The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations for improvements to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, seehttp://www.acus.gov.

At its Fifty-sixth Plenary Session, held June 14-15, 2012, the Assembly of the Conference adopted five recommendations. Recommendation 2012-1, “Regulatory Analysis Requirements,” considers the various regulatory analysis requirements imposed upon agencies by both executive orders and statutes. It offers recommendations designed to ensure that agencies satisfy the existing requirements in the most efficient and transparent manner possible. It also provides recommendations on streamlining the existing analysis requirements.

Recommendation 2012-2, “Midnight Rules,” addresses several issues raised by the publication of rules in the final months of a presidential administration. The recommendation offers a number of proposals for limiting the practice of issuing midnight rules by incumbent administrations and enhancing the powers of incoming administrations to review midnight rules.

Recommendation 2012-3, “Immigration Removal Adjudication,” addresses the problem of case backlogs in immigration removals. The recommendation suggests a number of ways to enhance efficiency and fairness in these cases. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) had significant and helpful input during the committee process preceding the adoption of the recommendation by the full Assembly of the Conference.

At the end of the first day of the Fifty-sixth Plenary Session, during deliberation of Recommendation 2012-3, “Immigration Removal Adjudication,” the Assembly had to adjourn due to the lack of a quorum. That determination came after three amendments proposed by DHS to sections 10(b) and 21 of the recommendation failed. There is doubt whether a quorum existed at the time the Assembly voted on those amendments. Moreover, because those amendments failed by relatively narrow margins (one was a tie), they might have succeeded had a quorum been present. The following day, after a quorum had been reestablished, the full recommendation (including the two sections that had been adopted prior to the quorum call) was adopted by a voice vote. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the votes on DHS's amendments, DHS and a number of other members have taken the reasonable view that those two sections carry less persuasive weight than they might otherwise.

An ex post review of all relevant sources has introduced some uncertainty as to whether procedures could have been managed differently. Because the mission of the Conference is to ensure consensus-driven and fair procedures, the Conference has sought and will continue to seek the input of its membership on ways to revise quorum procedures in the future, to ensure that the Conference acts only through a full quorum of its members. We look forward to working with DHS and the Department of Justice to implement the other 35 parts of this important and historic recommendation.

Recommendation 2012-4 addresses a variety of issues that have arisen since the Paperwork Reduction Act was last revised in 1995. It recommends ways to improve public engagement in the creation and review of information collection requests and to make the process more efficient for the agencies and the Office of Management and Budget. It also suggests ways to streamline the review and approval process without increasing the burden on the public of agency information collections.

Recommendation 2012-5 addresses the problem of overlapping and fragmented procedures associated with assigning multiple agencies similar or related functions, or dividing authority among agencies. The recommendation proposes some reforms aimed at improving coordination of agency policymaking, including joint rulemaking, interagency agreements, agency consultation provisions, and tracking and evaluating the effectiveness of coordination initiatives.

The Appendix (below) sets forth the full text of these five recommendations. The Conference will transmit them to affected agencies and to appropriate committees of the United States Congress. The recommendations are not binding, so the relevant agencies, the Congress, and the courts will make decisions on their implementation.

The Conference based these recommendations on research reports that it has posted at:http://www.acus.gov/events/56th-plenary-session/.A video of the Plenary Session is available at the same web address, and a transcript of the Plenary Session will be posted once it is available.

Over the past several decades, the United States Congress and various Presidents have imposed numerous regulatory analysis requirements on administrative agencies in connection with their rulemaking activities. Some of these requirements are relatively sweeping measures designed to ensure that agencies' regulations advance legitimate goals, such as Executive Order (EO) 12,866's requirement that executive agencies analyze the benefits and costs of proposed regulations.1 Other requirements are more specific mandates that agencies take into account certain factors when drafting regulations, including the proposed rules' effects on small businesses,2 intergovernmental relations,3 constitutionally protected property rights,4 or the well-being of families.5

Some of the regulatory analysis requirements created by statute and executive orders have similar elements. For instance, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), and EO 12866 all require agencies to discuss the need for a proposed regulatory action, assess the costs and benefits of the proposal, and discuss alternative regulatory actions that could have been selected.6 EO 13132 requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on State and local governments, and EO 13175 similarly requires agencies to assess the impact of proposed rules on Native American tribal governments.7

Nevertheless, even relatively similar analytical requirements have distinct scopes, triggering events, and exceptions.8 For instance, although UMRA and EO 12866 cover the same agencies and require similar types of analysis, UMRA covers far fewer rules than the executive order. The various requirements also differ in the amount of discretion provided to agencies to determine whether an analysis is required. For example, EO 12,866's analysis requirement applies in any rulemaking with an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. In contrast, EOs 13132 and 13175 are triggered when a regulation has “substantial direct effects” on State or Native American tribal governments, respectively, but neither executive order defines the phrase, thereby allowing agencies to determine what constitutes a “substantial direct effect.”9 As a result, agencies may adopt differing perspectives on events that implicate any given regulatory analysis requirement, thereby resulting in inconsistency throughout the government. Therefore, although certain aspects of the various analysis requirements could theoretically be consolidated,10 the numerous distinctions among the requirements complicate any effort to consolidate and streamline them.

In this Recommendation, the Conference has sought to ensure that agencies fulfill the various regulatory analysis requirements in the most efficient manner possible and to enhance the transparency of the process by encouraging agencies to identify explicitly which of the requirements apply to any given rulemaking and why any applicable analytical requirements are not triggered. Also, agencies should be able to refer to a comprehensive list of cross-cutting regulatory analysis requirements, and they should identify any agency-specific or statute-specific requirements applicable to their rules.11

In addition, the Conference asks the Executive Office of the President and Congress to consider streamlining the existing regulatory analysis requirements. It encourages the Executive Office of the President and Congress to consider consolidating certain analysis requirements to the extent overlap exists and to promote uniformity in the determination of whether any given analysis requirement applies. Although the Conference seeks to assure that existing analytic requirements are applied in the most efficient and transparent manner possible, it does not address whether the number or nature of those requirements might not be reduced in light of their cumulative impact on agencies.

1. The Executive Office of the President should request that an appropriate agency prepare and post on its Web site a chart listing the various cross-cutting analytical rulemaking requirements (i.e., those that apply generally to a group of agencies rather than a specific agency or issue); the chart should provide links to the relevant statutes and executive orders establishing these requirements.12 The chart should be designed to serve as a useful resource to agencies for identifying analysis requirements that might apply; it would not constitute a formal “checklist” that agencies must complete or represent a judgment that an agency need comply only with the requirements enumerated in the list.

2. To the extent certain regulatory analysis requirements are agency-specific or statute-specific, affected agencies should prepare and post on their Web sites a list of all such additional requirements (beyond the cross-cutting requirements described in Recommendation 1), along with links to the underlying statutes.

3. In order to minimize the burden and duplication that agencies face in conducting separate regulatory analyses, the Executive Office of the President and Congress should reviewrequirements on an ongoing basis to determine if any of them should be consolidated or eliminated.

4. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) should notify agencies that an analytical requirement for which it plays a central coordinating role might be satisfied by another applicable analytical requirement, and that the agencies may not need to prepare a separate analysis to satisfy the former requirement in such instances.13

5. In developing any future guidance on regulatory analysis requirements, OIRA should consider the cumulative impact of those requirements and, to the extent possible, integrate the requirements into existing formats for analysis.

6. In the preamble to each significant proposed or final rule, agencies should briefly indicate which of the cross-cutting and agency-specific or statute-specific regulatory analysis requirements arguably apply to the particular rulemaking under consideration, and why any specific requirement is not triggered.14 In so doing, the agency may utilize the lists of regulatory analysis requirements described in the first and second recommendations. An example for a hypothetical regulation that might be construed to have potential effects on the economy, states, and the environment but that ultimately does not trigger any of the associated regulatory analysis requirements is provided in the form of a chart15 :

There has been a documented increase in the volume of regulatory activity during the last months of presidential terms.1 This includes an increase in the number of legislative rules (normally issued under the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice and comment procedures)2 and non-legislative rules (such as interpretive rules, policy statements, and guidance documents) as compared to other periods. This spurt in late-term regulatory activity has been criticized by politicians, academics, and the media during the last several presidential transitions. However, the perception of midnight rulemaking as an unseemly practice is worse than the reality.

The Conference has found that a dispassionate look at midnight rules3 issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the November election and many were relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.4 The Conference's study found that while there are isolated cases of midnight rules that may have been timed to avoid accountability5 the majority of the rules appear to be the result of finishing tasks that were initiated before the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines outside the agency's control (such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines). Accordingly, it appears that the increase in rulemaking at the end of an administration likely results primarily from external delays, the ordinary tendency to work to deadline, or simply a natural desire to complete projects before departing. Nonetheless, the timing of such rulemaking efforts can put a new administration in the awkward position of having to expeditiously review a substantial number of rules and other actions to assess the quality and consistency with its policies.

The following business will be conducted: The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under title II of the Act. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Sep 1, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lee A. Benson, c/o Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 327, Yakutat, AK 99689, by email tolabenson@fs.fed.us,or via facsimile to 907-784-3457. A summary of the meeting will be posted athttps://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf/Web_Agendas?OpenView&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=Yakutatwithin 21 days of the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations:If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The agenda topics for the August 23, 2012 meeting include reviewing new RAC project proposals, reviewing progress on current projects, and receiving public comment. The agenda topics for the September 20, 2012 meeting include answering committee questions regarding project proposal submissions and voting on projects for recommendation. If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Clark Fork Valley Press, and Sanders County Ledger.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Introductions of all committee members, replacement members and Forest Service personnel. (2) Selection of a chairperson by the committee members. (3) Receive materials explaining the process for considering and recommending Title II projects; and (4) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

The following business will be conducted: Committee will review proposed projects and, after coming to a consensus on worthy projects, recommend those for funding. Visit the National Forests in Florida's Web site for more information including the meeting agendahttp://www.fs.usda.gov/florida.Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting.

The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 7, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Denise Rains, U.S. Forest Service, 325 John Knox Road, Suite F-100, Tallahassee, FL 32303, or by email todrains@fs.fed.us,or via facsimile to 850-523-8505, Attention: Denise Rains. A summary of the meeting will be posted athttp://www.fs.usda.gov/floridawithin 21 days of the meeting.

The agenda will include a review, and evaluation, of FY 2013 Title II proposals including presentations by project proponents. Business items will include the prioritization and ranking of proposals by the RAC, including final recommendations for funding of fiscal year 2013 projects.

All Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public. There will be a time for public input and comment. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

Background

On July 24, 1996, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy.1 On remand, Del Verde S.p.A. was found to have ade minimisdumping margin, and was therefore excluded from the antidumping order.2

On July 18, 2012, Delverde Industrie requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review to determine that, for purposes of the antidumping law, Delverde Industrie is the successor-in-interest to Del Verde S.p.A.3

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.4

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 theHTSUSsubheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.5

Based on the information Delverde Industrie submitted in its July 18, 2012, letter, we find that we have received information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of such a review in order to determine whether Delverde Industrie is the successor-in-interest to Del Verde S.p.A.6 Therefore, in accordance with the above-referenced statute and regulation, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review.

We intend to issue the final results of the changed circumstances review within 270 days from the date of initiation of this changed circumstance review, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review.7 During the course of this review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise. The cash deposit rate will be changed, if warranted, pursuant only to the final results of the changed circumstances review.

This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

I. Abstract

The questionnaire approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in August 2011 has been revised in order to be a more effective tool for gathering information on the use of elevators during building evacuations. Some questions and possible answers to those questions have been revised or modified to ensure privacy of possible respondents.

NIST's research on elevators has primarily focused on the technicalaspects of ensuring safe and reliable evacuation for the occupants of tall buildings. In addition, the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association provide requirements for the use of elevators for both occupant evacuation and fire fighter access into the building. However, there still is little understanding of how occupants use elevator systems during fire emergencies.

The main focus of this research effort is to gain an understanding of how elevators are currently used by occupants of existing multi-story buildings in the United States during fire emergencies. This research aims to summarize emergency plans and procedures from buildings that make use of one or multiple elevators from the existing elevator system (used for normal building traffic) for the evacuation of building occupants during fire emergencies. Building managers and designated safety personnel from existing buildings in the United States, including federal buildings, will be contacted to fill out a questionnaire asking how the buildings' evacuation plans incorporate the use of the existing elevator system to evacuate occupants during fire emergencies, specifically individuals with disabilities, if at all.

This data will be collected electronically. Questionnaires will be made available on a secured Web site and the link to this Web site will be distributed by NIST staff to building property managers and designated safety personnel.

OMB Control Number:0693-0061.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission (reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection).

Affected Public:Selected individuals, such as building managers and designated safety personnel, who are familiar with or in charge of developing emergency procedures for multi-story buildings in the United States, including both federal and private sector buildings.

Estimated Number of Respondents:1,500.

Estimated Time per Response:15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:375.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$0.

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

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

This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq.) authorizes the use of research and monitoring within National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS). In 1996, the Flower Gardens Bank National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS) was added to the system of NMS via 15 CFR part 922, subpart L. In 2001, Stetson Bank was added in a revision of 15 CFR part 922.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) specifies that each NMS should revise their management plans on a five-year cycle. The FGBNMS has begun the management plan review process. The NMSA also allows for the creation of Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs). SACs are comprised of representatives of all NMS stakeholders. Management Plan Review (MPR) is a public process and the SACs, along with a series of public meetings, are used to help scope out issues in revising the management plans and regulations. SAC Working Groups are often used to evaluate management or regulatory alternatives. In the current MPR for the FGBNMS, two major issues have emerged: Boundary expansion and research-only areas. In addition, several new or modified regulations are being considered to meet specific needs for diver safety and resource protection (no anchoring/mooring buoy use requirement and a more stringent pollution discharge regulation).

To address each one these issues, a socioeconomic panel composed of NOAA staff and social scientists from other agencies, or from universities, developed information and tools to assess the socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives. The information and tools developed in this process will also provide the necessary information for meeting agency requirements for socioeconomic impact analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12086 (Regulatory Impact Review) and an Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (impacts on small businesses). Our initial plan, as the first step in the assessment process, was to interviewthree key sanctuary user groups—commercial fishers, for-hire recreational dive operations, and for-hire recreational fishing operations (charter and party/head boat operations)—with questions focusing on: (1) General information, economic information, and trip costs; and (2) knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of sanctuary management strategies and regulations.

In 2011-2012, the for-hire dive and fishing industry interviews were completed. The commercial fisheries interviews were not begun due to lack of funding; NMFS have the funding now and expect to complete these interviews. The for-hire dive and fishing industries are dynamic with entry and exit of businesses. We estimate the possibility of up to four new businesses over the next three years.

Interviews will be conducted face-to-face and recorded on paper forms.

OMB Control Number:0648-0597.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:27.

Estimated Time per Response:3 hours per interview.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:81.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee will advise the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice.

(a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

(b) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

(c) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

(d) any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on August 29, 2012, from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on August 30, 2012, from 2:45 p.m. to 3 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements.

In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by August 17, 2012 to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after August 17, 2012, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Matters to Be Considered: This is the inaugural meeting of the Committee. As such, the meeting will focus on swearing in the new members and defining the vision and outcomes expected of the Committee, including agency insights on the U.S. IOOS enterprise from NOAA and IOOC leadership. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted athttp://www.ioos.gov/about/governance/ioos_advisory_committee.html.

Special Accomodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jessica Snowden, alternate Designated Federal Official at 301-427-2453 by August 15, 2012.

This workshop will address the need for improved stock assessment approaches for protogynous fish, by bringing together a range of stock assessment and other fisheries scientists to provide an overview of current and innovative methods for assessing protogynous fish, and to discuss data needs and modeling strategies.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Council formed the Amendment 24 Workgroup to develop proposals for modifying the process to periodically establish and adjust harvest levels and management measures for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. The Workgroup met August 1-2, 2012, to develop proposals for the Council to consider in November 2012. During this teleconference the Workgroup will review and discuss a draft of the report to be delivered at the November Council meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

I. Abstract

Under the Inventors' Rights Act of 1999, as found in 35 U.S.C. 297 and implemented by 37 CFR Part 4, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to provide a forum for the publication of complaints concerning invention promoters and responses from the invention promoters to these complaints. An individual may submit a complaint concerning an invention promoter to the USPTO, which will forward the complaint to the invention promoter for response. The complaints and responses will be published and made available to the public on the USPTO Web site. The USPTO does not investigate these complaints or participate in any legal proceedings against invention promoters or promotion firms.

Complaints submitted to the USPTO must identify the name and address of the complainant and the invention promoter or promotion firm, explain the basis for the complaint, and include the signature of the complainant. The identifying information is necessary so that the USPTO can forward the complaint to the invention promoter or promotion firm and also notify the complainant that the complaint has been forwarded. Complainants should understand that the complaints will be forwarded to the invention promoter for response and that the complaint and response will be made available to the public as required by the Inventors' Rights Act. If the USPTO does not receive a response from the invention promoter, the complaint will still be published without the response. The USPTO does not accept complaints under this program if the complainant requests confidentiality.

This information collection includes one form, Complaint Regarding Invention Promoter (PTO/SB/2048), which is used by the public to submit a complaint under this program. This form is available for download from the USPTO Web site. Use of this form is not mandatory as long as the complaint includes the necessary information and is clearly marked as a complaint filed under the Inventors' Rights Act. There is no associated form for submitting responses to the complaints.

By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO.

OMB Number:0651-0044.

Form Number(s):PTO/SB/2048.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public:Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:50 responses per year. The USPTO estimates that approximately 60% of these responses will be from small entities.

Estimated Time per Response:The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit a complaint to the USPTO and approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for an invention promoter or promotion firm to prepare and submit a response to a complaint.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:18 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:$2,968. The USPTO expects that complaints will be prepared by paraprofessionals or independent inventors. Using the average of the paraprofessional rate of $122 per hour and the estimated rate of $30 per hour for independent inventors, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for preparing the complaints will be approximately $76 per hour. The USPTO expects that the responses to the complaints will be prepared by attorneys or invention promoters. Using the average of the professional rate of $371 per hour for attorneys in private firms and the estimated rate of $100 per hour for invention promoters, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for preparing the responses to the complaints will be approximately $236 per hour. Therefore, the respondent cost burden for this collection is estimated to be $2,968 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:$393. The public may incur postage costs when submitting a complaint or a response to a complaint by mail to the USPTO. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed complaint will be 45 cents. Promotion firms may choose to send responses to complaints using overnight mail service at an estimated cost of $18.95 per response. Therefore, the total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs is estimated to be $393 per year.

On 6/8/2012 (77 FR 34026-34027) and 6/15/2012 (77 FR 35942-35944), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed action.

If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

The text of the Complaint appears below.

1. This is an administrative enforcement proceeding pursuant to Section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2064, for public notification and remedial action to protect the public from the substantial risks of injury presented by aggregated masses of high-powered, small rare earth magnets known as Zen MagnetsTMRare Earth Magnetic Balls, imported and distributed by Zen Magnets, LLC (“Zen” or “Respondent”).

2. This proceeding is governed by the Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings before the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), 16 CFR Part 1025.

3. This proceeding is instituted pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 15(c), (d), and (f) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), (d), and (f).

4. Complaint Counsel is the staff of the Division of Compliance within the Office of the General Counsel of the Commission (“Complaint Counsel”). The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to Section 4 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2053.

5. Upon information and belief, Zen is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business located at 4155 E. Jewell Avenue, Suite 908, Denver, Colorado 80222.

6. Respondent is an importer and distributor of the Subject Products known as Zen MagnetsTM.

7. As importer and distributor of the Subject Products, Respondent is a “manufacturer” and “distributor” of a “consumer product” that is “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11).

8. The Subject Products are imported and distributed in U.S. commerce and offered for sale to consumers for their personal use in or around a permanentor temporary household or residence, a school, and in recreation or otherwise. The Subject Products consist of small, individual magnets that are packaged as aggregated masses in containers of varying size. These containers hold anywhere from 72 to 1,728 small magnets. Each magnet ranges in size from approximately 5.03 mm, with a chrome coating, and a flux index of over 50.

9. Upon information and belief, the flux index of the Subject Products ranges from 577.1 to 581.4 kg2mm.2

10. Upon information and belief, Respondent introduced the Subject Products into U.S. commerce in July 2009.

11. Upon information and belief, the Subject Products are currently manufactured by Bestway Magnet Corp. No. 225, Northern Section of Huancheng Westroad, Ningbo, China.

12. Upon information and belief, Respondent advertised and marketed the product in 2009 and 2010 as “fun to play with” strong rare-earth magnets that “look good on cute people” and can act as stress relief and a way to relieve boredom.

13. Upon information and belief, in 2011 Respondent began advertising and marketing the product as a “magnetic science kit” in addition to the uses listed above.

14. Upon information and belief, the Subject Products are sold in a velvet sack, or an MDF hard case for the sets of 72 and 216 magnets. The larger set of 1,728 magnets is packaged in a velvet-lined wooden teak box. The sets range in retail price from approximately $12.65 to over $250.00 for the largest set.

15. Upon information and belief, more than 57,000 of the Subject Products have been sold to consumers in the United States.

16. The Subject Products pose a risk of magnet ingestion by children under the age of 14, who, consistent with developmentally appropriate behavior, may place single or numerous magnet balls in their mouths. The risk of ingestion also exists when adolescents use the product to mimic piercings of the lip, tongue, and cheek and accidentally swallow the balls.

17. If two or more of the magnets are ingested and their magnetic forces pull them together, the magnets can pinch or trap the intestinal walls or other digestive tissue between them resulting in acute and long-term health consequences. Magnets that attract through the walls of the intestines result in progressive tissue injury, beginning with local inflammation and ulceration, progressing to tissue death, then perforation or fistula formation. Such conditions can lead to infection, sepsis, and death. Ingestion of more than one magnet often requires medical intervention, including endoscopic or surgical procedures. However, because the initial symptoms of injury from magnet ingestion are nonspecific and may include nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, caretakers, parents, and medical professionals may easily mistake these nonspecific symptoms for other common gastrointestinal upsets, and erroneously believe that medical treatment is not immediately required.

18. Medical professionals may not be aware of the dangers posed by ingestion of the Subject Products and the corresponding need for immediate evaluation and monitoring. A delay of surgical intervention due to the patient's presentation with nonspecific symptoms and/or a lack of awareness by medical personnel of the dangers posed by multiple magnet ingestion can exacerbate life-threatening internal injuries.

19. Magnets that become affixed through the gastrointestinal walls and are not surgically removed may result in intestinal perforations that can lead to necrosis, the formation of fistulas, or ultimately, perforation of the bowel and leakage of toxic bowel contents into the abdominal cavity. These conditions can lead to serious injury and possibly even death.

20. Endoscopic and surgical procedures may also be complicated in cases of multiple magnet ingestion due to the attraction of the magnet balls to the metal equipment used to retrieve the magnets.

21. Children who undergo surgery to remove multiple magnets from their gastrointestinal tract face long-term health consequences, including intestinal scarring, nutritional deficiencies due to loss of portions of the bowel, and possible fertility issues for women.

22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

23. Upon information and belief, many children have ingested products (the “Ingested Products”) that are almost identical in form, substance, and content to Zen MagnetTMproducts.

24. Upon information and belief, the Ingested Products are marketed in substantially similar ways as Zen MagnetTMproducts.

25. Upon information and belief, the Ingested Products are used in substantially similar ways to Zen MagnetTMproducts.

26. Upon information and belief, some models of the Subject Products are sold in packaging that contain the following warning on a small slip of paper:

27. The packaging also states:

28. On October 11, 2011, staff notified Respondent that Zen MagnetsTMfailed to comply with ASTM Standard F963-08, which required that such products be marketed to children 14+.

29. On November 10, 2011, the Commission issued a public safety alert warning the public of the dangers of the ingestion of rare earth magnets.

30. Upon information and belief, Respondent only recently changed its product's marketing to comply with ASTM Standard F963-08. Its Web site now states that “CPSC recommends minimum age of 14” and “U.S. Government age recommendation is 14 years.”

31. Despite the Commission safety alert and enhanced warnings on the Subject Products and the Ingested Products, ingestions of Ingested Products continue to occur.

32. Warnings are ineffective for the Subject Products because parents and caregivers do not realize the hazards associated with the Subject Products of magnet ingestion, and as a result, they will continue to allow children to have access to the Subject Products. Children cannot, and do not, recognize the hazard either, and as a result, they will continue to mouth the items, swallow them, or in the case of young adolescents and teens, mimic body piercings.

33. Warnings are ineffective for the Subject Products because once the Subject Product is removed from its packaging, the individual magnets display no warning against ingestion or aspiration, and the small size of the individual magnets precludes the addition of such a warning.

34. Warnings are ineffective because individual magnets are easily shared among children so that many end users of the product are likely to have had no exposure to any warning.

35. The Subject Products are defective because their packaging and warning labels cannot guard against the foreseeable misuse of the product and prevent the substantial risk of injury to children.

36. Therefore, the Subject Products are defective pursuant to sections 15(a)(2) of the CPSC, 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2).

37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

38. The Subject Products are defective because they do not operate exclusively as intended, and thus, they present a substantial risk of injury to the public. Although the Subject Products warn against placing the magnets in the mouth, misuse is foreseeable nonetheless.

39. The Subject Products present a substantial risk of injury to children because the individual magnets are intensely appealing to children due to the tactile features, small size, and highly reflective, shiny metallic coatings of the magnets.

40. The Subject Products are also appealing to children because the individual magnets are smooth, unique, and make a soft snapping sound as they are manipulated.

41. The Subject Products also move in unexpected, incongruous ways as the poles on the magnets move to align properly, which may evoke a degree of awe and amusement among children.

42. The Subject Products also have the unique capability of adhering to one another through body tissue, enabling adolescents to use the magnets to mimic body piercings. This can be appealing to adolescents who are experimenting with what they, and their caregivers, might erroneously believe to be safer risk-taking than getting an actual body piercing.

43. The Subject Products present a substantial risk of injury to children because they do not act solely as adult products or manipulatives.

44. The Subject Products present a substantial risk of injury to children because they are marketed to appeal to both children and adults.

45. The Subject Products are marketed as “fun to play with” products that “look good on cute people.”

46. The Subject Products are marketed and intended to be used as a “science kit” that “commemorate the natural rhythm of geometric shapes, and rouse the dreams of inspired imaginations.”

47. The packaging of the Subject Products also constitutes a design defect. The velvet bags and assorted boxes that are designed to hold the Subject Products do not prevent children from accessing the magnets; nor do they prevent individual magnets from detaching from the product and getting lost. In addition, the packaging of the Subject Product does not allow parents and caregivers to know readily whether a magnet is missing, and is potentially within the reach of a young child, who could get a hold of it and may mouth or ingest the product.

48. The hazard posed by the Subject Products cannot be remedied by different packaging because users are unlikely to return the magnets to any container or case to store them, regardless of the packaging design. Users of the Subject Products are unlikely to disassemble magnet configurations, many of which are elaborate and time-consuming to create, and replace them in a case or container after each use. This is more likely with the subject product which comes with a steel plate upon which designs can be affixed and will likely be displayed.

49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

50. The Subject Products present a substantial risk of injury because the pattern of defect—failure to operate exclusively as an adult toy, failure to communicate warnings effectively, and marketing the product for uses applicable to children under the age of 14—is present in all of the Subject Products.

51. Therefore, the Subject Products present a substantial product hazard within the meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(a)(2), by reasons of the substantial risk of injury or death alleged in paragraphs 1 through 48 above.

52. The Respondent has refused to stop sale and conduct a recall of the Subject Products voluntarily.

Wherefore, in the public interest, Complaint Counsel requests that the Commission:

A. Determine that Respondents' Subject Products, known as Zen MagnetsTM, present a “substantial product hazard” within the meaning of Section 15 U.S.C. § 2064(a)(2).

B. Determine that extensive and effective public notification under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), is required to protect children adequately from the risks of injury presented by rare earth magnet products, and order Respondent under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c) to:

(1) Cease importation and distribution of the Subject Products;

(2) Notify all persons and entities that transport, store, distribute, or otherwise handle the Subject Products, or to whom such product has been transported, sold, distributed, or otherwise handled, to cease distribution of the product immediately;

(3) Notify appropriate state and local public health officials;

(4) Give prompt public notice of the defect in the Subject Products, including the incidents and injuries associated with ingestion or aspiration, including posting clear and conspicuous notice on its Internet Web site, providing notice to any third party Internet Web site on which Respondent has placed the product for sale, and announcements in languages other than English and on radio and television where the Commission determines that a substantial number of consumers to whom the recall is directed may not be reached by other notice;

(5) Mail notice to each distributor or retailer of the Subject Products; and

(6) Mail notice to every individual to whom the person required to give notice knows such product was delivered or sold.

C. Determine that action under Section 15(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(d), is in the public interest, and additionally, order Respondent to:

(1) Refund consumers the purchase price of the Subject Products;

(2) Make no charge to consumers and to reimburse consumers for any reasonable and foreseeable expenses incurred in availing themselves of any remedy provided under any Commission Order issued in this matter, as provided by Section 15 U.S.C. 2064(e)(1);

(3) Reimburse retailers for expenses in connection with carrying out any Commission Order issued in this matter, including the costs of returns, refunds, and/or replacements, as provided by Section 15 U.S.C. 2064(e)(2);

(4) Submit a plan satisfactory to the Commission, within ten (10) days of service of the Final Order, directing that actions specified in Paragraphs B(1) through (5) and C(1) through (3) above be taken in a timely manner;

(5) To submit monthly reports, in a format satisfactory to the Commission, documenting the progress of the corrective action program;

(6) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final Order in this matter, to keep records of its actions taken to comply with Paragraphs B(1) through (5) and C(1) through (4) above, and supply these records to the Commission for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Final Order;

(7) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final Order in this matter, to notify the Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to any change in its business (such as incorporation, dissolution, assignment, sale, or petition for bankruptcy) that results in, or is intended to result in, the emergence of a successor corporation, going out of business, or any other change that might affect compliance obligations under a Final Order issued by the Commission in this matter; and

D. Order that Respondent shall take other and further actions as the Commission deems necessary to protect the public health and safety and to comply with the CPSA.

I hereby certify that on August 6th, 2012, I served the foregoing Complaint upon all parties of record in these proceedings by mailing, certified mail, postage prepaid, a copy to each at their principal place of business, and emailing a courtesy copy, as follows:

The selection, service, and appointment of representative organizations to the Board are covered by provisions of Section 302 of Public Law 99-662. The substance of those provisions is as follows:

a. Selection.Representative organizations are to be selected from the spectrum of commercial carriers and shippers using the inland and intracoastal waterways, to represent geographical regions, and to berepresentative of waterborne commerce as determined by commodity ton-miles and tonnage statistics.

b. Service.The Board is required to meet at least semi-annually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on waterways construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels for commercial navigation improvements, and report its recommendations annually to the Secretary and Congress.

c. Appointment.The operation of the Board and appointment of representative organizations are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations. Representative organizations serve without compensation but their expenses due to Board activities are reimbursable. The considerations specified in Section 302 for the selection of representative organizations to the Board, and certain terms used therein, have been interpreted, supplemented, or otherwise clarified as follows:

(1) Carriers and Shippers.The law uses the terms “primary users and shippers.” Primary users have been interpreted to mean the providers of transportation services on inland waterways such as barge or towboat operators. Shippers have been interpreted to mean the purchasers of such services for the movement of commodities they own or control. Representative firms are appointed to the Board, and they must be either a carrier or shipper or both. For that purpose a trade or regional association is neither a shipper nor primary user.

(2) Geographical Representation.The law specifies “various” regions. For the purposes of the Board, the waterways subjected to fuel taxes and described in Public Law 95-502, as amended, have been aggregated into six regions. They are (1) the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries above the mouth of the Ohio; (2) the Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries below the mouth of the Ohio and above Baton Rouge; (3) the Ohio River and its tributaries; (4) the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana and Texas; (5) the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of New Orleans and associated fuel-taxed waterways including the Tennessee-Tombigbee, plus the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway below Norfolk; and (6) the Columbia-Snake Rivers System and Upper Willamette. The intent is that each region shall be represented by at least one representative organization, with that representation determined by the regional concentration of the firm's traffic on the waterways.

(3) Commodity Representation.Waterway commerce has been aggregated into six commodity categories based on “inland” ton-miles shown in Waterborne Commerce of the United States. These categories are (1) Farm and Food Products; (2) Coal and Coke; (3) Petroleum, Crude and Products; (4) Minerals, Ores, and Primary Metals and Mineral Products; (5) Chemicals and Allied Products; and (6) All Other. A consideration in the selection of representative organizations to the Board will be that the commodities carried or shipped by those firms will be reasonably representative of the above commodity categories.

d. Nomination.Reflecting preceding selection criteria, the current representation by the ten (10) organizations whose terms expire includes all Regions 1-6, all carrier and/or shipper representation and all commodity representation.

All ten representative organizations whose interim terms expire are eligible for consideration. Individuals, firms or associations may nominate representative organizations to serve on the Board. Nominations will:

(1) Include the commercial operations of the carrier and/or shipper representative organization being nominated. This commercial operations information will show the actual or estimated ton-miles of each commodity carried or shipped on the inland waterways system in a recent year (or years), using the waterway regions and commodity categories previously listed.

(2) State the region(s) to be represented.

(3) State whether the nominated representative organization is a carrier, shipper or both.

(4) Provide the name of an individual to be the principle person representing the organization and information pertaining to their personal qualifications, to include a bio or a resume.

Previous nominations received in response to notices published in theFederal Registerin prior years will not be retained for consideration. Renomination of representative organizations is required.

e.Deadline for Nominations.All nominations must be received at the address shown above no later than October 1, 2012.

a. This Notice of Intent (NOI) constitutes a re-issue of the NOI titled: Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Modification of the Kissimmee Basin Structure Operating Criteria published in theFederal Registeron August 3, 2005 (70 FR 44584).

b. The authorities to conduct this comprehensive analysis were granted under Section 1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and the 1992 WRDA.

c. Historically, lake levels within the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes (KCOL) fluctuated within a range of two to ten feet. The lakes had limited outflow capacities and functioned as natural detention reservoirs, allowing water storage in the wet season and continual release of water throughout the year. Under these natural conditions, lake levels would rise in the wet season and overflow to adjoining lands, creating broad, marshy connections between the lakes. These marshes were used by fish and wildlife for spawning and foraging.Flows would peak in October and November, and then decrease through the dry season. During dry periods and low water levels, connections between the lakes would disappear and bottom sediments would oxidize, preventing accumulation of organic material along the lake edge.

The C&SF Project dramatically altered the fluctuations and timing of discharges. Presently, water levels in the KCOL are regulated by nine structures. Eight of these structures are controlled by seven stage regulation schedules that define the operational criteria for managing lake levels for flood prevention. The current regulation schedules limit water level fluctuations between two to three feet.

d. The KBMWCP & EIS study aims to achieve a more acceptable balance among flood control, water supply, aquatic plant management, and natural resources.

e. All alternative plans will be reviewed under provisions of appropriate laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Clean Water Act, and Farmland Protection Policy Act.

f. The Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review in the 4th quarter of 2015. A public meeting will be held during the public review period. The exact location, date, and times of the public meeting will be announced in a public notice and local newspapers.

a. A scoping letter will be used to invite comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and individuals.

b. Public scoping meetings will be held. Assistance for individuals with special needs or language translation will be available as needed by calling 904-232-1613. The exact location, date, and times of the public meeting will be announced in a public notice and local newspapers.

Agency Role:As the non-Federal sponsor and leading local expert, SFWMD will provide extensive information and assistance on the resources to be impacted, mitigation measures, and alternatives.

1. Background DOE and the State of Hawai'i Coordination and Collaboration

DOE and Hawai'i entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2008 that established a long-term partnership to transform the way in which energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are planned and used in the State. The MOU established working groups to address key sectors of the energy economy (e.g., electricity, end-use efficiency, transportation, and fuels), which led to the establishment of the HCEI. The goal of the HCEI is to meet 70% of Hawai'i's energy needs by 2030 through energy efficiency and renewable energy (collectively “clean energy”).

To support this goal, in 2009, Hawai'i's legislature established a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 15% by 2015, 25% by 2020, and 40% by 2030. [See Haw. Rev. Stat. Sections 269-91 to 296-95 (2012) and Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 196 (2012).] Hawai'i also has established an Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard that calls for thestatewide reduction in electricity use of 4,300 gigawatt hours via efficiency measures by 2030. [Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 269-96 (2012).]

Meanwhile, DOE has helped advance Hawai'i's clean energy goals by providing technical research and analysis, direct staff involvement, competitive solicitations, and funding. For example, DOE has provided funding for distributed photovoltaics on O'ahu and Maui; a wind farm on O'ahu; smart grid projects on Maui and Kaua'i; electric vehicle public charging networks; efficient appliance rebates; solar water heating rebates; and low-interest loans. Also, in accordance with Section 355 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, DOE assessed the economic implications of Hawai'i's dependence on oil as a principal source of energy, including the technical and economic feasibility of increasing the use of renewable energy resources for the generation of electricity on an island-by-island basis. The report concluded that Hawai'i has many opportunities to diversify energy use through greater utilization of renewable energy for electricity and transportation applications.1

On December 14, 2010, DOE issued a NOI to prepare a PEIS, with the State of Hawai'i as a joint lead, on the wind phase of the Hawai'i Interisland Renewable Energy Program (75 FR 77859). That NOI referred to the PEIS as the HIREP: Wind PEIS. Scoping meetings were held in Honolulu, Kahului, Kaunakakai, and Lāna'i City in February 2011. Commenters expressed concern that DOE and the State would not analyze energy efficiency measures, distributed renewable energy, or the full range of potential renewable energy technologies. Commenters also expressed concern about the construction of interisland electricity transmission connection(s) and cable(s), the potential disparity of impacts on islands that could host wind development projects versus those that would use the electricity, and potential impacts to cultural resources, among other issues. In light of these comments, as well as regulatory and policy developments since the scoping meetings, DOE consulted with the State and decided to broaden the range of energy efficiency and renewable energy activities and technologies to be analyzed in the PEIS. In preparing the PEIS, DOE will consider scoping comments already received on the initial NOI, along with comments received in response to this amended NOI.

The Hawai'i Clean Energy PEIS will be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508), and the DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The PEIS also will consider, among other regulatory items, the requirements of the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act (Hawai'i Revised Statutes [HRS] chapter 343).

DOE invites Federal, State, and local government agencies, Native Hawaiian and other organizations, and members of the public to submit comments and participate in public meetings on the scope of the PEIS—that is, the proposed action, the range of reasonable alternatives, and potential environmental impacts and other issues to be considered. DOE also invites government agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to be cooperating agencies in EIS preparation. The State of Hawai'i and BOEM have agreed to be cooperating agencies.

The PEIS will not eliminate the need for project-specific environmental review of individual projects or activities that may be eligible for funding or other support by DOE. To the extent that DOE proposes to fund or undertake particular projects or activities that may fall within the scope of the PEIS, project-specific NEPA review for such projects and activities is expected to be tiered from the PEIS and to be more effective and efficient because of the PEIS. Moreover, such projects and activities will be subject to compliance with obligations under other environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act.

DOE's purpose and need for agency action is based on the 2008 MOU with Hawai'i that established a long-term partnership to transform the way in which energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are planned and used in the State. Consistent with this MOU, DOE's purpose and need is to support the State in its efforts to meet 70% of the State's energy needs by 2030 through clean energy.

DOE's proposed action is to develop guidance that it can use in making decisions about future funding or other actions to support Hawai'i in achieving the goal established in the HCEI to meet 70% of the State's energy needs by 2030 through energy efficiency and renewable energy. For purposes of this PEIS, DOE has divided these potential future actions into five clean energy categories and will analyze, at a programmatic level, the potential environmental impacts of future DOE actions that would fall within these categories and be subject to DOE's proposed guidance.

The PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of only those clean energy activities and technologies that are eligible under Hawai'i's Renewable Portfolio Standard or Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. It will analyze these potential impacts, asappropriate, on an island-by-island basis for the islands of Hawai'i, Kaua'i, Lāna'i, Maui, Moloka'i, and O'ahu. The PEIS will build upon the environmental and technical studies and public comments and outreach conducted to date.

The energy efficiency activities and renewable energy technologies and resources available in Hawai'i, including distributed and utility-scale renewable energy, vary by island and in commercial availability and economic viability. Furthermore, as in all utility systems, Hawai'i's ability to incorporate clean energy into individual island grids can be limited by the capacity of the power transmission system. Thus, DOE will consider several factors in determining the appropriate level of detail for analyzing the potential environmental impacts of each form of clean energy in the PEIS. These factors may include the potential to make a timely contribution to the HCEI goal; stage of technical development; commercial availability; and potential for significant environmental impacts. Similarly, DOE will consider the conditions on an individual island to help determine the appropriate level of detail for analysis of potential impacts on that island. In other words, the PEIS will not assume that each energy efficiency activity or renewable energy technology has the same potential for use on each island or that it would result in the same potential environmental impacts on each island.

The PEIS may identify (a) general geographical areas suitable for development of renewable energy resources, (b) combinations of energy efficiency activities and renewable energy technologies that may be both feasible and efficient in helping Hawai'i meet its HCEI goal, and (c) selection criteria and priorities that DOE could consider when reviewing project-specific proposals. In addition, the PEIS will provide information needed to consider the potential environmental impacts from clean energy activities and technologies. As a result, DOE will have information relevant to prioritizing future funding or other decisions. This could help DOE avoid redundancies and inefficiencies in future project development and decision-making.

The PEIS also will analyze, as connected actions or for cumulative impacts, on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions by other entities that could contribute to meeting Hawai'i's clean energy goals. Such energy efficiency and renewable energy actions could be proposed or undertaken by other federal agencies, state or local government agencies, or private parties.

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would continue to support, through funding and other actions, Hawai'i in meeting the HCEI goal on a case-by-case basis, but without guidance to integrate and prioritize funding decisions and other actions.

The PEIS will evaluate the full range of potential environmental, including cultural and socioeconomic, impacts associated with implementing clean energy activities and technologies on the islands of Hawai'i, Kaua'i, Lāna'i, Maui, Moloka'i, and O'ahu.

The following environmental resource areas have been tentatively identified for consideration in the EIS:

• Cultural and historical resources.

• Air quality (including climate change and greenhouse gas emissions).

• Water resources.

• Floodplains and wetlands.

• Coastal zone management.

• Geology and soils.

• Land and submerged land use.

• Biological resources (including threatened and endangered species, special status species, and related sensitive resources).

• Land and marine transportation.

• Airspace management.

• Public health and safety.

• Noise.

• Natural hazards.

• Hazardous materials and waste management.

• Accidents and intentional destructive acts.

• Recreational resources.

• Visual resources.

• Socioeconomics.

• Environmental justice (disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations).

• Utilities and infrastructure.

• Cumulative impacts (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions).

• Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Public scoping meetings will be conducted at the following times and locations:

Each scoping meeting will involve: a presentation that describes the NEPA process and the concept of a Programmatic EIS; a question and answer session; and a formal commenting session, which will be transcribed by a court reporter to ensure that all comments are available to DOE for consideration during preparation of the draft PEIS. The meetings will provide opportunities to view exhibits on potential clean energy approaches, ask questions, and submit comments orally or in writing. Representatives from DOE, Hawai'i, BOEM, and any other involved agencies will be available to answer questions and provide additional information to participants. Individuals who submit comments during the scoping process and provide their contact information will receive copies of the draft PEIS. The format of the draft PEIS provided could be a printed summary and CD of the complete document, a CD of the document, Web site access to the document, or a complete printed document, according to the commenter's format preference. Persons who do not submit comments during scoping, but would like to receive a copy of the draft PEIS when it is issued, should submit a request as provided in theADDRESSESsection and specify their format preference.

Information on the Hawai'i Clean Energy PEIS is available on the PEIS Web site athttp://www.hawaiicleanenergypeis.com.Materials relating to this PEIS also will be available at the public libraries listed below and several additional public libraries across the State of Hawai'i (for a complete list, see the PEIS Web site):

• Hawai'i State Library, 478 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.

• Lāna'i Public and School Library, 555 Fraser Ave, Lāna'i City, HI 96763.

• Wailuku Public Library, 251 High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793.

• Moloka`i Public Library, 15 Ala Malama, Kaunakakai, HI 96748.

• Hilo Public Library, 300 Waianuenue Ave, Hilo, HI 96720.

• Kailua-Kona Public Library, 75-138 Hualalai Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740.

• Lihu`e Public Library, 4344 Hardy Street, Lihu`e, HI 96766.

In preparing the draft PEIS, DOE will consider comments received during the scoping period and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. DOE plans to issue the draft PEIS in 2013. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft PEIS in theFederal Register, which will begin a minimum 45-day public comment period. DOE will announce how to comment on the draft PEIS and will hold public hearings during the public comment period, but no sooner than 15 days after the NOA of the draft PEIS is published.

In preparing the final PEIS, DOE will respond to comments received on the draft PEIS. DOE plans to issue the final PEIS in 2014. No sooner than 30 days after EPA publishes a NOA of the final PEIS, DOE may issue its Record of Decision regarding its actions considered in the PEIS.

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

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008, which is available for online viewing atwww.regulations.gov,or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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 Superfund Docket is 202-566-0276.

Usewww.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 states, federally-recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia, and political subdivisions which apply to EPA for financial assistance under a Superfund cooperative agreement or a Superfund State Contract.

Title:Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions (Renewal).

ICR Numbers:EPA ICR No. 1487.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0179.

ICR Status:This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February 28, 2013. 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:This ICR authorizes the collection of information under 40 CFR part 35, subpart O, which establishesthe administrative requirements for cooperative agreements funded under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for State, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, and political subdivision response actions. This regulation also codifies the administrative requirements for Superfund State Contracts for non-State lead remedial responses. This regulation includes only those provisions mandated by CERCLA, required by OMB Circulars, or added by EPA to ensure sound and effective financial assistance management under this regulation. The information is collected from applicants and/or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how federal funds are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its federal stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to obtain a benefit (federal funds) under 40 CFR part 31, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments” and under 40 CFR part 35, “State and Local Assistance.” 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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments 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.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.38 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:568.

Frequency of response:On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:1.7.

Estimated total annual burden hours:4,189.

Estimated total annual costs:$128,467. (This includes only the estimated burden cost of $128,467 and no costs for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.)

Affected Entities:Entities potentially affected by this action are those state agencies, Indian tribes, and U.S. territories performing Superfund site evaluation activities.

Title:Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System (Renewal).

ICR Numbers:EPA ICR No. 1488.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0095.

ICR Status:This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2015.

Abstract:Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980 and 1986) amends the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) to include criteria prioritizing releases throughout the U.S. before undertaking remedial action at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is a model that is used to evaluate the relative threats to human health and the environment posed by actual or potential releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The HRS criteria take into account the population at risk, the hazard potential of the substances, as well as the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human contact, destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources affecting the human food chain, contamination of surface water used for recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient air.

EPA regional offices work with states to determine those sites for which the state will conduct the Superfund site evaluation activities and the HRS scoring. The states are reimbursed 100 percent of their costs, except for record maintenance.

Under this ICR, the states will apply the HRS by identifying and classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation. The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Superfund-financed remedial actions.

HRS scores are derived from the sources described in this information collection, including conducting field reconnaissance, taking samples at the site, and reviewing available reports and documents. States record the collected information on HRS documentation worksheets and include this in the supporting reference package.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 213.85 hours per response. EPA estimates 60 states, Indian tribes, and U.S. territories will likely respond, each averaging 9-10 actions per year. The total burden for all respondents is estimated at 121,681 hours and approximately $11,238,970 each year (based on historic data on estimated costs per site assessment activity).

The current ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents:60.

Frequency of response:On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:9.5.

Estimated total annual burden hours:121,681 hours.

Estimated total annual costs:$11,238,970. This includes an estimated burden cost of $11,238,970 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Affected Entities:Entities potentially affected by this action are state/tribal governments and individual community members who voluntarily participate inthe remedial phase of the Superfund program and in associated community involvement activities throughout the Superfund process.

Title:National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Renewal).

ICR Numbers:EPA ICR No. 1463.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0096.

ICR Status:This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015.

Abstract:This Information Collection Request is a renewal ICR that covers the remedial portion of the Superfund program, as specified in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). All remedial actions covered by this ICR (e.g., remedial investigations/feasibility studies) are stipulated in the statute (CERCLA) and are instrumental in the process of cleaning up National Priorities List (NPL) sites to be protective of human health and the environment. Some community involvement activities covered by this ICR are not required at every site (e.g.,Technical Assistance Grants) and depend very much on the community and the nature of the site and cleanup. All community activities seek to involve the public in the cleanup of the sites, gain the input of community members, and include the community's perspective on the potential future reuse of Superfund NPL sites. Community involvement activities can enhance the remedial process and increase community acceptance and the potential for productive and beneficial reuse of the sites.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 13.84 hours per response.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents:11,659.

Frequency of response:On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:As required.

Estimated total annual burden hours:179,615 hours.

Estimated total annual costs:$813,440. This includes an estimated burden cost of $261,440 for states and an estimated cost of $552,000 for communities.

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

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.

On June 6, 2012, West Virginia notified EPA that West Virginia has updated its incorporation by reference of Federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards, to the extent referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 60, 61, and 63, effective June 1, 2011. On June 22, 2012, EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging that West Virginia now has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as specified by West Virginia in its notice to EPA, as provided for under previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications, applications, reports and other correspondence required pursuant to the delegated NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both the US EPA Region III and to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. A copy of EPA's letter to West Virginia follows:

This notice acknowledges the update of West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce NESHAP and NSPS.

Title:Suspicious Activity Report.

OMB Number:3064-0077.

Form Numbers:FDIC 6710/06.

Frequency of Response:On occasion.

Affected Public:Insured state nonmember banks and state savings institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:5,243.

Estimated Average Time per Response:1 hour.

Frequency of Response:26.2.

Total Annual Burden:137,467 hours.

General Description of Collection:In 1985, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (collectively “the Agencies”), issued procedures to be used by banks and certain other financial institutions operating in the United States to report known or suspected criminal activities to the appropriate law enforcement and the Agencies. Beginning in 1994, the Agencies and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) undertook a redesign of the reporting process and developed the Suspicious Activity Report, which became effective in April 1996. The report is authorized by the following regulations: 12 CFR 353.3 (FDIC); 12 CFR 21.11 and 12 CFR 163.180 (OCC); 12 CFR 208.62(c), 211.5(k), 211.24(f), and 225.4(f) (FRB); 12 CFR 748.1 (NCUA); and 31 CFR 103.18 (FinCEN). The regulations were issued under the authority contained in the following statutes: 12 U.S.C1818-1820 (FDIC); 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1), 625,1818, 1844(c), 3105(c)(2) and 3106(a) (FRB); 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1463, 1464, 1818, 1881-84, 3401-22, 31 U.S.C. 5318 (OCC); 12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1789(a) (NCUA); and 31 U.S.C. 5318(g) (FinCEN).

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 6, 2012), on the World Wide Web, athttp://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 5, 2012. Write “Renown Health, File No. 111 0101” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, athttp://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with arequest for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it athttps://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/renownhealthconsentby following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!home,you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Renown Health, File No. 111 0101” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site athttp://www.ftc.govto read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 5, 2012. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, athttp://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement containing two consent orders with Renown Health. The agreement settles charges that Renown Health violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by substantially lessening competition in the market for cardiology services in and around Reno, Nevada, through its acquisition of the two largest cardiology practices in the Reno area and its employment of the cardiologists whose practices it acquired.

The Decision and Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed Decision and Order final. The Order to Suspend, which is final immediately, will remain in force either until the Decision and Order becomes final or the Commission decides not to issue an order.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Orders. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed Consent Orders or to modify their terms in any way. Further, the proposed Consent Orders have been entered into for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by Renown Health that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the Complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true.

Renown Health is based in Reno, Nevada, and operates general acute care hospitals and commercial health plans which serve the Reno area. It is the largest provider of acute care hospital services in northern Nevada.

Prior to the transactions at issue, most of the cardiologists practicing in the Reno area were affiliated with two medical groups which did business under the names Sierra Nevada Cardiology Associates (“SNCA”) and Reno Heart Physicians (“RHP”). Cardiologists are generally internal medicine physicians who specialize in the practice of cardiology, including the provision of non-invasive services (general cardiology), invasive cardiology services (e.g., diagnostic cardiac catheterization), interventional cardiology services (e.g., catheterizations and the placement of stents), and electrophysiology services (e.g., services related to the diagnosis and treatment of heart rhythm conditions). The practices of the SNCA and RHP physicians did not generally include cardiac surgery or pediatric cardiology. Other than the physicians affiliated with SNCA and RHP, there are very few cardiologists practicing adult cardiology in the Reno, Nevada, area.

In late 2010, Renown Health reached agreements to acquire SNCA's medical practice and to employ the 15 SNCA cardiologists who practiced in the Reno area. Prior to Renown Health's acquisition of SNCA, it did not employ any cardiologists. With the employment of the SNCA cardiologists, Renown Health competed with RHP in the provision of cardiology services. In March 2011, Renown Health acquired RHP. As part of this acquisition, Renown Health employed the 16 RHP cardiologists who practiced in the Reno area.

Among other terms, the employment agreements between Renown Health and the cardiologists from both SNCA and RHP contain covenants that prohibit the cardiologists from entering into medical practice in competition with Renown Health (“non-compete provisions”). As a result of the acquisitions of the two medical groups (and the employment of the physicians affiliated with those groups), Renown Health now employs approximately 88% of the physicians providing cardiology services for adults in the Reno area.

The complaint alleges that Renown Health's acquisitions of the two cardiology practices created a highly concentrated market for the provision of cardiology services in the Reno area. According to the complaint, the consolidation of the two competing groups into a single group of cardiologists employed by Renown Health has eliminated competition based on price, quality, and other terms of competition. The consolidation of the two groups into one increased the bargaining power of Renown Health and may lead to higher prices. The complaint further alleges that entry into the market at a scale large enough to form a competitive alternative for health plans is unlikely to be timely or sufficient to deter the likely price increases.

The goal of the Consent Orders in this matter is to restore competition for cardiology services in the Reno area as quickly as possible. The Commission believes that competition is likely to be restored if Renown Health is required to release a certain number of its cardiologist employees from their employment contracts freeing them to practice either as employees of other health care entities or as part of independent medical groups in the Reno area. Renown Health has entered in an Agreement Containing Consent Orders, which includes the Order toSuspend Enforcement of Renown Non-Compete (“Order to Suspend”) and the Decision and Order.

The Order to Suspend establishes a period of time during which the former SNCA and RHP cardiologists currently employed by Renown Health in Reno may explore other employment and professional opportunities in the Reno area confidentially, whether as an employee, a member of a medical group, or in private practice. During this period, Renown Health is prohibited from interfering with the cardiologists' employment discussions and from enforcing the provisions in their employment contracts prohibiting such activities. The purpose of this Order to Suspend is to allow Renown Health's cardiologists to communicate with possible employers without the risk of violating the non-compete provisions in their current employment contracts. In order to facilitate this process, the Order to Suspend requires Renown Health to inform all of its cardiologists through an explanatory letter, as well as copies of the Orders and this Analysis to Aid Public Comment within two days of the Orders being placed on the public record.

The Order to Suspend is effective immediately, i.e., without a public comment period, upon the Agreement Containing Consent Orders being placed on the public record, and operates for at least 30 days while the Commission receives and considers public comment on the Decision and Order. Cardiologists may decide during this period to terminate employment, and may notify the special monitor (who has been appointed) to ensure their inclusion in the group of up to ten cardiologists who will be allowed to leave Renown Health in the event that the Commission issues the Decision and Order. However, nothing in the Order to Suspend requires Renown Health to release any physician from his or her employment agreement until the Decision and Order becomes final.

If the Commission issues the final Decision and Order, a second 30-day period (“Release Period”) will begin. During this period, cardiologist employees can terminate their employment with Renown without penalty so long as the following conditions are met:

(1) The cardiologist must submit notice of an intention to terminate employment with Renown Health to the monitor who has been appointed for the purpose of assuring confidentiality;

(2) The cardiologist must state his or her intention to continue to practice in the Reno area for at least one year;

(3) The cardiologist must be among the first 10 physicians to submit notice to terminate employment. Renown Health is not required to release more than 10 cardiologists from their employment contracts. To protect the confidentiality of the doctors who want to leave, the monitor will submit to Renown Health no more than the first 10 notices received; and

(4) The cardiologist may not leave prior to the monitor delivering notice to Renown Health, but must leave employment with Renown Health within 60 days of Renown Health receiving notice from the monitor.

At any time during the Release Period, after the monitor has informed Renown that 10 physicians have met the requirements to terminate without penalty, Renown may request that the Release Period be terminated.

If at the end of this Release Period fewer than six doctors have notified the monitor of their intent to terminate employment, the period in which cardiologists may continue to explore other employment opportunities and leave Renown's employment without penalty will remain open until six cardiologists have terminated their employment with Renown. This provision is included in the Decision and Order to ensure that at least six physicians can leave.

Paragraph II describes the basic terms under which cardiologists may terminate their employment with Renown Health. It prohibits Renown from (1) enforcing any non-compete, non-solicitation, or non-interference provisions in their employment agreements, (2) pursuing any breach of contract action for violation of any of these provisions, or (3) taking any retaliatory action against any physician who either leaves under the terms of the Orders or who decides not to leave after exploring other employment as allowed by the Orders.2 The Order does not, however, require Renown to allow cardiologists to terminate their employment agreements in a manner other than that specified in the Decision and Order.

Paragraph III provides for the extension of the period for cardiologists to terminate their employment if at least six cardiologists do not terminate during the initial period.

Paragraph IV includes a number of provisions to ensure that Renown Health will not take any actions to discourage physicians from exploring opportunities to leave or from leaving its employment pursuant to the Decision and Order. In addition, Paragraph IV.A.6 prohibits Renown Health, for a period of three years, from denying, terminating or suspending the medical staff privileges of any physician who leaves Renown Health's employment pursuant to the Consent Orders.

Paragraph V preserves Renown Health's obligation to provide transition services to cardiologists whose employment contracts include such provisions, excluding transitional services relating to negotiating with health plans. Paragraph VI requires Renown Health to give advance notification for future acquisitions affecting this market. Paragraph VII specifies the rules governing the work of the special monitor.

The remaining order provisions are standard reporting requirements to allow the Commission to monitor on-going compliance with the provisions of the Order.

The State of Nevada, through its Attorney General, worked with the Commission staff in the investigation and resolution of this matter. The Nevada Attorney General filed her own complaint containing allegations similar to those in the Commission's complaint, and Renown Health has entered into a stipulated agreement with the Nevada Attorney General that contains obligations similar to those in the Commission's orders. This agreement is embodied in a document called a Final Judgment, and is subject to court approval. Copies of these documents can be obtained from the Nevada Attorney General's Office.

The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (NAC) was established in accordance with Section 9341 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for healthcare research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on healthcare quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

AHRQ's NAC has established a Subcommittee on Quality Measures for Children's Healthcare (SNAC). Section 401(a) of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111-3, amended the Social Security Act to enact section 1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b-9a). Section 1139A(b) charged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with improving pediatric health care quality measures. The Secretary of DHHS posted the initial core set of children's health care quality measures for public comment on December 29, 2009, in Volume 74, No. 248 of theFederal Register(http://OIG.hhs.gov/authorities/docs/2010/frnotice 12302009.pdf). The Subcommittee was created to provide advice to the NAC as AHRQ undertakes responsibilities to improve the initial core quality measure set and develop and test a portfolio of evidence-based, consensus pediatric quality measures for potential use by public and private programs. AHRQ is working closely with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in implementing these provisions, including public posting of improvements to the initial core quality measure set and other CHIPRA purposes (i.e., for use by public and private programs other than, or in addition to, Medicaid and CHIP). For more information about AHRQ's role in carrying out the quality provisions of CHIPRA, seehttp://www.AHRQ.gov/CHIPRA.A roster of the Subcommittee members is available athttp://www.AHRQ.gov/CHIPRA/QMSNACLIST12.htm.The September 12, 2012 meeting will be held as a part of this effort.

The Secretary will post an improved and enhanced core set of health care quality measures for voluntary use by Medicaid and CHIP by Jan 1, 2013, and annually thereafter. On February 24, 2012, AHRQ solicited public nomination of children's health care quality measures for inclusion in the CHIPRA 2013 Improved Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures.

On September 12, 2012, the SNAC will assess measures submitted by the public in response to a solicitation posted on February 24, 2012 (CHIPRAFederal Registernotice number 2012-4267) (http://www.GPO.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-24/pdf/2012-4267.pdf), as well as measures submitted by AHRQ-CMS Pediatric Quality Measures Program Centers of Excellence (seehttp://www.AHRQ.gov/CHIPRA/PQMPFACT.htmfor details). AHRQ will solicit measures again in 2013 and 2014 and the SNAC will meet in September of 2013 and 2014 to review these measures.

The agenda for the September 12, 2012 meeting will be available on the AHRQ Web site athttp://www.AHRQ.gov/CHIPRAno later than September 5, 2012.

The Agency intends to add a nonvoting industry representative(s) to the following advisory committee:

The Committee reviews and evaluates and makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugsregarding: (1) Pediatric research conducted under sections 351, 409I, and 499 of the Public Health Service Act and sections 501, 502, 505, 505A, and 505B, 510K, 515, and 520m of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (2) identification of research priorities related to pediatric therapeutics (including drugs and biological products) and medical devices for pediatric populations and the need for additional diagnostics and treatments of specific pediatric diseases or conditions, (3) the ethics, design, and analysis of clinical trials related to pediatric therapeutics (including drugs and biological products) and medical devices, (4) pediatric labeling disputes as specified in Public Law 107-109 and Public Law 110-85, (5) pediatric labeling changes as specified in Public Law 107-109 and Public Law 110-85, (6) adverse event reports for drugs studied under Public Law 107-109 and 110-85 and labeled, (7) any safety issues that may occur as specified Public Law 107-109 and Public Law 110-85, (8) any other pediatric issue or pediatric labeling dispute involving FDA-regulated products, (9) pediatric ethical issues including research involving children as subjects as specified in 21 CFR 50.54; and (10) any other matter involving pediatrics for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.

The Committee also advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary directly or to the Secretary through the Commissioner on research involving children as subjects that is conducted or supported by the Department of Health and Human Services as specified in 45 CFR 46.407.

Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (seeDATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (seeDATES). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process).

FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups. Specifically, in this document, nominations for nonvoting representatives of industry interests are encouraged from the pediatric pharmaceutical research and biotechnology manufacturing industry.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be consideredbefore the FIRM and FIS report are made final.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 dayswithout a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online athttp://www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.

The communities affected are listed in the table below. The Preliminary FIRM and where applicable, Preliminary FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center atwww.msc.fema.govfor comparison.

In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 77 FR 18837, the table contained inaccurate information as to the location of the Community Map Repository Address for the following communities: the Cities of Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Lauderhill, Margate, Oakland Park and Wilton Manors, the Town of Southwest Ranches and the Unincorporated Areas of Broward County, Florida. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (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; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities.

OMB Approval Number:2528-0198.

Form Numbers:HUD 40077, HUD 2880.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed

Builders who request changes to HUD's accepted drawings and specifications for proposed construction properties as required by homebuyers or determined by the builder use the information collection. The lender reviews the changes and amends the approved exhibits. These changes ma affect the value shown on the DUD commitment. HUD requires the builder to use form HUD-92577 to request changes for proposed substantial rehabilitation construction properties (203k program properties). HUD's collection of this information is for the purpose of ascertaining that HUD does not insure a mortgage on property that poses a risk to health or safety of the occupant.

Total Estimated Burden Hours375.

Status:Revision of a currently approved collection.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplusFederal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order inNational Coalition for the Homelessv.Veterans Administration,No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in theFederal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: COE: Mr. Scott Whiteford, Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate, CEMP-CR, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; (202) 761-5542; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040 Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

The need for adequate housing is critical on most Indian reservations. Several hundred actions associated with new home construction are processed each year and this is expected to continue at the same level. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has typically conducted NEPA reviews of actions associated with single-family homes by preparing environmental assessments which resulted in Findings of No Significant Impact. The addition of a categorical exclusion to cover the actions associated with new home construction will allow for a more efficient NEPA review.

Because this categorical exclusion has important implications for actions occurring daily on Indian lands, the BIA initiated consultation and requested comments from all federally recognized tribes. This consultation period began on March 7, 2012, and concluded on May 14, 2012. Public comments were also solicited through a notice placed in theFederal Registeron May 3, 2012 [77 FR 26314]. The proposed language for the categorical exclusion as set out in the notice was as follows: “Approval of leases, easements or funds for single-family homesites and associated improvements, including but not limited to homes, outbuildings, access roads, and utility lines, which encompass five (5) acres or less of contiguous land, provided that such sites and associated improvements do not adversely affect any tribal cultural resources or historic properties and are in compliance with applicable federal and tribal laws.”

The BIA received responses from 14 tribes and one tribal organization. No public responses were received. The responses were in the form of letters and email messages. All responses supported the proposed categorical exclusion; a few suggested minor changes in the language of the categorical exclusion.

Comment:One respondent expressed a concern about neighboring tribes or tribal members constructing homes within their reservation without complying with the tribe's laws. The respondent suggested that the categorical exclusion should not be available for non-members or outside tribes to construct homes on another tribe's lands.

Response:The categorical exclusion is intended to be applicable to all tribes and tribal members who propose to construct single-family homes on tribal land or individually-owned Indian land. However, the proposed text of the categorical exclusion includes specific language that references “compliance with federal and tribal laws;” therefore, this categorical exclusion could not be used for any home construction that does not comply with tribal law. The BIA does not propose any additional changes to the language of the categorical exclusion in response to this comment.

Comment:One respondent expressed concern that because of a decrease in funds for the BIA Housing Improvement Program (HIP) the categorical exclusion would not be effective.

Response:The HIP funding levels are outside the scope of this proposal. However, the categorical exclusion is intended to address all BIA actions associated with constructing single-family homes and includes actions not associated with HIP funding.

Comment:A respondent suggested that the categorical exclusion should include Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved housing activities.

Response:The BIA categorical exclusion can only apply to BIA actions and cannot apply to another agency such as HUD. The proposed BIA categorical exclusion is intended to be consistent with HUD's existing categorical exclusions, so that the level of environmental review will be similar.

Comment:A respondent suggested that since the categorical exclusion is intended to include new construction this term should be added to the text.

Response:The BIA agrees, and text of the categorical exclusion has been changed to clearly indicate that it includes new construction as intended.

Comment:A respondent noted that the BIAFederal Registernotice indicates a single-family homesite may include one to four dwelling units, but the number of dwelling units is not referenced in the text of the categorical exclusion. It was suggested that the number of dwelling units should be referenced, and that, because the key factors limiting the use of the categorical exclusion should be the area of land affected (five acres) and the absence of any extraordinary circumstances, it should not matter whether the limit of four dwelling units are in a single building, two duplexes or four detached units.

Response:The BIA agrees the categorical exclusion should be clearly defined as including one to four dwelling units as intended. The BIA also believes that the categorical exclusion should be flexible enough to include a range of housing options. We therefore added text to the categorical exclusion to clarify that home construction may include up to four dwelling units, whether in a single building or up to four separate buildings. This clarification will also ensure the categorical exclusion is consistent with HUD's existing categorical exclusion [24 CFR 58.35(a)(4)(i)].

Comment:One respondent asked for clarification as to who would have approval authority for the categorical exclusion: the agency superintendent or a compacted self-governance tribe.

Response:Because the Federal government is responsible for complying with NEPA, the approval authority for the categorical exclusion is with the BIA responsible official. Tribes can prepare the supporting NEPA documentation, but the approval must remain with the BIA.

The Department of the Interior and the BIA find that the action defined in the categorical exclusion presented at the end of this notice does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This finding is based on the analysis of similar categorical exclusions used by other Federal departments and agencies; the professional judgment of BIA environmental personnel who had conducted environmental reviews of similar actions, which resulted in Findings of No Significant Impact; and the post-construction monitoring of homesites by environmental personnel that verified no unforeseen effects had occurred.

The Department of the Interior will add the following categorical exclusion to the Departmental Manual at 516 DM 10.5:

OESC consists of representatives from industry, Federal Government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the academic community. It provides policy advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the Director of BSEE on matters relating to ocean energy safety, including, but not limited to drilling and workplace safety, well intervention and containment, and oil spill response.

The agenda for Wednesday, August 29, will address the OESC Subcommittees' activities to date on: oil spill prevention, spill containment, spill response and safety management systems; safety culture; blowout preventers (BOP); and a proposed Ocean Energy Safety Institute.

The agenda for Thursday, August 30, will address interim recommendations presented to the OESC from its four subcommittees for consideration and action, including lessons learned and next steps forward.

The meeting is open to the public. Approximately 100 visitors can be accommodated on a first-come-first-served basis. Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on the activities of OESC and related topics on a first-come-first-served basis during the time allotted for public comment and may submit written comments to the OESC during the meeting or by email to the Committee atOESC@bsee.gov.

Minutes of the Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee meeting will be available for public inspection on the Committee's Web site at:http://www.bsee.gov/About-BSEE/Public-Engagement/OESC/Index.aspx.

I. Abstract

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) administers the following financial assistance programs in whole or in part. We award most financial assistance as grants, but cooperative agreements are possible if the Federal Government will be substantially involved in carrying out the project. You can find a description of most programs in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) or on our Web site athttp://wsfrprograms.fws.gov.