenatchee juvenile sockeye salmon. This renewal would increase slightly the number of fish CRITFC is allowed to handle. The research, as a whole, would benefit listed fish by helping managers set in-river and ocean harvest regimes so that they have minimal impacts on listed populations. It would also help managers prioritize projects in a way that gives maximum benefit to listed species-including projects designed to help the listed fish recover.

The CRITFC would obtain fish from the adult collection facilities at Bonneville, Wells, and Tumwater dams. The fish would be anesthetized, measured, examined for marks, scale-sampled, and allowed to return to the river. The researchers would also usebeach- and stick seines to capture and tag juvenile fish in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and capture fish during mid-water trawls in Lake Wenatchee. Those fish that are not immediately released upon capture would be transported to a holding facility where they would be anesthetized, examined for marks, adipose-clipped, coded wire tagged, allowed to recover, and released. The CRITFC does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The NWFSC is seeking to modify its permit that currently allows it to annually take listed salmonids while studying habitat occurrence, diet, contaminant concentrations, and health indicators in juvenile salmonids from the Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers. The NWFSC is requesting to increase the number of juvenile fish they may take from the following species: SR spring/summer Chinook salmon, SR fall Chinook salmon, SR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, UWR steelhead, and CR chum salmon. The purposes of the study are to (1) determine contaminant concentrations in fish, (2) understand bioaccumulation in juvenile salmon and determine site specific factors, (3) analyze for the presence of physiological biomarkers, and (4) investigate the presence of indicators of exposure to environmental estrogens. The research would benefit the fish by providing information to resource managers on contaminant presence and concentrations, fish presence, and habitat parameters. The NWFSC would collect samples with seines or high speed rope trawls in the lower Willamette River, Oregon, and in the Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to the mouth. Researchers would handle juvenile fish and intentionally kill some of them to determine pathogen prevalence and intensity, biochemical composition, histopathological attributes, and for stomach content analyses.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, HC summer-run chum salmon, and PS steelhead. The researchers would sample fish throughout the Puget Sound—emphasizing urban bays such as Elliott Bay, Port Gardner Bay, and Commencement Bay. The objective of this study is to sample outmigrant juvenile salmon from various embayments in the Puget Sound area and screen them for exposure to estrogenic compounds, PBDEs, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. Juvenile Chinook salmon are anticipated to be the most affected by these contaminants because of their extended estuarine residence, so the NWFSC has chosen them as the target species for this study. The research would benefit Chinook by identifying areas in Puget Sound where they may be at risk due to contaminant exposure, so appropriate toxics reduction activities can be undertaken. The NWFSC proposes to use beach seines to capture fish every 6 to 8 weeks between May and September at approximately seven locations. Up to 60 juvenile Chinook salmon per site per sampling event would be weighed, measured, and euthanized with MS-222. The NWFSC would take bile, plasma, and stomach contents from the fish and then conduct whole-body analyses on them. Juvenile Chinook and other fish species not needed for sample collection would be counted, identified, and released. Any PS Chinook unintentionally killed during the research would be used in lieu of a fish that would otherwise be sacrificed.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the marshes, channels, and near-shore areas of the lower 10 miles of mainstem channel of the Snohomish River and in Ebey, Union, and Steamboat sloughs. The purposes of the research are to understand (1) how habitat use within the estuary varies with life history type, (2) how habitat use varies within and between years, and (3) how selected biotic and physical factors affect patterns of habitat use. This research would benefit listed salmon by providing information to help recovery planning and monitoring in the Snohomish River estuary and other estuaries of the Puget Sound. The NWFSC proposes to use beach seines to capture fish. The fish would be anesthetized, measured, weighed, tissue-sampled, and checked for external marks and coded-wire tags depending on the species. A small portion of the captured juvenile PS Chinook would be killed for whole-body analysis, but most are not intended to be sacrificed. At the lab, specimens would be thawed, weighed, and measured. Then the researchers would remove and preserve fish body tissues, otoliths, and coded wire tags (from any hatchery fish). Any PS Chinook unintentionally killed during the research would be used in lieu of a fish that would otherwise be sacrificed.

The NWFSC is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and sub-adult PS Chinook salmon, HC summer-run chum salmon, PS steelhead, and PS/GB bocaccio. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take the following species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions: the SDPS eulachon, PS/GB canary rockfish, and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish. Sampling sites would be located throughout the Puget Sound and San Juan Islands, Washington. The purposes of NWFSC's research are (1) To describe the behavior and life history of resident Chinook salmon and (2) determine whether the proportion of PS Chinook salmon adopting a resident life strategy varies among populations and hatchery stocks. This information would be used to develop a conceptual model of the life history of resident PS Chinook. The research would benefit listed salmonids by helping managers develop a better understanding of the abundance, distribution, and habitat requirements of this life history strategy. The NWFSC proposes to use shoreline and boat angling, beach seining, and purse seining to capture the fish. All non-target species would be released directly from the net or line. Captured PS Chinook would be anesthetized, measured, checked for fin clips or coded wire tags, and fin clipped for tissue samples. Some first- and second-year PS Chinook would be outfitted with acoustic transmitters and tracked using an array of fixed acoustic receivers throughout Puget Sound. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, SR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, HC summer-run chum salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, OL sockeye salmon, SR sockeye salmon, LCR steelhead, PS steelhead, MCR steelhead, SR steelhead, and UCR steelhead. The WSDOT research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon—for which thereare currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sample sites would be located throughout the state of Washington. The purposes of WSDOT's research are to determine the distribution and diversity of anadromous fish species in waterbodies crossed by or adjacent to the state transportation systems (highways, railroads, and/or airports). This information would be used to assess the impacts projects proposed at those facilities may have on listed species. The research would benefit the listed species by helping WSDOT minimize project impacts on listed fish to the greatest extent possible. Depending on the size of the stream system, the WSDOT proposes to use dip nets, stick seines, baited gee minnow traps, or electrofishing to capture the fish. The captured fish would be identified and immediately released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be located in Thornton, Piper's, and Venema Creeks in Seattle, Washington (Lake Washington subbasin). The purpose of FWS's research is to gather information that would help resource managers plan restoration projects by helping determine which project types are most effective at mitigating the effects of urbanization. The research would benefit the listed species by determining which restoration strategies are effective in restoring fish habitat and populations and improve overall salmon habitat restoration. The FWS proposes capturing fish using the three-pass electrofishing method. Block nets would be placed at the upper and lower end of a habitat site; and with a backpack electrofishing unit, three sequential passes would be conducted. Fish stunned during electrofishing would be captured with a dip net, identified to species, placed in an aerated holding bin, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The City of Portland is seeking a five-year permit to take listed salmonids and SPDS green sturgeon while developing the Portland Watershed Management Plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to improve watershed health in the Portland area. Researchers for the City of Portland would sample 32 sites a year for (1) water chemistry (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pathogens); (2) water level and velocity; (3) physical habitat characteristics (e.g., plant composition, substrate composition, and bank condition); and (4) fish, amphibian, and reptile abundance and diversity. The research would benefit listed salmonids by producing data to be used in conserving and restoring critical habitat. The researchers would use boat and backpack electrofishing equipment to capture, handle, and release juvenile UCR Chinook and steelhead, SR spr/sum and fall Chinook, SR steelhead, SR sockeye, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, CR chum, UWR Chinook and steelhead, and OC coho in the Columbia and Willamette rivers and tributaries in Portland, Oregon. The researchers would avoid contact with adult fish but may shock a few adult salmonids as well as adult SDPS eulachon and SDPS green sturgeon. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) are seeking a 5-year permit to take MCR steelhead and, possibly, SR spring/summer Chinook salmon during the course of research designed to monitor listed fish population status in the Walla Walla River watershed, Washington. The data gathered (on fish abundance, trends, genetics, diversity, productivity, and population structure) would be used to inform management decisions regarding land use activities and listed salmonid recovery planning in the Walla Walla subbasin. The researchers would use rotary screw traps and backpack electrofishing units to capture the fish. At the screw traps, the fish would then be identified, measured, weighed, tissue sampled, implanted with PIT-Tags (if they do not already have tags), and released. Fish captured via electrofishing would be handled, measured, allowed to recover, and released in a safe area. Some adult carcasses would also be sampled. The researchers do not expect to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Cramer Fish Sciences (CFS) is seeking a 1-year permit to annually capture, handle, and release MCR steelhead in the 1-mile reach just downstream from Bowman Dam on the Crooked River, Oregon. The purpose of the research is to establish baseline conditions (population numbers, presence, etc.) among the indigenous fish species in the action area so that it can be determined what effect the construction (and operation) of a small hydroelectric facility at Bowman Dam may have on those species. The research will benefit listed species by helping managers at the power facility tailor their operations to cause the least possible harm to the species that may be affected. The researchers will use backpack electrofishing equipment to capture the MCR steelhead. They will then measure the fish, allow them to recover, and release them back to the capture site. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Symbiotics Energy is seeking a 1-year permit to annually capture, handle, and release MCR steelhead at a trapping facility just downstream from Bowman Dam on the Crooked River, Oregon. The study has two goals: (1) To describe the existing aquatic resources in the Crooked River downstream of a proposed hydroelectric project at Bowman Dam, and (2) to determine the survival and injury rates of various species and sizes of fish as they attempt to migrate through the existing flow release facilities at Bowman Dam. The research would benefit the fish by helping managers at the power facility determine the best way to conduct their operations while mitigating adverse effects on local fauna. The researchers would capture the MCR steelhead fish at a screw trap, measure them, and release them back to the river. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The WDFW is seeking a 5-year permit to annually capture, handle, and release juvenile UCR steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and near the Tri-Cities, Washington. The purpose of the research is to gather data on fall Chinook abundance, length frequency distribution, and losses in the area. The information collected from these surveys has been used and continues to be used to evaluate protections for juvenile fall Chinook under the Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement and gauge the efficacy of theCoded Wire Tagging Program for marking of wild Up-River Bright fall Chinook in the Hanford Reach. These surveys can provide biologists and managers with definitive data on the presence of or impacts on both non-listed and ESA Listed Chinook and steelhead residing in near shore habitats in this area of the Columbia River. These data, in turn, would be used to help guide management actions for the benefit of the listed species in the future. The researchers would use beach seines and backpack electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. The captured fish would be anesthetized, measured, allowed to recover, and released back to the river. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking a 5-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HC summer-run chum salmon, PS steelhead, PS/GB bocaccio, and SDPS green sturgeon. The WFC research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon and PS/GB canary rockfish—for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place in the nearshore habitats of Hood Canal and in the Nisqually River estuary. The purpose of the research is to study temporal and spatial usage patterns of juvenile salmon in critical rearing habitats of nearshore habitats. The research would benefit the listed species by helping inform conservation and habitat restoration actions. The WFC would use beach seines and fyke nets to capture the fish. Once captured, all fish would be held in aerated five-gallon buckets of seawater, enumerated by species, measured for length, scanned for coded wire tags (CWT), inspected for adipose fin clips, fin clipped for genetic samples (only from wild juvenile Chinook), and released. To determine their hatchery of origin, hatchery Chinook and coho salmon with coded wire tags would be euthanized using an overdose of MS-222. The researchers do not propose to kill any other listed species being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

Terrafilia is seeking a 5-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be located in Cornet Bay on the northern shoreline of Whidbey Island in Deception Pass State Park. The purpose of Terrafilia's research is to monitor juvenile PS Chinook salmon response to restoration activities in Cornet Bay. The research would benefit the listed species by determining if the region's restoration strategies effectively restore fish habitat and populations. Terrafilia would use a small beach seine to capture the fish. The surveys would be conducted twice a month at 10 sites from early March through the end of June to August. One beach seine set would be made at each site per each sampling day. All fish would be enumerated by species, and fork lengths would be measured for the first 20 individuals of each species. The researchers do not propose to kill any other listed species being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The FWS is seeking a 5-year permit to take listed salmonids while conducting research on hatchery-origin steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington. The goal is to determine the natural reproductive success and relative fitness of hatchery-origin and natural-origin steelhead and to assess the overall demographic effects of hatchery fish supplementation in Abernathy Creek relative to two adjacent control streams. The research would benefit listed salmonids by producing data to be used in hatchery and genetic management plans. The research was previously permitted under a separate research authorization and has been ongoing for several years. The FWS would use backpack electrofishing equipment to capture, handle, and release juvenile salmonids. Steelhead are not listed in these streams, but the FWS have captured juvenile LCR coho salmon and observed adult LCR Chinook salmon in previous years of research. The FWS would avoid electrofishing near adult coho and Chinook. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The NWFSC is seeking a 5-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the Snohomish River estuary. The purposes of the research is to monitor juvenile PS Chinook salmon habitat use in response to multiple restoration activities at the Qwuloolt restoration site adjacent to Ebey Slough. Specifically, the goals are to identify the life history types present, their spatial and temporal distribution, their feeding ecology, and interactions with other biota. The research would benefit the listed species by determining if the restoration strategies are effectively restoring fish habitat and increasing fish populations. Sampling would take place year round: Biweekly from February to September, and then once a month from October to January. Both beach seines (mainstem habitat) and fyke traps (tidal channels) would be used to quantify fish distribution throughout the project area and in adjacent restoration sites. Up to 15 marked and unmarked, juvenile Chinook salmon (10 from each beach seine sampling day, five from each fyke trap site) would be sacrificed using a lethal dose of MS-222 and taken to the lab for further processing. All other juvenile PS Chinook and all PS steelhead captured would be measured (fork length), counted, and released. Any PS Chinook unintentionally killed during the research would be used in lieu of a fish that would otherwise be sacrificed.

The FWS is seeking a 5-year permit to annually capture, handle, and release adult and juvenile MCR steelhead during the course of research designed to describe life history patterns of fluvial bull trout in the lower Walla Walla basin and investigate their use of the mainstem Columbia and lower Walla Walla Rivers. The research would benefit listed species by generating data to be used in local recovery planning efforts and in evaluating the effects of flow management actions in the mainstem Columbia and Walla Walla Rivers. The researchers would use sing nets, hook-and-line fishing, and screw traps to capture the fish. The captured fish would be identified, measured, and quickly released back to the river. The researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking a 5-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HC summer-run chum salmon, and PS steelhead. The USGS's research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon—for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling sites would be in the Cedar, Dungeness, Nooksack, Skagit, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Stillaguamish river systems of the Puget Sound. The purpose of USGS's research is to identify and assess Pacific lamprey distribution in Puget Sound watersheds. The research would benefit the listed species by providing information about salmonid distribution and about Pacific lamprey, an importantcomponent to the Puget Sound ecosystem. The lamprey would be captured via backpack electrofishing and the use of seines. Sampling would target silt-mud substrates that are preferred habitats for juvenile lamprey but are unlikely to harbor salmonids. Samples would be taken in the late summer and fall before peak lamprey emigration. Electrofishing methods would be modified to target juvenile lamprey and would be unlikely to harm them or other fish species. A subsample of the captured lamprey would be measured and weighed (up to 30 per site) and up to five fish per site may be tissue sampled or sacrificed. All other fish (including all listed fish) would be released at the capture site. The researchers do not propose to kill any other listed species being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The FWS is seeking a 5-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be located in the south fork of the Skokomish River. The purpose of FWS's research is to complete an extensive assessment of engineered logjams (ELJs) placed in the Skokomish River by comparing a reach where ELJs were placed with an adjacent reach lacking ELJs. The research would benefit the listed species by assessing if the ELJs increase habitat diversity for both juvenile (rearing) and adult (holding, spawning) salmon and stabilize substrate in the active channel. The FWS proposes to capture fish using a combination of beach and purse seining, electrofishing, and snorkeling. Captured fish would be PIT-tagged and injected with elastomer dyes, or soaked in a Bismarck brown dye. Approximately 25 fish per site would be subjected to gastric lavage. All fish would be released at their capture sites. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking a 5-year research permit to annually take adult SDPS green sturgeon. The WFC research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon—for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place in the Grays Harbor estuary and the lower, tidally-influenced portions of its major tributaries. The purpose of WFC's research is to document the distribution, abundance, habitat use, and timing of juvenile salmonids and other fishes in the Grays Harbor estuary. The research would benefit listed species by helping managers plan salmonid habitat restoration and protection projects. Sampling would consist of beach seining and fyke netting. For green sturgeon, the researchers would measure fork length, photograph scutes, and release the fish. Eulachon would be transferred to buckets, measured for fork length (to determine potential reproductive status), enumerated, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in theFederal Register.

The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

1. Executive Director's Report (including Standard Operations and Procedures (SOPPs) review/approval and update on workshop with International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)).

Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report (including halibut subsistence update);

NOAA Enforcement Report;

United States Coast Guard Report;

United States Fish & Wildlife Service Report;

Protected Species Report (including Steller Sea Lion (SSL) Center of Independent Experts (CIE) Terms of Reference).

2. Pacific Cod Jig Fishery Management: Report on Board of Fisheries action and discuss next steps.

3. Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP): Final action to approve Salmon FMP.

4. Groundfish Harvest Specifications: Approve final BSAI groundfish specifications and Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports. Approve final GOA groundfish specifications and SAFE reports.

5. Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) Crab Stakeholders reports(5-year review issues): Crew compensation/active participation/excessive lease rates; binding arbitration; community issues/Right of first refusal (ROFR).

6. Freezer Longline Vessel Replacement: Initial review of analysis to allow replacement of freezer longline vessels.

7. Halibut Catch Sharing plan: IPHC report on 2012 staff recommendations;ADF&G report on 2010/2011 sport catch estimates, and logbook versus statewide harvest survey comparisons; Council guidance to IPHC for 2012 management measures; Review Charter Halibut Committee report on revising Catch Share Plan (CSP) Tier one management measures; Review NMFS report on CSP deficiencies and provide Council direction.

8. Groundfish Issues: Review Bering Sea Habitat Conservation Area Boundary; Discussion paper on Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Chinook salmon bycatch in all fisheries; Discussion paper on GOA Pacific Cod A-season opening dates; Review/approve Halibut mortality on trawlers Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP); Establishing a Community Quota Entity (CQE)Program in Area 4b; final action.

9. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking.

10. Other Business

The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

1. Groundfish Specifications.

2. FFL vessel replacement.

3. Review/approve halibut mortality on trawler EFP.

The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council, except C-6 Halibut CSP and #1 B reports. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted athttp://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The IOOC was established by Congress under the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and created under the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC). The DMAC-ST was subsequently chartered by the IOOC in December 2010 to assist with technical guidance with respect to the management of ocean data collected under the U.S. IOOS®. The IOOC's Web site (http://www.iooc.us/) contains more information about their charter and responsibilities. A summary of the DMAC-ST meetings, documentations, activities and terms of reference can also be found on-line, at the following address:http://www.iooc.us/committee-news/dmac.

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) directs NMFS to allow, upon request, the incidental taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing), if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals.

Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less 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 certain subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals by the Navy incidental to training and research activities conducted within the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) became effective on January 5, 2009 (74 FR 1456, January 12, 2009). An interim final rule (amending regulations to allow for greater flexibility in the types and amount of sound sources used by the Navy) became effective on February 7, 2011 (76 FR 6699, February 8, 2011), and remains in effect until January 5, 2014. For detailed information on this action, please refer to those documents. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements and establish a framework to authorize incidental take through the issuance of LOAs. Furthermore, a proposed rule to further amend the HRC rule (and 11 other Navy locations), allowing for multi-year LOAs, recently published in theFederal Register.

On August 15, 2011, NMFS received a request from the Navy for a 2-year renewal of an LOA issued on February 7, 2011, for the taking of marine mammals incidental to training and research activities conducted within the HRC under regulations issued on January 5, 2009 (74 FR 1456, January 12, 2009). The request also proposes additional mitigation measures tailored to the use of timed-delay firing devices (TDFDs) during mine neutralization training to ensure that effects to marine mammals resulting from these activities would not exceed what was originally analyzed in the final rule (74 FR 1456, January 12, 2009). The potential effects of mine neutralization training on marine mammals were comprehensively analyzed in the Navy's 2009 final rule and mine neutralization training has been included in the specified activity in the associated 2009, 2010, and 2011 LOAs. However, the use of TDFDs and the associated mitigation measures have not been previously contemplated which is why NMFS is providing the proposed modifications to the public for review.

On March 4, 2011, a mine neutralization training event using TDFDs is believed to have likely resulted in the death of three long-beaked common dolphins in the Navy's Silver Strand Training Complex off the Southern California coast. In short, a TDFD begins a countdown to a detonation event that cannot be stopped. For example, once a detonation is initiated, a 10-minute (min) TDFD allows 10 min to pass before the detonation occurs and the event cannot be cancelled during this time. Following the March 4th event, the Navy initiated an evaluation of mine neutralization events occurring within other training complexes (including HRC) and realized that TDFDs were being used. The Navy has been working with NMFS to develop a more robust monitoring and mitigation plan to ensure that marine mammal mortality and injury would not occur during mine neutralization training activities that involve TDFDs (an estimated 97% of all mine neutralization training events). The following sections provide a detailed description regarding the mine neutralization training activities and the Navy's proposed revisions to mitigation that will prevent mortality and injury to marine mammals.

The Navy is requesting a 2-year LOA in correspondence with a proposed rule to modify the HRC rule (and other Navy rules), which would allow for multi-year LOAs. As explained in the recently published proposed rule, a 2-year LOA would not eliminate NMFS' requirement for annual monitoring and exercise reports. The purpose of the extended LOA is simply to eliminate the need for an annual LOA application. In the past, NMFS has struggled to issue annual LOA renewals on time due to workload constraints, causing the Navy to expend vast amounts of resources in implementing a contingency plan. A 2-year LOA would provide more flexibility for the NMFS and the Navy, while still maintaining the annual reporting requirements to ensure that the Navy does not exceed their authorized takes.

The Navy's current regulations for the HRC (74 FR 1456, January 12, 2009) allow for the taking of marine mammals incidental to a maximum of 340 mine neutralization exercises over the course of 5 years (an average of 68 per year). To date, the Navy has not exceeded their authorized amount. The Navy is not proposing to increase any amount of exercises or authorized take within the HRC. Rather, the Navy is proposing to revise their current mitigation measures to reduce the risk to marine mammals when TDFDs are being used.

TDFDs—devices used to begin a demolition charge after a certain amount of time—are necessary for the realistic training of Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Mobile Dive and Salvage Unit personnel in the Navy. The EOD mission is typically to locate, neutralize, recover, and exploit mines after they are initially located by another source. Once the mine is located, EOD divers are deployed to further evaluate and “neutralize” the mine, or render it safe. The Navy uses both time-delayed and “positive control” methods to initiate a particular underwater detonation depending on the training event objectives in question and applicable to that particular underwater detonation. Positive control firing typically uses a Remote Firing Device (RFD) to instantly initiate a detonation (as opposed to a TDFD).

TDFDs are the simplest, safest, most operationally sound method of initiating a demolition charge on a floating mine or mine at depth. Substitutes for this type of device are contradictory to realistic training and considered inadequate at satisfying military readiness requirements. TDFDs are used because of their light weight, ease ofemployment, and low magnetic signature (in cases of mines sensitive to magnetic fields). Furthermore, TDFDs have a lower risk of accidental detonations from nearby radios or other electromagnetic radiation-producing devices, compared to some positive control devices. The use of TDFDs eliminates the need to redeploy swimmers from a helicopter or boat to recover equipment used with positive control firing devices. TDFDs also allow sufficient time for EOD personnel to swim outside of the detonation plume radius and human safety buffer zone after the timer is set. RFDs can be used as an alternative to TDFDs, but are not typically preferred due to risk of accidental detonation, safety considerations, and established Navy tactical procedures. In an open ocean environment, universal use of RFDs would greatly increase the risk of misfire due to component failure and put unnecessary stress on all needed connections and devices. More specifically, universal use of RFDs would: Add 600-1,000 feet (ft) of firing wire; require building/deploying an improvised, bulky, floating system for the receiver; and add another 180 ft of detonating cord and 10 ft of additional material. Therefore, RFDs are not considered a practicable alternative for all underwater detonations.

Basic underwater detonation training involves neutralizing a simulated mine either at the water's surface or at depth. The ratio of surface to bottom detonations is dependent mainly on range availability and weather conditions, but is typically 50/50. During surface mine neutralization, EOD divers are deployed and retrieved via helicopter. A small boat is used for bottom detonations or if a helicopter is unavailable. During training exercises, a minimum of two boats also participate, regardless of detonation type. Underwater detonations only occur during daylight hours and in sea states equal to or less than Beaufort 3.

Once on site, the applicable mitigation zone is established and 30 min of visual monitoring begins. Divers then enter the water to conduct the training objective, which could include searching for a training object, such as a simulated mine or mine-like shape. For the detonation part of the training, the explosive charge and associated charge initiating device are taken to the detonation point. Military forms of C-4 are used as the explosives. For a surface mine neutralization training event involving a helicopter or a boat, the minimum time-delay for EOD divers to make their way safely outside of the typical 1,000-ft (334-yard [yd]) detonation plume radius/human safety buffer zone is 10 min. For mine neutralization training events at depth, the time-delay can be minimized to 5 min. However, this would require the instructors to handle initiation of the detonation, thereby decreasing the training value for students. Following underwater detonation, additional personnel in support boats (and helicopter, if applicable) monitor the mitigation zone for 30 min. Concurrent with the post-detonation monitoring, divers return to the detonation site to confirm the explosives detonated correctly and to retrieve any residual material.

The rationale used to develop new monitoring zones to reduce potential impacts to marine mammals when using TDFDs is as follows: First, the Navy identified the distances at which the sound and pressure of an explosion attenuate below NMFS' injury criteria (that is, the distance outside of which marine mammals are not expected to be injured). Then, the Navy identified the distance that a marine mammal would be likely to travel during the time associated with the TDFD and added that distance to the injury distance. If this enlarged area is effectively monitored, animals would be detected at a sufficient distance to ensure that they could not swim into the injurious zone before detonation. The Navy used an average swim speed of 3 knots (102 yd/min) for a dolphin to calculate the approximate distance that an animal would typically travel within a given time-delay period. However, NMFS suggested that an additional buffer zone be included to account for the possibility of a marine mammal exceeding the 3-knot swim speed. Therefore, an additional 200-yd buffer was used to calculate a marine mammal's potential distance traveled for each timed-delay length (Table 1).

Based on acoustic propagation modeling conducted as part of the Silver Strand Training Complex (and applied here), the potential for injury to a marine mammal exists within 80 yd of a 5-pound (lb) detonation, 160 yd of a 10-lb detonation, and 360 yd of a 15- to 29-lb detonation. The Navy then used the distances in Table 1 to calculate revised buffer zones for 5-, 10-, and 15- to 29-lb charges by adding the distance traveled for a specific time-delay to the distance of the injury zone for each size charge (Table 2). As long as animals are not observed within the buffer zones before the time-delay detonation is set, then the animals would be unlikely to reach the injury zone within the time-delay window. The current buffer zone for use of positive control devices is 700 yd and will continue to be used for non-TDFD events.

All buffer zones used for mitigation are based on Navy-modeled “underwater zones of influence” (ZOIs), which refer to the sound/pressure propagation based on NMFS' threshold criteria for acoustic harassment. Buffer zones would be established around each detonation point based on a net explosive weight to reduce the risk of injury/mortality to marine mammals. For TDFD events, based on acoustic propagation modeling and anticipated ZOI by training event type and charge weight, potential dolphin travel distances by time can be added to event-specific ZOIs to produce a matrix of charge weight, selected delay time, and applicable mitigation zone as shown in Table 2. While the ZOIs vary between the different types of underwater detonation training, the Navy is proposing to establish an expanded 700-yd mitigation zone for all positive control (RFD) underwater detonations conducted within the HRC.

Finally, the Navy's mitigation zones would be divided into three distances to further minimize risk of marine mammal injury or mortality and to achieve a more practical execution of mitigation measures. The Navy proposes to divide the span of training events into those requiring a 1,000-yd buffer zone (2 boats) and those requiring a 1,400-yd or greater buffer zone (2 boats and 1 helicopter). This was determined by rounding the calculated ranges from Table 2 to the appropriate range category (1,000, 1,400, and 1,500) (Table 3). Although the 5 lb/6 min and 10 lb/7 min distances in Table 2 are slightly greater than 1,000 yd, these charge weight/timed-delay configurations represent less than one percent of all TDFD events. Training events requiring a 1,000-yd buffer zone would utilize a minimum of two boats for monitoring purposes. Training events requiring a 1,400 or 1,500-yd buffer zone would use a minimum of three boats or two boats and one helicopter for monitoring purposes.

The Navy's current mitigation measures in the HRC regulations and subsequent LOAs do not authorize the use of TDFDs when conducting mine neutralization training events and are, therefore, not practicable from a military readiness perspective. The estimated potential for marine mammals to be exposed during mine neutralization training events does not change with the use of TDFDs. This is due to the fact that estimated exposures are based on the probability of an animal's occurrence during a training event, and this probability does not change because of a time-delay. However, what does change is the potential effectiveness of the current mitigation measures. NMFS worked with the Navy to develop the following proposed revisions to the Navy's mitigation measures to minimize the risk of injury and mortality to marine mammals during the use of TDFDs. The following modifications are specific to mine neutralization training events conducted within HRC:

1. Underwater detonations using positive control devices would only be conducted during daylight hours.

2. A mitigation zone of 700 yd would be established around each underwater detonation point.

3. A minimum of two boats would be deployed. One boat would act as an observer platform, while the other boat would typically provide diver support.

4. Two observers with binoculars on one small vessel would survey the detonation area and the mitigation zone for marine mammals beginning at least 30 min prior to the scheduled explosive event and lasting until at least 30 min following detonation.

5. In addition to the dedicated observers, all divers and boat operators engaged in detonation events can potentially monitor the area immediately surrounding the point of detonation for marine mammals.

6. If a marine mammal is sighted within the 700-yd mitigation zone or moving towards it, underwater detonation events would be suspended until the marine mammal has voluntarily left the area and the area isclear of marine mammals for at least 30 min.

7. Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for marine mammals within the mitigation zone would continue for 30 min. Any marine mammal observed after the underwater detonation either injured or exhibiting signs of distress would be reported via Navy operational chain of command to Navy environmental representatives from U.S. Pacific Fleet, Environmental Office. Using Marine Mammal Stranding communication trees and contact procedures established for the HRC, the Navy would report these events to the Stranding Coordinator of NMFS' Pacific Islands Regional Office. These reports would contain the date and time of the sighting, location, species description, and indication of the animal's status.

1. Underwater detonations using TDFDs would only be conducted during daylight hours.

2. Time-delays longer than 10 min would not be used. The initiation of the device would not start until the appropriate mitigation area is clear for a full 30 min prior to initiation of the timer.

3. A monitoring/mitigation zone would be established around each underwater detonation location, as indicated in Table 3, based on charge weight and length of time-delay used. When conducting surveys, boats would position themselves near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but always outside the detonation plume/human safety zone) and travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location, surveying both the inner and outer areas. To the best extent practical, boats would try to maintain a 10-knot search speed to ensure adequate coverage of the mitigation zone. However, weather conditions and sea states may require slower speeds in some instances.

4. TDFD detonations with a mitigation zone of 1,000 yd:

• A minimum of two boats would be used to survey for marine mammals at a distance of 1,000 yd.

• Each boat would be positioned on opposite sides of the detonation location, separated by 180 degrees.

5. TDFD detonations with a mitigation zone of ≥1,400 yd:

• A minimum of three boats or two boats and one helicopter would be used to survey at distances ≥1,400 yd.

• When using at least three boats, each boat would be positioned equidistant from one another (120 degrees separation for three boats, 90 degrees separation for four boats, etc.)

• A helicopter, if available, can be used in lieu of one of the required boats. A helicopter search pattern is dictated by standard Navy protocols and accounts for multiple variables, such as the size and shape of the search area, size of the object being searched for, and local environmental conditions.

6. Two dedicated observers in each boat would conduct continuous visual surveys of the monitoring zone for the duration of the training event.

7. Monitoring zones would be surveyed beginning 30 min prior to detonation and for 30 min after detonation.

8. Other personnel besides boat observers may also maintain situational awareness of marine mammal presence within the monitoring zones to the best extent practical, given dive safety considerations. Divers placing the charges on mines would observe the immediate underwater area around a detonation site for marine mammals and report sightings to surface observers.

9. If a marine mammal is sighted within an established mitigation zone or moving towards it, underwater detonation events would be suspended until the marine mammal voluntarily leaves the area and the area is clear of marine mammals for at least 30 min.

10. Immediately following the detonation, visual monitoring for affected marine mammals within the monitoring zone would continue for 30 min.

11. Any marine mammal observed after an underwater detonation either injured or exhibiting signs of distress would be reported via Navy operational chain of command to Navy environmental representatives from U.S. Pacific Fleet, Environmental Readiness Office. Using Marine Mammal Stranding communication trees and contact procedures established for the HRC, the Navy would report these events to the Stranding Coordinator of NMFS' Pacific Islands Regional Office. These reports would contain the date and time of the sighting, location, species description, and indication of the animal's status.

The locations within the HRC in which training with TDFDs would most often take place are close to shore (about 3-6 nm) and in shallow water (about 10-20 m depth). As part of the annual LOA requirements, the Navy has conducted monitoring in these areas during training events from 2009 to 2011 and spinner dolphins are the only marine mammal that has been sighted. Based on the training location, description of the area, and data from recent monitoring surveys, large whales and other species that prefer deep or offshore waters are not expected to occur in these areas with any regularity. Although not observed by EOD or monitoring surveys, it is possible that Hawaiian monk seals and other dolphin species may be found in the area. However, mitigation measures apply to all species and would be implemented if any marine mammal is sighted.

The additional mitigation and monitoring measures mentioned above will increase the buffer zone to account for marine mammal movement and increase marine mammal visual monitoring efforts to ensure that no marine mammal would be in a zone where injury and/or mortality could occur as a result of time-delayed detonation. Furthermore, the estimated exposures are based on the probability of the animals occurring in the area when a training event is occurring, and this probability does not change based on the use of TDFDs or implementation of mitigation measures (i.e.,the exposure model does not account for how the charge is initiated and assumes no mitigation is being implemented). The potential effects to marine mammal species and stocks as a result of the proposed mine neutralization training activities are the same as those analyzed in the final rule governing the incidental takes for these activities. Consequently, NMFS believes that the take estimates analyzed in the existing final rule do not change as a result of the proposed LOA to include mine neutralization training activities using TDFDs.

Pursuant to NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA, an applicant is required to estimate the number of animals that would be “taken” by the specified activities (for example, takes by harassment or injury). This estimate informs the analysis that NMFS must perform to determine whether the activity would have a “negligible impact” on the species or stock. Level B (behavioral) harassment occurs at the level of the individual(s) and does not assume any resulting population-level consequences, though there are known avenues through which behavioral disturbance of individuals can result in population-level effects. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. Inaddition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), or any other variables (if known), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

Based on the analyses of the potential impacts from the proposed mine neutralization training exercises conducted within the HRC, especially on the proposed improvement to marine mammal monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the modification of the Navy's LOA to include taking of marine mammals incidental to mine neutralization training using TDFDs would have a negligible impact on the marine mammal species and stocks present in the action area, provided that the additional mitigation and monitoring measures described above are implemented.

There are five marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the HRC: humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has begun consultation internally on the issuance of the modified LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for these activities. Consultation will be concluded prior to a final determination on the issuance of the modified LOA.

NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the HRC. NMFS subsequently adopted the Navy's FEIS for the purpose of complying with the MMPA. For the proposed modification, which includes TDFDs, but also adds monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize the likelihood of any additional impacts from TDFDs, NMFS has determined that there are no changes in the potential effects to marine mammal species and stocks as a result of the proposed mine neutralization training events using TDFDs. Therefore, no additional NEPA analysis is required and the information in the existing FEIS remains sufficient.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat and dependent upon the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total taking from Navy mine neutralization training events using TDFDs in the HRC would have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS has proposed issuance of an LOA to allow takes of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's mine neutralization training events using TDFDs, provided that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”), Public Law No. 111-203, Title X, established the CFPB to administer and enforce the federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB will maintain the records covered by this notice.

The new system of records described in this notice, CFPB.009—Employee Administrative Records System will be used to administer the benefits, retirement, human resources, and payroll programs for current and former CFPB employees and their named dependents and/or beneficiaries, as well as to assist in personnel management. A description of the new system of records follows this Notice.

The report of a new system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).

The system of records entitled, “CFPB.009—CFPB Employee Administrative Records System” is published in its entirety below.

In support of the study required under section 1077 of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau seeks information on private education loans and related consumer financial products and services that are currently being offered to or used by students and their families for the financing of postsecondary education. As used in Section 1077 of Dodd-Frank, “private education loans” refers to loans madeby a school or by a financial institution to finance the cost of post-secondary education, but excluding loans guaranteed under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, commonly referred to as “federal” loans.1

Section 1077 of Dodd-Frank requires the Bureau and the Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, to prepare a Report on Private Education Loans and Private Education Lenders (“Report”).2 Section 1077 mandates that the Report address a list of questions, some of which may best be answered with quantitative data. For those questions, the Bureau will initially utilize records already held by the Department of Education, information obtained directly from lenders (both for-profit and non-profit) and industry associations, and information already collected or otherwise available from other public and private sources. To supplement these data and to capture qualitative information that may help to answer the questions posed by Congress, this notice and request for information seeks input from all sources, both inside and outside of the financial services industry, including consumers, financial services providers, schools, organizations, and other members of the public regarding (a) Issues concerning private education loans and lending, where existing quantitative data may be incomplete, and (b) qualitative issues where public input will add perspective that may improve the Report.

We refer the public to the questions posed by Congress in Section 1077 of Dodd-Frank athttp://go.usa.gov/XDr. To assist the Bureau in responding to those questions, we seek public comment on the questions below. The Bureau is particularly interested in learning what information would help students make informed decisions about which financial services and products are right for them and what approaches would best assist recent graduates facing (or about to face) difficulty making private education loan payments. The questions are grouped into four broad categories, (a) Scope and use of private education loans, (b) information and shopping for private education loans, (c) institutional loans, and (d) repayment. Please feel free to respond to all of the questions or only those that interest you, but please be sure to indicate in your comments which questions you are answering.

1. In addition to private education loans, to what extent do students and their families rely on other forms of non-federal debt financing to pay for postsecondary education (e.g.tuition payment plans, student credit cards, parent or family credit cards, home equity lines of credit,etc.)?

2. For students who do not exhaust their federal loan options, including those that require the completion of a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), before turning to private education loans, what explains their choice of private loans?

3. From what sources do students and their families obtain information about private education loans and private lenders? What sources are most helpful and accurate?

a. How effective are the existing disclosures provided by private education lenders regarding the terms and conditions of the loans? Among other things, comments could address issues such as whether students and their families feel they adequately understand the terms and conditions of various financial products offered to finance their education goals.

4. What sources of information do students rely upon to gauge the appropriate amount of student debt when selecting a school or program? Do students rely on financial aid budgets provided by the school or on other sources to determine amounts needed to cover tuition and other expenses? Do they consider ability to repay in choosing amounts of debt to incur? If so, what resources are available to help them determine their ability to repay?

5. To what extent are students offered or solicited to take out private education loans made directly by the school they are attending? How do such programs compare to those offered by non-school private educational lenders (e.g.,interest rates, ease of approval, underwriting criteria, repayment termsetc.)?

6. What types of schools most commonly offer their own private student loan programs? How do schools select the students they deem eligible for their loan programs (e.g.,academic merit, financial need, recruitment, retention)? How are school loan programs funded?

7. How well are the amount and timing of private education loan repayment terms understood (a) When borrowers take out the loan, (b) during school, (c) at graduation, and (d) when repayment begins? Among other things, comments could address individual experiences at each stage of a student's education, or reference existing studies or survey work concerning the percentage of students with different levels of understanding regarding their debt load at each stage of their education.

8. What are the best practices at school financial aid offices in providing students with information about students' future loan payments and ability to afford those payments? The Bureau is particularly interested in steps or programs schools voluntarily use to create or enhance students' awareness of their debt loads and ability to afford their loan payments, as well as any evidence concerning the impact of such initiatives.

9. How much does a student's debt load affect undergraduate field of study or career choices after graduation? To what extent do undergraduates' or recent graduates' debt loads affect their decision to attend graduate school or seek advanced professional degrees?

10. Are students adequately informed of their rights as borrowers on private education loans? What resources are students offered to protect their rights? Who directs them to resources that may help them protect their rights (e.g.,friends, schools, lenders, particular Web sites,etc.)?

11. What financial education techniques and resources have empirically-demonstrated effectiveness in helping borrowers avoid default on private education loans? How prevalent are these techniques and resources? Among other things, the CFPB is particularly interested to learn:

a. Which alternative repayment plans have proven most effective in keeping borrowers out of default and why?

b. Whether private lenders adopted repayment program modifications to respond to the high unemployment rate among recent graduates in the wake of the financial crisis?

c. Are there techniques that private education lenders should try to help reduce default?

d. Have private lenders developed rehabilitation programs for defaulted loans?

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

Agenda:(Please refer tohttp://dtf.defense.gov/rwtf/meetings.htmlfor the most up-to-date meeting information).

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

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces about its mission and functions. If individuals are interested in making an oral statement during the Public Forum time period, a written statement for a presentation of two minutes must be submitted as below and must identify it is being submitted for an oral presentation by the person making the submission.

Identification information must be provided and at a minimum must include a name and a phone number. Individuals may visit the Task Force Web site athttp://dtf.defense.gov/rwtf/to view the Charter. Individuals making presentations will be notified by Friday, December 2, 2011. Oral presentations will be permitted only on Friday December 9, 2011 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. CST before the Task Force. The number of oral presentations will not exceed ten, with one minute of questions available to the Task Force members per presenter. Presenters should not exceed their two minutes.

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

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

Statements, either oral or written, being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed no later than 5 p.m. EST (4 p.m. CST), Wednesday, November 30, 2011 which is the subject of this notice. Statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Task Force until its next meeting. Please mark mail correspondence as “Time Sensitive for December Meeting.”

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

Reasonable accommodations will be made for those individuals with disabilities who request them. Requests for additional services should be directed to Heather Jane Moore, (703) 325-6640, by 5 p.m. EST (4 p.m. CST), Wednesday, November 30, 2011.

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review:New.

Title of Collection:Program Performance Data Audits Project.

OMB Control Number:Pending.

Agency Form Number(s):N/A.

Frequency of Responses:Once.

Affected Public:Not-for-Profit Institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:611.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:610.

Abstract:This clearance request is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development's (OPEPD's) audit of grant program procedures for collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance and evaluation data. This request is necessary because OPEPD within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has contracted with Decision InformationResources, Inc. and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to assess the procedures for collecting and reporting program performance and evaluation data for eleven ED grant programs. These audits and assessments will provide ED with insight into (1) whether the programs' performance data are of high quality and the methods used to aggregate and report those data are sound; and (2) whether the local evaluations conducted by grantees (or their local evaluators) are of high quality and yield information that can be used to improve education programs. This OMB submission requests approval for the use of interview protocols for collecting information from program grantees and their local evaluators and program office contractors. All interview guides are designed to address the major research questions associated with this project. All other data used to address the audit's research questions will come from sources that will not require OMB approval.

Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site athttp://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMainor from the Department's Web site athttp://edicsweb.ed.gov,by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4647. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet addressICDocketMgr@ed.govor faxed to (202) 401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339.

Background:The President directed that the Commission be established to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission will provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission submitted its draft report and draft recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on July 29, 2011. The report is due in January 2012.

This is the eighth open full Commission meeting. Previous meetings were held in March, May, July, September, and November 2010, and February and May 2011. Webcasts of the previous meetings along with meeting transcripts and presentation are available at:http://www.brc.gov.

Purpose of the Meeting:There are two purposes for this meeting. The first is to allow the Co-chairs of the three Subcommittees—Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology, Transportation and Disposal, and Disposal—to review with the Commission proposed revisions to draft subcommittee recommendations formulated as a result of public comment. The full Commission will discuss the proposed revisions. The second purpose is for the Commissioners to be briefed by the newly-formed ad hoc subcommittee that has been investigating the issue of co-mingling of defense and commercial wastes.

Tentative Agenda:The meeting is expected to begin at 9 a.m. on Friday, December 2, 2011. The agenda will include presentations by the three subcommittees of the Commission. The subcommittee presentations are expected to begin at 9 a.m. and end at noon. After a break for lunch, the meeting will resume at 1 p.m. with the presentation from the Commission staff and discussion among the Commissioners. Public statements will begin at approximately 3 p.m. and conclude at approximately 4 p.m.

Public Participation:Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so at the end of the public session on Friday, December 2, 2011. Approximately one hour will be reserved for public comments from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak, but will not exceed five minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should register to do so beginning at 8:30 a.m. on December 2, 2011, at the JW Marriott Washington DC. Registration to speak will close at 1 p.m., December 2, 2011.

Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the subcommittee are invited to send a written statement to Timothy A. Frazier, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, or email:CommissionDFO@nuclear.energy.gov,or post comments on the Commission Web site at:http://www.brc.gov.

Additionally, the meeting will be available via live video webcast. The link will be available at:http://www.brc.gov.

Minutes:The minutes of the meeting will be available at:http://www.brc.govor by contacting Mr. Frazier. He may be reached at the postal address or email address above.

Title III, part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of this notice.1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs of a covered product, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for electric refrigerators and electric refrigerator-freezers is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1.

DOE's regulations for covered products contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver for a particular basic model from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer products when (1) The petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m).

Any interested person who has submitted a petition for waiver may also file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

On September 6, 2011, Sub-Zero filed a petition for waiver from the test procedure applicable to residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A1. Sub-Zero is designing new refrigerator-freezers that incorporate dual compressors. In its petition, Sub-Zero seeks a waiver from the existing DOE test procedure applicable to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under 10 CFR part 430 for Sub-Zero's dual compressor products. Sub-Zero states that the test procedure was designed to test independent, sealed systems while Sub-Zero's dual compressor products have shared systems. Sub-Zero further states that it may not be possible to use the DOE test procedure for these products, or that use of the DOE test procedure would provide inaccurate results. In its petition, Sub-Zero set forth an alternate test procedure developed in conjunction with an independent test laboratory.

Sub-Zero also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. Under 10 CFR 430.27(b)(2), each application for interim waiver must demonstrate likely success of the Petition for Waiver and address the economic hardship and/or competitive disadvantage that is likely to result absent a favorable determination on the application for interim waiver.” An interim waiver may be granted if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied; if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted; and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

DOE has determined that Sub-Zero's application for interim waiver does not provide sufficient market, equipment price, shipments and other manufacturer impact information to permit DOE to evaluate the economic hardship Sub-Zero might experience absent a favorable determination on its application for interim waiver. DOE recognizes, however, that the DOE test procedure for dual compressor systems assumes independent, sealed system and that Sub-Zero dual compressor refrigerators have shared systems. As a result, it is not possible to test these products using the DOE test procedure, and use of the test procedure would provide test results so unrepresentative as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Sub-Zero worked with an independent testing laboratory to develop a test procedure that would accurately measure the energy consumption of its dual compressor products while alleviating the testing difficulties, and submitted the results as an alternate test procedure. DOE reviewed the alternate procedure and determined that it will alleviate the testing problems associated with Sub-Zero's implementation of a dual compressor system. Therefore, it appears likely that Sub-Zero's petition for waiver will be granted.

For the reasons stated above, DOE grants Sub-Zero's application for interim waiver from testing of its refrigerator-freezer product line containing dual compressors. Therefore,it is ordered that:

The application for interim waiver filed by Sub-Zero is hereby granted for Sub-Zero's refrigerator-freezer product lines that incorporate dual compressors subject to the following specifications and conditions:

(1) Sub-Zero shall be required to test and rate its refrigerator-freezer product line containing dual compressors according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section IV, “Alternate test procedure.”

(2) The interim waiver applies to the following basic model groups:

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Sub-Zero may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of refrigerator-freezers for which it seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that grant of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

Further, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may revoke or modify this interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

For the duration of the interim waiver, Sub-Zero shall be required to test the products listed above according to the test procedures for residential electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1, except that, for the Sub-Zero products listed above only, replace the multiple defrost system section 5.2.1.4 of Appendix A1 with the following:

5.2.1.4Dual Compressor Systems with Dual Automatic Defrost. The two-part test method in section 4.2.1 must be used, and the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

Stabilization:

The test shall start after a minimum 24 hours stabilization run for each temperature control setting.

Steady State for EP1:

The temperature average for the first and last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0°F (0.6°C) of the test period temperature average for each compartment. Make this determination for the fresh food compartment for the fresh food compressor cycles closest to the start and end of the test period. If multiple segments are used for test period 1, each segment must comply with above requirement.

Steady State for EP2i:

The second (defrost) part of the test must be preceded and followed by regular compressor cycles. The temperature average for the first and last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0°F (0.6°C) of the EP1 test period temperature average for each compartment.

Test Period for EP2i, T2i:

EP2i includes precool, defrost, and recovery time for compartment i, as well as sufficient dual compressor steady state run cycles to allow T2i to be at least 24 hours. The test period shall start at the end of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). The test period also includes the target defrost and following regular freezer compressor cycles, ending at the end of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle before the next defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). If the previous condition does not meet 24 hours time, additional EP1 steady state segment data could be included. Steady state run cycle data can be utilized in EP1 and EP2i.

Test Measurement Frequency:

Measurements shall be taken at regular interval not exceeding 1 minute.

Through today's notice, DOE grants Sub-Zero an interim waiver from the specified portions of the test procedure applicable to Sub-Zero's line of refrigerator-freezers with dual compressors and announces receipt of Sub-Zero's petition for waiver from those same portions of the test procedure. DOE publishes Sub-Zero's petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the energy consumption of Sub-Zero's specified refrigerator-freezers with dual compressors. Sub-Zero is required to follow this alternate procedure as a condition of its interim waiver, and DOE is considering including this alternate procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.

DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is: Paul V. Sikir, Vice President of Design Engineering, Sub-Zero, Inc., 4717 Hammersley Road, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, Sub-Zero respectfully requests expedited attention to this revised request for both an interim and final waiver to modify the DOE test procedure (Test Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers (Final Rule and Interim Final Rule), 75 Fed. Reg. 78,810 (Dec. 16, 2010)) for Sub-Zero refrigerators using two compressors. Without this waiver, we are unable to certify new dual compressor models as compliant with Energy Star and/or DOE minimum efficiency standards.

Sub-Zero is a family-owned company that has been headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin for over 60 years. Sub-Zero developed the niche market for customized built-in residential refrigeration using dual compressors and manufactures all our products in the United States, with factories in Wisconsin and Arizona. While technically not a “small business” using DOE's definition, Sub-Zero is a small producer of refrigerators striving to compete in an age of large, multi-national manufacturers and is one of the few remaining U.S. companies that produce all of its refrigerator products here in the U.S.

In previous comments to the Department, The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and individual manufacturers including Sub-Zero urged DOE to consider the technical difficulties imposed by the DOE dual compressor test method. DOE's approach in the final test procedure is difficult, if not impossible, to apply. In fact, it will require waivers, such as this one, because many products simply do not work the way DOE's equation assumes. DOE's approach assumes independent, sealed systems. Sub-Zero dual compressor refrigerators do not have independent, sealed systems—they have shared systems. Thus, DOE's approach for these products, at best, requires several added measurements to comply (adding burden), and may even provideinsurmountable obstacles, leading to test results so misrepresentative as to provide inaccurate energy consumption data.

CSA International, which is conducting testing for the AHAM Refrigerator-Freezer Verification Program, has informed us that they also believe that the DOE test procedure is unworkable for our dual compressor refrigerators. The modified test procedure that we propose for DOE's consideration in this waiver request is the product of analysis by CSA International, Sub-Zero and General Electric Appliances resulting in a practical, accurate and repeatable method. CSA International also intends to submit this modified procedure for adoption by Natural Resources Canada.

Since the vast majority of Sub-Zero's models utilize dual compressors, the company's future viability is clearly threatened by this situation and we sincerely ask DOE to grant immediate relief.

AHAM provided an alternative test procedure in its August 10, 2010 comments on the proposed test procedure rule. DOE responded in 75 Fed. Reg. 78,810 (Dec. 16, 2010): “After analyzing this alternative proposal for multiple compressors, DOE does not believe that it simplifies testing of systems with two or more compressors. In particular, it does not alleviate the test procedure burden associated with having to separately measure the energy use for the different systems, which is part of the procedure of the current dual-compressor product test procedure.DOE understands that this is a key difficulty in testing such systems since it introduces burden and that, in some cases, it may be impossible to accomplish, depending on the details of the internal wiring of such products * * * DOE acknowledges that this final rule does not eliminate the difficulty of obtaining separate energy use measurements required in the test procedure for dual compressor products.However, as discussed above, neither does the AHAM-proposed approach.” Thus, DOE acknowledged problems with the current test procedure but did not believe the AHAM proposal provided an adequate solution. We believe the proposed approach in this waiver petition, developed by CSA International, GE and Sub-Zero, addresses DOE's concerns.

The DOE test procedure dual compressor calculation requires the system to be divided into two separate systems—refrigerator and freezer. This is extremely difficult due to the fact that all dual compressor systems use a single power inlet and almost all, including Sub-Zero units, use a single electronic control to control both compressors. Energy testing protocols and laboratory equipment and measurement methods are not capable of evaluating each compressor system separately and individually. Also, the current steady state definition may not be achievable in the dual compressor system due the time required to calculate steady state.

We propose a modified procedure to measure dual compressor energy. This method will use a single electrical data collection system which is same as used in any variable defrost unit energy test procedure. Sub-Zero proposes simplifying EP1 to provide an accurate method for measuring energy that is simpler and less burdensome. It will also decrease the testing burden on manufacturers. To ensure accuracy, dual compressor energy times must be of sufficient length to reduce synchronization errors. With dual compressors, a short T1 or T2 may result in a significant error for the system that does not have full compressor cycles represented. Lengthening out these times reduces this effect. To further reduce error, Sub-Zero recommends that the frequency of measurements taken during the testing should be increased. This will reduce synchronization error and is more consistent with test methods being used in manufacturer's and in third party verification company's labs.

Thus, Sub-Zero requests that DOE modify the multiple defrost system equation in 5.2.1.4 of Appendix A1 as follows:

• 1440 = number of minutes in a day

• ET is the test cycle energy (kWh/day);

• i is the variable that can equal to 1,2 or more that identifies the compartment with distinct defrost system;

• D is the total number of compartments with distinct defrost systems;

• EP1 is the dual compressor energy expended during the first part of the test (it is calculated for a whole number of freezer compressor cycles at least 24 hours in duration and may be the summation of several running periods that do not include any precool, defrost, or recovery periods);

• T1 is the length of time for EP1 (minutes);

• EP2i is the total energy consumed during the second (defrost) part of the test being conducted for compartment i. (kWh);

• T2i is the length of time (minutes) for the second (defrost) part of the test being conducted for compartment i.

• CTi is the compressor on time between defrosts for only compartment i. CTi for compartment i with long time automatic defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A1 clause 5.2.1.2. CTi for compartment i with variable defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A1 clause 5.2.1.3. (rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour) (hours).

Stabilization:

The test shall start after a minimum 24 hours stabilization run for each temperature control setting.

Steady State for EP1:

The temperature average for the first and last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of the test period temperature average for each compartment. Make this determination for the fresh food compartment for the fresh food compressor cycles closest to the start and end of the test period. If multiple segments used for test period 1, each segment must comply with above requirement.

Steady State for EP2i:

The second (defrost) part of the test must be preceded and followed by normal compressor cycle. The temperature average for the first and last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of the EP1 test period temperature average for each compartment.

Test Period for EP2i, T2i:

EP2i includes precool, defrost, and recovery time for compartment i, as well as sufficient dual compressor steadystate run cycles to allow T2i to be at least 24 hours. The test period shall start at the beginning of normal compressor cycle after the previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). The test period includes the target defrost and following normal compressor cycles until the next defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). If the previous condition does not meet 24 hours time, additional EP1 steady state segment data could be included. Steady state run cycle data can be utilized in EP1 and EP2i.

Test Measurement Frequency:

Measurements shall be taken at regular interval not exceeding 1 minute.

Affected Models:

The basic models of Sub-Zero dual compressor refrigerators affected are:

In summary, this is a critical issue for our company and we request that DOE expedite the handling of this petition for an interim and final waiver. Sub-Zero would be pleased to discuss this waiver petition with DOE and provide any additional information that the Department might require. We will also notify all manufacturers of domestically marketed refrigerators known to us of this waiver petition by letter.

Cc: Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706 which is available for online viewing athttp://www.regulations.gov,or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information 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 8:30 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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 the State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP).

Title:State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP) Annual Reporting Form.

ICR numbers:EPA ICR No. 1748.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0337.

ICR status:This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in 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:As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S. Congress included, as part of Section 507, the requirement that each state establish a Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program to assist small businesses in complying with the Act. These programs are generally known as Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs). EPA must provide the Congress with period reports from the EPA Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) on these programs, including their effectiveness, difficulties encountered, and other relevant information. Each state assistance program will submit requested information to EPA for compilation and summarization. This collection of information is mandatory under Section 507(a), (d), and (e) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990. This Act directs EPA to monitor the SBTCPs and to provide a report to Congress. This responsibility has been delegated to the EPA SBO. Response to the collection is not required to obtain or retain a benefit. Information in the annual report to Congress is aggregated and is not of a confidential nature. None of the information collected by this action results in/or requests sensitive information of any nature from the states.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 80 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 ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents:53.

Frequency of response:Annual.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:One per year.

Estimated total annual burden hours:2,120.

Estimated total annual costs:$96,312. This includes an estimated burden cost of $96.312 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is no in increase of the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This reflects EPA's and the SBEAP's desire to make useful data available to the public. The trend among government agencies is toward outcome measures; in the past the data collected through this ICR was of limited use in providing measures of this type. Therefore, the EPA, in consultation with representatives from the state programs, has decided that an increase in the hours would not provide improved data quality and usefulness.

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 to OMB 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 the Project/Document

There is growing concern about the potential effects of climate change on water resources. U.S. EPA and partners have developed two assessment tools, the BASINS Climate Assessment Tool (BASINS CAT) and the Water Erosion Prediction Project Climate Assessment Tool (WEPPCAT), that facilitate application of existing simulation models for conducting scenario-based assessments of potential climate change impacts on water.

This report presents a series of short case studies using the BASINS and WEPP climate assessment tools. The case studies are designed to illustrate the capabilities of these tools for conducting assessments of the potential future effects of climate, land use, and management change on water resources. Climate change scenarios are created based on model projections as well as historical data and past events. Land use change and management scenarios are also included to address questions related to the relative effects of land use versus climate change, and the effectiveness of management practices for reducing impacts.

This report is technical in nature. It is of interest to modeling professionals including water and watershed managers, urban or regional planners, government officials, and scientists and engineers interested in using the BASINS or WEPP water models to assess the potential implications of climate change on water resources.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2011-0914, by one of the following methods:

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

•Email: ORD.Docket@epa.gov;

•Fax:(202)-566-9744;

•Mail:Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is (202) 566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one unbound original with pagesnumbered 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; or

•Hand Delivery:The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0914. 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without going throughhttp://www.regulations.gov,your email 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, 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: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 materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically athttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

The River Forest Dry Cleaners Superfund Site is located in River Forest, Cook County, Illinois. After EPA received an email from a concerned teacher, U.S. EPA conducted indoor air and sub-slab samples in facilities around the Site in November 2009, February 2010 and March 2010. The results did not indicate any level of contamination that warranted a removal action. The removal assessment was completed in March 2010.

U.S. EPA issued a Demand Letter to the Settling Party in September 2010. Between September 2010 and July 2011, EPA and the Settling Party negotiated the present proposed Administrative Settlement.

The following policy reaffirms the Board's commitment to the ethics laws and regulations, its avoidance of ex parte communications in its judicial and rulemaking roles, its commitment to open Government and its role as an independent, arm's length safety and soundness regulator:

DATES: Effective Date:7-NOV-11.

Effect on Previous Actions:None.

Source of Authority:Sections 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended.

Ethics.The body of ethics law, rules and policies are designed to ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Government. FCA, as an agency in the executive branch, is subject to the Federal criminal conflict of interest laws and Office of Government Ethics (OGE) regulations and oversight, including the 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct and the Uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct (Code) (5 CFR part 2635), the restrictions on certain noncareer employees (5 CFR part 2636), the regulations on ethics program responsibilities (5 CFR part 2638), the financial disclosure regulations (5 CFR part 2634), the regulations on acts affecting a personal financial interest (5 CFR part 2640), and the post-employment restrictions (5 CFR part 2641). FCA also has issued supplemental ethics rules with the concurrence of OGE (5 CFR part 4101). In addition, the FCA Board Members, as Presidential Appointees with Senate confirmation (PAS), are subject to any further applicable ethics restrictions that may be imposed by the President of the United States.

Pursuant to the body of ethics laws cited above, the FCA Board will continue to hold itself to the highest standards of ethical conduct in recognition that its commitment and adherence to the Agency ethics program sets the standard for the commitment and conduct of Agency staff. Board Members should avoid actions that could create the impression that they can be improperly influenced. They should also avoid actions that could create the appearance of violating the law, the ethical standards set forth in the Federal and FCA ethical standards of conduct, or other applicable guidance. In decision making, a Board Member should be guided by the integrity of the Farm Credit Act, as amended, and also by the knowledge that he/she is acting on behalf of the public.

Independence.The FCA has been established as an independent Agency to administer laws enacted by the Congress. Its PAS Board Members serve fixed terms as provided by law. Because of its independent status, Board Members should not let their official decisions be swayed by partisan demands. Although the Agency works cooperatively with Congress and the White House, Board Members and employees must remain mindful of their duty to make independent determinations on matters being considered by the Agency. The decisions made by a Board Member will reflect objective understanding and knowledge of the complexity of the matter under consideration.

Arm's-Length Role.The FCA Board Members and Agency staff are committed to maintaining an arm's-length relationship with the System. This means Agency decisions must be independent of any undue influence, favoritism, or special access so that all parties coming before the Agency stand on an equal footing. The Board Members, as final arbiters of Agency actions affecting the System, as well as all Agency employees who have decision-making authority affecting System institutions and related entities, must be especially mindful to conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner, avoiding any actions that create an appearance of a loss of impartiality. This is especially important in light of FCA's examination, rulemaking and adjudicatory functions. While open and informative communications with regulated parties is essential for an effective regulator, the FCA Board and staff will strive to maintain an appropriate balance in its communications with the System, keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances—including the content, timing and setting of such communications—before engaging with the System. FCA Board and staff will consult with the ethics staff whenever in doubt about the propriety of such communications.

Determination of Appearance of Loss of Impartiality.Under the Code's impartiality rule, an appearance concern is judged on the basis of the individual Board Member or employee determining that the circumstances would cause areasonable person with knowledge of the relevant factsto question his or her impartiality in the matter. The rule also permits the DAEO or ethics designee to make an independent determination of whether or not a potential appearance problem would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question a Board Member's or employee's impartiality in a matter.

Ex Parte Communications.In its judicial functions, the Board Members and staff avoid all discussions with persons outside the Agency and its staff as set forth in Agency regulations at 12 CFR part 622.7(j). Specifically, this regulatory provision, in part, prohibits any FCA Board Member or employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process from making or knowingly cause to be made an ex parte communicationrelevant to the merits of the proceeding to any person. In its rulemaking functions, the Board Members and staff also adhere to the ex parte restrictions set forth in Board Policy 37, which governs substantive oral communications with the public during the rulemaking process.

Open Government.The Agency is committed to conducting its business in the sunshine and on the public record as required by law. We also adopt the following core values of an open and accountable FCA as outlined in the President's Open Government memorandum issued in January 2009:

•Transparency:FCA should provide citizens with information about what it is doing to promote knowledge, accessibility and accountability.

•Participation:FCA should actively solicit expertise from the public and from outside Washington so that it makes policies with the benefit of the best information.

•Collaboration:FCA officials should work together with other Government officials and with citizens as part of doing its job of solving national problems.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity is to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery. HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule (PDF file, 450 KB. PDF Help) relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs. AHRQ has accepted a notification from Child Health Patient Safety Organization, Inc., PSO number P0065, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a component PSO of the Child Health Corporation of America (CHCA), after the CHCA hospitals voted to align its governance structure with that of the National Association of Children's Hospitals (N.A.C.H.). Accordingly, the Child Health Patient Safety Organization, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight E.T. (2400) on October 11, 2011. The Child Health Patient Safety Organization, Inc. (Child Health PSO) sought and received a new listing, P0119, as a component PSO of N.A.C.H., which became effective at 12:01 a.m. E.T. on October 12, 2011.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site athttp://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity is to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery. HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule (PDF file, 450 KB. PDF Help) relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs. AHRQ has accepted a notification from Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, PSO number P0062, which is a component entity of Emergency Physicians Insurance Co. RRG (EPIC) to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight E.T. (2400) on October 11, 2011.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site athttp://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity is to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery. HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule (PDF file, 450 KB. PDF Help) relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs. AHRQ has accepted a notification from Peminic, Inc. dba The Peminic Greeley PSO, PSO number P0006, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO as a result of its merger with Verge Solutions, LLC. Accordingly, the Peminic, Inc. dba The Peminic Greeley PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on September 13, 2011. A component of Verge Solutions, LLC sought and received a new listing as Verge Patient Safety Organization, P0118, which became effective on September 14, 2011.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site athttp://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

I. Background

NIOSH and stakeholders have expressed concerns recently about limitations in the NIOSH Carcinogen Policy, prompting NIOSH to initiate a review of the carcinogen policy in 2010. A major limitation in the policy is the use of the term “Potential Occupational Carcinogen” which dates to the 1980 OSHA hazard classification for carcinogens outlined in29 CFR 1990.103and is defined as “* * * any substance, or combination or mixture of substances, which causes an increased incidence of benign and/or malignant neoplasms, or a substantial decrease in the latency period between exposure and onset of neoplasms in humans or in one or more experimental mammalian species as the result of any oral, respiratory or dermal exposure, or any other exposure which results in the induction of tumors at a site other than the site of administration. This definition also includes any substance which is metabolized into one or more potential occupational carcinogens by mammals.” A major limitation of this definition is that the policy allows for only one cancer category, which is “potential occupational carcinogen.” The adjective “potential” conveys uncertainty that is not warranted with many carcinogens such as asbestos, benzene, and others. This policy does not allow for classification on the basis of the magnitude and sufficiency of the scientific evidence. In contrast, other organizations, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) allow for a more differential classification. The revision of the NIOSH Carcinogen Policy also coincides with the international realization that there is a need for more efficient and quicker means of classifying chemicals. Qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches such as hazard banding are increasingly being investigated as a means of addressing the vast numbers of unregulated chemicals. NIOSH has been in collaboration with various organizations to consider utilizing hazard banding approaches to control chemicals. This will also be reflected in the review of the carcinogen and RELs policies.

It is anticipated that NIOSH will develop a report on the revised NIOSH Carcinogen and REL Policies to be made available in 2012. Additional information regarding NIOSH plans to assess and revise the Carcinogen and REL Policy can be found in the April 2011 NIOSH e-news athttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/enews/enewsV8N12.htmland on the NIOSH Cancer and REL Policy Web Topic Page [seehttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/policy.html].

Input from the public is sought on each of the five questions listed below pertaining to the NIOSH Cancer (Carcinogens) and RELs policies.

(1) Should there explicitly be a carcinogen policy as opposed to a broader policy on toxicant identification and classification (e.g.,carcinogens, reproductive hazards, neurotoxic agents)?

(2) What evidence should form the basis for determining that substances are carcinogens? How should these criteria correspond to nomenclature and categorizations (e.g.,known, reasonably anticipated,etc.)?

(3) Should 1 in 1,000 working lifetime risk (for persons occupationally exposed) be the target level for a recommended exposure limit (REL) for carcinogens or should lower targets be considered?

(4) In establishing NIOSH RELs, how should the phrase “to the extent feasible” (defined in the 1995 NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit Policy) be interpreted and applied?

(5) In the absence of data, what uncertainties or assumptions are appropriate for use in the development of RELs? What is the utility of a standard “action level” (i.e.,an exposure limit set below the REL typically used to trigger risk management actions) and how should it be set? How should NIOSH address worker exposure to complex mixtures?

A transcript will be prepared and posted to NIOSH Docket number 240 within 30 days after the meeting. Each person making a comment will be asked to give his or her name and affiliation, and all comments (including their name and affiliation) are considered to be in the public domain, and the transcript will be archived in the NIOSH Docket and posted on a public Web site.

You may submit comments, identified by docket number NIOSH-240 by any of the following methods:

•Mail:NIOSH Docket Office, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, MS-C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.

•Facsimile:(513) 533-8285.

•Email: nioshdocket@cdc.gov.

All information received in response to this notice will be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket Office, Room 111, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. A complete electronic docket containing all comments submitted will be available within 30 days of the closing date on the NIOSH Web page athttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket,and comments will be available in writing by request. NIOSH includes all comments received without change in the docket, including any personal information provided.

The number of prescriptions filled for opioid pain relievers has increased dramatically in recent years. Nearly 257 million prescriptions for opioid drugs were written in the United States in 2009 alone and the increased availability to prescription opioid drugs appear to be contributing significantly to abuse and the potential for overdose in the United States. In the United States, mortality rates closely correlate with opioid sales. In 2007, approximately 36,034 people died from unintentional overdoses. At least 14,459 of these deaths involved prescription opioid analgesics. Moreover, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the number of Americans in 2009 aged 12 and older currently abusing pain relievers has increased by 20 percent since 2002. Naloxone, a mu-opioid antagonist, is an injectable medicine that can rapidly reverse the overdose of either prescription (e.g.,OxyContin) or illicit (e.g.,heroin) opioids. It is currently the standard treatment for those who overdose on opioid drugs, but is most commonly used only by trained medical personnel in emergency departments and on ambulances. The purpose of this public workshop is to discuss the issues around making naloxone more widely available. This includes work to expand its use through the development of novel formulations as well as work to potentially support its use by individuals other than the trained medical personnel currently authorized to use it.

FDA will post the agenda and additional workshop background material approximately 5 days before the workshop at:http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm277119.htm.

Please be advised that approximately 30 days after the public workshop, a transcript will be made available. It will be accessible athttp://www.regulations.gov,and may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (seeComments). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville MD 20857.

The technology describes pharmaceutical compositions of cannabinoids that are useful as tissue protectants, such as neuroprotectants and cardioprotectants. The cannabinoids compounds may be used, for example, in the treatment of acute ischemic neurological insults or chronic neurodegenerative diseases. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as Cannabidiol (CBD), are particularly advantageous since they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7.

Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The above-referenced report contains two summary decisions, a finding of no omitted lands in the bed of Grays Lake and no in-lake avulsion. In addition to those decisions, the report also presents an administrative opinion that the feature known as Grays Lake is a non-navigable body of water. The report was prepared at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. Grays Lake is found in:

The report has three signed originals. One each was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Pacific Regional Office and the Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Office, both in Portland, Oregon. The final report is retained by the BLM Idaho State Office in Boise, Idaho. All copies of the report were signed on August 15, 2011, the same date as the document. The BLM copy will be retained in the file for Group File No. 1355 and is available to the public. It is also available online at the following link:http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/cadastral_survey/field_section/Grays-Lk-determination.html.

If the BLM receives a protest of the avulsion and/or the omitted lands decisions prior to the official filing, the agency will stay filing pending consideration of the protest. The BLM copy will not be officially filed until the day after the protest acceptance period expires, or until all protests have been dismissed or resolved and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC filed an application under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1761) (FLPMA) for a ROW authorization on BLM-managed lands to build an Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) high-speed passenger rail line in compliance with the FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable Federal laws. The railway would extend approximately 200 miles from Victorville, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada. When completed, this project will impact approximately 972 acres of public land. Additionally, 50 acres of public land will be temporarily impacted during construction. The project also includes stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, with associated operations, maintenance, and storage facilities.

The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) was the lead agency for the environmental review of this project. The BLM participated as a cooperating agency. A Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in theFederal Registerby the FRA on April 1, 2011. The FRA signed a ROD on July 8, 2011, approving construction of the DesertXpress Project, which is available online athttp://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml.

The preferred alternative was selected jointly by the BLM and the FRA in the Final EIS. The FRA and BLM both selected this alternative and approved it in their respective RODs. In the preferred alternative, the ROW will allow the tracks to be located within or immediately adjacent to the ROW for the Interstate-15 (I-15) freeway. Between Mountain Pass, California, and Primm, Nevada, the tracks will leave the I-15 ROW and travel through new tunnels in the mountains northwest of I-15, then overland until rejoining the I-15 ROW near Primm.

The BLM has adopted all reasonable mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS regarding public lands. The project area is managed by the BLM in accordance with the California Desert Conservation Area Plan and the Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with both of these plans.

Any party adversely affected by BLM's decision may appeal within 30 days of the date of this notice pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, subpart E. The appeal should state the specific portions of the BLM's decision that is being appealed. The appeal must be filed with the California State Director at 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. According to regulation, BLM decisions issued under 43 CFR part 2800 are and remain in effect pending appeal. (43 CFR 2801.10(b)). Please consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR part 4, subpart E) for further requirements.

The Commission instituted this investigation on June 17, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms Company, Inc. (“T/C”) and Smith & Wesson Corp. (“Smith & Wesson”) of Springfield, Massachusetts (“Complainants”). 76 FR 35469 (Jun. 17, 2011). The complainants named seven respondents: (1) Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada of Bergara, Spain; (2) Blackpowder Products Inc. of Duluth, Georgia; (3) Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, Georgia; (4) Bergara Barrels North America of Duluth, Georgia; (5) Bergara Barrels Europe of Bergara, Spain; (6) Ardesa Firearms of Zamudio (Vizcaya), Spain; and (7) Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc., d/b/a Traditions Sporting Firearms of Saybrook, Connecticut. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,781 (“the ‘781 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,814,694 (“the ‘694 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,140,138 (“the ‘138 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,604,311 (“the ‘311 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 5,782,030 (“the ‘030 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 5,639,981 (“the ‘981 patent”). On July 8, 2011, the ALJ granted Complainants' motion to partially terminate the investigation as to the ‘781 and ‘138 patents. Order No. 7 (July 8, 2011), Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review (July 22, 2011).

The Complainants also filed with their complaint in this investigation a motion for temporary relief directed only to respondents Traditions and Ardesa (collectively, “TEO Respondents”) that requested the Commission to issue a temporary limited exclusion order and temporary cease and desist orders. TheComplainants' motion for temporary relief initially addressed the ‘781, ‘694, ‘138, ‘030, and ‘981 patents. During the initial pre-hearing conference, however, the parties entered into a stipulation that limited the Complainants' motion to the ‘694 patent—specifically, claims 1, 10 and 11. The Initial Determination (“ID”) at issue is the ALJ's denial of the Complainants' motion. In the subject ID, the ALJ analyzed the four factors for determining whether to grant preliminary relief: The likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest.

The ID found that the Complainants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, the ID found that the Complainants failed to demonstrate an irreparable harm from the following: (1) Price erosion; (2) exclusivity erosion; (3) loss of goodwill and reputation; (4) lost sales and market share; or (5) reduced investment. The ALJ found that the lack of irreparable harm precluded temporary relief in this investigation. The ALJ also found the following: a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to claim 10 of the ‘694 patent; that the balance of hardships did not favor either party; and that the public interest would not preclude preliminary relief.

On September 12, 2011, the TEO Respondents filed opening comments and on September 14, 2011, the Complainants submitted reply comments as authorized by 19 CFR 210.66(c), (e)(1). These comments do not take issue with the ALJ's findings regarding the lack of irreparable harm. Instead, the comments principally deal with Complainants' likelihood of success on the merits, challenging various aspects of the ALJ's analyses of infringement and the balance of hardships.

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's ID and the subsequent comments and reply comments, the Commission finds that irreparable harm has not been demonstrated. It was Complainants' burden to demonstrate that such harm was likely absent temporary relief, and it failed to meet that burden.Winterv.Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc.,129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission has therefore determined not to review the ID's finding of lack of irreparable harm and the ID's denial of temporary relief.

Because irreparable harm is dispositive here, the Commission need not evaluate the remaining factors,i.e.,the likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of hardships, or the public interest. Therefore, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on the likelihood of success, the balance of hardships, and the public interest and to take no position on them.See Beloit Corp.v.Valmet Oy,742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

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 section 210.66 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.66).