The Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the NCST Act (15 U.S.C. 7310). The Committee is composed of ten members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their technical expertise and experience,established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues affecting teams established under the NCST Act. The Committee will advise the Director of NIST on carrying out studies of building failures conducted under the authorities of the NCST Act and will review the procedures developed to implement the NCST Act and reports issued under section 8 of the NCST Act (15 U.S.C. 7307). Background information on the NCST Act and information on the NCST Advisory Committee is available athttp://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Monday, December 10, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public.

The primary purpose of this meeting is to update the Committee on the status of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Disaster and Failure Studies Program, receive NIST's response to the Committee's 2011 annual report recommendations, update the Committee on the progress of the NIST Technical Investigation of the May 22, 2011 Tornado in Joplin, MO, and gather information for the Committee's 2012 Annual Report to Congress. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site athttp://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be 5 minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8600, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8600, via fax at (301) 975-4032, or electronically by email toncstac@nist.gov.

All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Mr. Eric Letvin,eric.letvin@nist.govby 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday, December 3, 2012.

All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday, December 3, 2012, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, email address, and phone number to Michelle Harman. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, and employer/sponsor. Mrs. Harman's email address ismichelle.harman@nist.gov,and her phone number is (301) 975-5324.

I. Abstract

This request is for a new information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect socio-economic data about small scale fishermen and seafood dealers operating in the U.S. Caribbean. The survey intends to collect information on demographics, fishing practices, costs and earnings (revenues, variable and fixed costs), market and distribution channels, capital investment, attitudes and perceptions about the performance management actions and the health of local fisheries, including the impact of invasive species. The data gathered will be used to describe U.S. Caribbean fisheries, assess socio-economic performance of small-scale fleets, and evaluate the socio-economic impacts of Federal regulatory actions. In addition, the information will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and other pertinent statues.

The socio-economic information sought will be collected via in-person, telephone and mail surveys.

OMB Control Number:None.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:2,000.

Estimated Time per Response:1 hr.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:2,000.

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 original notice published in theFederal Registeron May 7, 2012 (77 FR 26746).

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Stock Assessment Workshop; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Stock Assessment Workshop is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Consensus Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The in-person Review Workshop, scheduled for 4-7 February 2013 to review the 2012 assessments of blue tang and queen triggerfish, has been cancelled. At the Assessment workshop, held October 16-17, 2012 in Miami, FL, the Assessment Panel decided not to move forward with the blue tang assessment due to data issues and determined that little could be accomplished for queen triggerfish beyond what had been completed to date.

Given the reduced scope of assessment products in need of review, the in-person workshop is being cancelled in favor of a Desk Review. The Desk Review would still utilize Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Reviewers. The Reviewers would be provided the assessment reports of each species, review them according to the Terms of Reference (TOR), and provide an individual independent review report. Those reports would be made available to the analysts, as well as to the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), for their review and discussion before the SSC makes any management recommendations. The timing of the Desk Review would be similar to the timing already in place for the project, with the plan to have the material imparted to the SSC by early March 2013.

All other previously-published information remains unchanged.

The Committee, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, was established by the Department of Commerce (DOC) to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior on implementation of Section 4 of Executive Order 13158, which calls for the development of a National System of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The National System aims to strengthen existing MPAs and MPA programs through national and regional coordination, capacity building, science and analysis. The meeting is open to the public, and public comment will be accepted from 4:15 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. In general, each individual or group will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. If members of the public wish to submit written statements, they should be submitted to the Designated Federal Official by November 30, 2012.

Matters to be Considered:The focus of the Committee's meeting will be the development of workplans by the Subcommittees (Jobs, Recreation andTourism Subcommittee and Stakeholder Engagement Subcommittee) to address the Committee's charge. The Committee will also hear from two panels of experts: One on successful ocean engagement initiatives, and one from MPA managers on engaging with the travel, recreation and tourism industries. On Wednesday, December 5, the Committee will meet with representatives from National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils to discuss fostering links between MPAs and the recreation, travel and tourism industries. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted athttp://www.mpa.gov.

I. Background

In 2007, NMFS approved and implemented a $35.7 million fishing capacity reduction loan program for the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector, which represented the full amount authorized for that subsector of the $75 million authorized for the entire BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. The initial program removed three fishing vessels and 12 fishing licenses and permits for a loan amount of $35 million. All long-line catcher processors harvesting non-pollock groundfish were required to pay and forward a fee to NMFS to repay the loan. The original fee assessment was $0.02 per pound caught with payment and collection beginning on October 24, 2007. That rate has since been reduced to $0.0145 per pound.

None of the other BSAI non-pollock groundfish subsectors have expressed an interest in implementing a capacity reduction program for their subsector. A provision in the Appropriations Act permits the Secretary of Commerce to make available any of the unused loan amounts, originally allocated for each subsector, for capacity reduction programs in any of the subsectors after January 1, 2009.

Members of the BSAI Longline Catcher Processor Subsector informed NMFS that they wished to access the remaining loan amounts to undertake a second buyback. To implement this next buyback, the FLCC on behalf of the Reduction Fishery was required by the Appropriations Act to draft and submit a Reduction Plan to NMFS. On August 27, 2010, the FLCC submitted a Reduction Plan to access $2.7 million of the total remaining $39,105,450 funds to purchase a single latent permit.

NMFS published proposed program regulations on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44572), and final program regulations on September 24, 2012 (77 FR 58775), to implement the second reduction program. Interested persons should review these for further program details.

NMFS conducted a referendum to determine the industry's willingness to repay a fishing capacity reduction loan to purchase the permit identified in the reduction plan. NMFS mailed ballots to 37 holders of record of LLP licenses in the fishery who were eligible to vote in the referendum. The voting period opened on October 24, 2012, and closed on November 7, 2012. NMFS received 32 timely and valid votes; all 32 of the votes approved the fees. This exceeded majority of permit holders (19) required for industry fee system approval. Consequently, the referendum was successful and permit holders approved the industry fee system. Accordingly, the reduction contract is in full force and effect and NMFS is preparing to tender and disburse a reduction payment to the selected bidder.

NMFS publishes this notice to inform the public before tendering the reduction payment to Permit Holding LLC (the selected bidder), for LLP license LLG2085 with area endorsements for Bering Sea Catcher/Processor Hook and Longline and Aleutian Islands Catcher/Processor Hook and Longline. NMFS will tender the reduction payment on or about December 17, 2012. When NMFS tenders the reduction payment to Permit Holding LLC, the selected bidder must permanently stop all further fishing with the reduction permit it has relinquished. The selected bidder, in accordance with section 5 of the relinquishment contract, must notify all creditors or other parties with security interests in the reduction permit.

This notice provides the public (including creditors or other parties) 30 days from publication of this notice to advise NMFSin writing of any holding, owning, or retaining claims that conflict with the representations of the bid as presented by the FLCC.

This notice also establishes the reduction loan repayment fee's effective date in accordance with subpart M to 50 CFR 600.1108.The second BSAI non-pollock groundfish longline catcher processor program fee payment andcollection will begin on January 1, 2013. Starting on this date, additional fees will be assessed and collected on all harvested Pacific cod, including that used for bait or discarded, on all members of this subsector. The initial fee applicable to this second loan in the BSAI longline program's reduction fishery is $0.001 per pound. Subsector members must pay and collect the fee in the manner set out in 50 CFR 600.1108 and the framework rule. Consequently, all subsector members may wish to readsubpart L to 50 CFR 600.1013 to understand how fish harvesters mustpay and fish buyers must collect the fee.

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

On May 13, 2012, NMFS received an application from GFNMS for the taking of marine mammals incidental to rocky intertidal monitoring work and searching for black abalone. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on July 20, 2012. On August 23, 2012, we published a notice in theFederal Registerof our proposal to issue an IHA with preliminary determinations and explained the basis for the proposal and preliminary determinations (77 FR 50990). The notice initiated a 30-day public comment period. Responses are discussed below.

GFNMS proposes to continue rocky intertidal monitoring work and the search for black abalone in areas previously unexplored for black abalone for periods of 4-8 days in November 2012 and February 2013. All work will be done only during daylight minus low tides. This is a long-term study that began in 1992 and at present is anticipated to continue beyond November 2013. This IHA is only effective for a 12-month period. In future years (depending on funding), survey activities may occur in February, August, and November. For purposes of the present request, four sites will be sampled during both November and February, with two additional sites to be sampled in February only. The following specific aspects of the activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: presence of survey personnel near pinniped haulout sites and approach of survey personnel towards hauled out pinnipeds. Take, by Level B harassment only, of individuals of five species of marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified activity.

Since the listing of black abalone as “endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.), NMFS has requested that GFNMS explore as much of the shoreline as possible, as well as document and map the location of quality habitat for black abalone and the location of known animals. This listingprompted the need to expand the search for black abalone into other areas on the South Farallon Islands (beyond those that have been studied since 1992) to gain a better understanding of the abundance and health of the black abalone population in this remote and isolated location. The monitoring is planned to remain ongoing, and efforts to assess the status and health of the black abalone population on the South Farallon Islands may take several years, and perhaps decades, because black abalone tend to be very cryptic and difficult to find, especially when they are sparse and infrequent in occurrence. In order for the assessment of black abalone to be more comprehensive, GFNMS needs to expand shore searches in areas beyond the proximity of their quantitative quadrat sampling areas and also into new areas on Southeast Farallon and Maintop (West End) Islands. Additional information regarding the purpose of the research is contained in the Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012).

Routine shore activity will continue to involve the use of only non-destructive sampling methods to monitor rocky intertidal algal and invertebrate species abundances (see Figure 2 in GFNMS' application). The sampling, photographic documentation, and shore walks for the period of this IHA have been scheduled to occur in November 2012 and February 2013. (In future years, surveys conducted under separate IHA(s) may occur 3 times annually: February, August, and November, based on funding.) Each survey will last for approximately 4 to 8 days. All work will be done only during daylight minus, low tides. Each location (as listed in Tables 2 and 3 in GFNMS' application) will be visited/sampled by three to four biologists, for a duration of 3-4 hours, one to two times each minus tide cycle, during November and February. The Notice of Proposed IHA contains additional information on the survey methodology (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012). That information has not changed and is therefore not repeated here.

PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) continues its year round pinniped and seabird research and monitoring efforts on the South Farallon Islands, which began in 1968, under MMPA scientific research permits and IHAs. GFNMS biologists will gain access to the sites via boats operated by PRBO, with disturbance and incidental take authorized via IHAs issued to PRBO. For this reason, GFNMS has not requested authorization for take from disturbance by boat, as incidental take from that activity is authorized in a separate IHA.

The Farallon Islands consists of a chain of seven islands located approximately 48 km (30 mi) west of San Francisco, near the edge of the continental shelf and in the geographic center of the GFNMS (see Figure 1 in GFNMS' application). The nearshore and offshore waters are foraging areas for pinniped species discussed in this document. The two largest islands of the seven islands are the Southeast Farallon and Maintop (aka West End) Islands. These and several smaller rocks are collectively referred to as the South Farallon Islands and are the subject of this IHA.

Current areas that are sampled during November and February are: Blow Hole Peninsula; Mussel Flat; Dead Sea Lion Flat; and Low Arch (see Figure 2 in GFNMS' application). Current areas that are sampled only during February are: Raven's Cliff and Drunk Uncle Islet. Areas to be added for intensive black abalone assessment and habitat mapping sampling during November and February include: East Landing; North Landing; Fisherman's Bay; and Weather Service Peninsula on Southeast Farallon Island. Areas to be added for intensive black abalone assessment and habitat mapping during February only include: Ravens' Cliff; Indian Head; Shell Beach; and Drunk Uncle Islet (see Figure 2 in GFNMS' application). Specific dates of sampling in February and November of each year will vary, as in the past, dependent on tide conditions, boat logistics to the island, staff schedules, island housing availability, seabird breeding cycles, and at the discretion of Refuge management. Each visit will last approximately 4-8 days in November 2012 and February 2013. Additional information on the specified geographic location is contained in the Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012).

Accessing portions of the intertidal habitat may cause incidental Level B (behavioral) harassment of pinnipeds through some unavoidable approaches if pinnipeds are hauled out directly in the study plots or while biologists walk from one location to another. No motorized equipment is involved in conducting these surveys. The species for which Level B harassment is requested are: California sea lions (Zalophus californianus californianus); harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii); northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris); Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus); and northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus).

A Notice of Proposed IHA was published in theFederal Registeron August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50990) for public comment. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received one letter from the Marine Mammal Commission. No other organizations or private citizens provided comments on the proposed issuance of an IHA for this activity. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. NMFS has included all of the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed in the Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012) in the issued IHA.

Many of the shores of the two South Farallon Islands provide resting, molting, and breeding habitat for pinniped species: northern elephant seals; harbor seals; California sea lions; northern fur seals; and Steller sea lions. California sea lion is the species anticipated to be encountered most frequently during the specified activity. The other four species are only anticipated to be encountered at some of the sites. Tables 2 and 3 in GFNMS' application outline the average and maximum expected occurrences of each species at each sampling location in November and February, respectively. Numbers are based on weekly surveys conducted by PRBO. The data in these tables are from counts conducted in February and November 2010 and 2011. Figures 3, 4, and 5 in GFNMS' application depict the overlap between pinniped haulouts and abalone sampling sites. Of the five species noted here, only the eastern stock of Stellar sea lion (which is the stock found in the activity area) is listed as threatened under the ESA and as depleted under the MMPA.

We refer the public to Carrettaet al.,(2011) for general information on these species. The publication is available on the Internet at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2011.pdf.Additional information on the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, and life history can also be found in GFNMS' application and NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012). The information has not changed and is therefore not repeated here.

California (southern) sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), listed asthreatened under the ESA and categorized as depleted under the MMPA, usually range in coastal waters within 2 km (1.2 mi) of shore. PRBO has not encountered California sea otters on Southeast Farallon Island during the course of seabird or pinniped research activities over the past five years. This species is managed by the USFWS and is not considered further in this notice.

The appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out on Southeast Farallon and Maintop (West End) Islands. Although marine mammals are never deliberately approached by abalone survey personnel, approach may be unavoidable if pinnipeds are hauled out in the immediate vicinity of the permanent abalone study plots. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of researchers (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of researchers are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Animals that respond to the presence of researchers by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment. NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA (77 FR 50990, August 23, 2012) contains information regarding potential impacts to marine mammals from the specified activity. The information has not changed and is therefore not repeated here.

Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term disturbance. In any given study season (i.e., November 2012 and February 2013), the researchers will visit the islands for a total of 4-8 days each of the two months, and each site is not visited during both months. Visits to each site are thus separated by several months. Each site visit typically lasts 3-4 hours. Therefore, disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from the presence of researchers lasts only for short periods of time and is separated by significant amounts of time in which no disturbance occurs. Because such disturbance is sporadic, rather than chronic, and of low intensity, individual marine mammals are unlikely to incur any detrimental impacts to vital rates or ability to forage and, thus, loss of fitness. Correspondingly, even local populations, much less the overall stocks of animals, are extremely unlikely to accrue any significantly detrimental impacts.

NMFS does not anticipate that the activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds because (1) the timing of research visits would preclude separation of mothers and pups for four of the pinniped species, as activities occur outside of the pupping/breeding season and (2) elephant seals are generally not susceptible to disturbance as a result of researchers' presence. In addition, researchers will exercise appropriate caution approaching sites, especially when pups are present and will redirect activities when pups are present.

The only habitat modification associated with the activity is the quadrat locations being marked with marine epoxy. The plot corners are marked with a 3x3 cm (1.2x1.2 in) patch of marine epoxy glued to the benchrock for relocating the quadrat sites. Markers have been in place since 1993, and pinniped populations have increased throughout the islands during this time. Maintenance is sometimes required, which consists of replenishing worn markers with fresh epoxy or replacing markers that have become dislodged. No gas power tools are used, so there is no potential for noise or accidental fuel spills disturbing animals and impacting habitats. Thus, the activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects, including to marine mammal prey species, that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

GFNMS shall implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) harassment. Measures include: (1) Coordinating sampling efforts with other permitted activities (i.e., PRBO and USFWS); (2) conducting slow movements and staying close to the ground to prevent or minimize stampeding; (3) avoiding loud noises (i.e., using hushed voices); (4) vacating the area as soon as sampling of the site is completed; (5) monitoring the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters; (6) using binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by animals; and (7) rescheduling work at sites where pups are present, unless other means to accomplishing the work can be done without causing disturbance to mothers and dependent pups.

The methodologies and actions noted in this section will be utilized and are included as mitigation measures in the IHA to ensure that impacts to marine mammals are mitigated to the lowest level practicable. The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to pinnipeds, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to abalone study sites, avoiding close contact with pinnipeds hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. In no case will marine mammals be deliberately approached by abalone survey personnel, and in all cases every possible measure will be taken to select a pathway of approach to study sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals potentially harassed. In general, researchers will stay inshore of pinnipeds whenever possible to allow maximum escape to the ocean. Each visit to a given study site will last for approximately 4 hours, after which the site is vacated and can be re-occupied by any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of abalone researchers. By arriving before low tide, worker presence will tend to encourage pinnipeds to move to other areas for the day before they haul out and settle onto rocks at low tide.

The following measures will be implemented to avoid disturbances to elephant seal pups. Disturbances to females with dependent pups can be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding visits to those intertidal sites with pinnipeds that are actively nursing, with the exception of northern elephant seals. The time of year when GFNMS plans to sample avoids disturbance to young, dependent pups, with the exception of northern elephant seals. Thus, early February andNovember, at minimum, are preferable for the intertidal survey work in order to minimize the risk of harassment. Harassment of nursing northern elephant seal pups may occur but only to a limited extent. Disruption of nursing to northern elephant seal pups will occur only as biologists pass by the area. No flushing of nursing northern elephant seal pups is anticipated, and no disturbance to newborn northern elephant seals (pups less than 1 week old) is anticipated. Moreover, elephant seals have a much higher tolerance of nearby human activity than sea lions or harbor seals. In the event of finding pinnipeds breeding and nursing, the intertidal monitoring activities will be re-directed to sites where these activities and behaviors are not occurring. This mitigation measure will reduce the possibility of takes by harassment and further reduce the remote possibility of serious injury or mortality of dependent pups.

GFNMS will suspend sampling and monitoring operations immediately if an injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area and the abalone site sampling activities could aggravate its condition.

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

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

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

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the final mitigation measures, NMFS has determined that they provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.

Currently many aspects of pinniped research are being conducted by PRBO scientists on the Farallon Islands, which includes elephant seal pup tagging and behavior observations with special notice to tagged animals. Additional observations are always desired, such as observations of pinniped carcasses bearing tags, as well as any rare or unusual marine mammal occurrences. GFNMS' observations and reporting will add to the observational database and on-going marine mammal assessments on the Farallon Islands.

GFNMS can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds on the South Farallon Islands by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

Monitoring requirements in relation to GFNMS' abalone research surveys include observations made by the applicant. Information recorded will include species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles), numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the abalone surveys. Observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds on the South Farallon Islands will be reported to NMFS and PRBO so that any potential follow-up observations can be conducted by the appropriate personnel. In addition, observations of tag-bearing pinniped carcasses as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammals will be reported to NMFS and PRBO.

If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the abalone research, GFNMS will suspend research activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.

A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2012-2013 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA will be requested. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA. A final report must be submitted to the Director of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and to the NMFS Southwest Office Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is considered remote. Animals hauled out close to the actual survey sites may be disturbed by the presence of biologists and may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers. No motorized equipment is involved in conducting the abalone monitoring surveys.

As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the researcher's presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. Animals that became alert without such movements were not considered harassed. The distribution of pinnipeds hauled out on beaches is not consistent throughout the year. The number of marine mammals disturbed will vary by month and location. PRBO obtains weekly counts of pinnipeds on the South Farallon Islands, dating back to the early 1970s. GFNMS used data collected by PRBO in February and November 2010 and 2011 (since those are the months they propose to conduct their abalone monitoring in 2012 and2013) to estimate the number of pinnipeds that may potentially be taken by Level B (behavioral) harassment. Table 3 in GFNMS' IHA application and Table 1 here present the maximum numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, northern fur seals, and Steller sea lions that may be present at the various sampling sites in November and February. As indicated in the table, some sites will be sampled in both months and others only in one of the two survey months. Based on this information, NMFS has authorized the take, by Level B harassment only, of 6,850 California sea lions, 175 harbor seals, 225 northern elephant seals, 20 northern fur seals, and 95 Steller sea lions. These numbers are considered to be maximum take estimates; therefore, actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or animals are out foraging at the time of the survey activities.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the take occurs.

No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of GFNMS' rocky intertidal monitoring surveys, and none are authorized. The behavioral harassments that could occur would be of limited duration, as researchers only conduct sampling two times per year for a total of 4-8 days each time. Additionally, each site is sampled for approximately 3-4 hours before moving to the next sampling site. Therefore, disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing pinnipeds to reoccupy the sites within a short amount of time.

Some of the pinniped species use the islands to conduct pupping and/or breeding. However, with the exception of northern elephant seals, GFNMS will conduct its abalone site sampling outside of the pupping/breeding seasons. GFNMS will implement measures to minimize impacts to northern elephant seals nursing or tending to dependent pups. Such measures will likely avoid mother/pup separation or trampling of pups.

Of the five marine mammal species anticipated to occur in the activity areas, only the Steller sea lion is listed as threatened under the ESA. The species is also designated as depleted under the MMPA. Table 2 in this document presents the abundance of each species or stock, the authorized take estimates, and the percentage of the affected populations or stocks that may be taken by harassment. Based on these estimates, GFNMS would take less than 1% of each species or stock, with the exception of the California sea lion, which would result in an estimated take of 2.3% of the stock. Because these are maximum estimates, actual take numbers are likely to be lower, as some animals may select other haulout sites the day the researchers are present.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the rocky intertidal monitoring program will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from the rocky intertidal monitoring program will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

There is one marine mammal species listed as threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the project area: the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division conducted consultation with NMFS' Endangered Species Division, Southwest Regional Office, under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to GFNMS under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. In October 2012, NMFS finished conducting its section 7 consultation and issued a Biological Opinion, and concluded that the issuance of the IHA associated with GFNMS' rocky intertidal monitoring program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the species. The mitigation measures included in the final IHA have also been included in the Incidental Take Statement provided with the Biological Opinion.

NMFS has prepared an EA that includes an analysis of potential environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to GFNMS to take marine mammals incidental to conducting rocky intertidal monitoring surveys on the South Farallon Islands, California. NMFS has finalized the EA and prepared a FONSI for this action. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has authorized the take of marine mammals incidental to GFNMS' rocky intertidal and black abalone monitoring research activities, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

In September 2008, the DoN completed the Final EIS for the Introduction of the P-8A MMA into the U.S. Navy Fleet, which evaluated the environmental impacts of homebasing 12 P-8A MMA fleet squadrons (72 aircraft) and one Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) (12 aircraft) at established maritime patrol homebases. The Final EIS analyzed transitioning personnel, new construction or renovation of structures, and all airfield operations necessary to accommodate the P-8A MMA as the DoN phases the P-3C Orion out of service.

The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment reviewed the Final EIS, and after carefully weighing the operational, social, and environmental impacts of the proposed action, determined the DoN would homebase five fleet squadrons and the FRS at Naval AirStation (NAS) Jacksonville, four fleet squadrons at NAS Whidbey Island, and three fleet squadrons at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Hawaii Kaneohe Bay, with periodic squadron detachments at NAS North Island (Alternative 5). A notice of the Record of Decision (ROD) was published in theFederal Registeron January 2, 2009 (74 FR 100). At the time, Alternative 5 was considered to best meet mission requirements because it optimized operational efficiencies related to training and contractor logistics support functions at the three established maritime patrol homebase locations.

To meet the DoN's current and future requirements and maximize the efficiency of support facilities, simulation training equipment, and on-site support personnel, the DoN proposes to analyze additional alternatives for P-8A aircraft homebasing. The DoN has determined that a dual-siting alternative, rather than homebasing the aircraft at three locations, now best meets current requirements. The two potential homebase locations for the P-8A MMA are NAS Jacksonville, located in Duval County, Florida, and NAS Whidbey Island, located in Island County, Washington.

Homebasing the P-8A MMA at two locations would result in differences in numbers of aircraft and personnel, as well as associated facility requirements at several Naval installations when compared to the 2008 ROD. For NAS Jacksonville, this would mean an increase in P-8A MMA aircraft and personnel permanently assigned, but would require no new facilities. For NAS Whidbey Island, this would mean an increase in P-8A MMA aircraft and personnel permanent assigned, as well as an expanded facility footprint. For MCB Hawaii Kaneohe Bay, the proposed dual-siting would result in the new assignment of two rotating P-8A MMA detachments, the elimination of permanently assigned P-8A MMA aircraft and personnel, and a reduced facility footprint. For NAS North Island, there would be no change in P-8A MMA aircraft, personnel or facility requirements from the 2008 ROD.

The environmental analysis in the Supplemental EIS will focus on several aspects of the proposed action: facility and infrastructure renovation and construction, personnel changes, and aircraft operations at the homebase airfields. Resource areas to be addressed in the Supplemental EIS will include, but not be limited to: air quality, noise environment, land use, socioeconomic, infrastructure and community services, natural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, safety and environmental hazards. The analysis will evaluate direct and indirect impacts, and will account for cumulative impacts from other relevant activities near the installations. Relevant and reasonable measures that could avoid or mitigate environmental effects will also be analyzed. Additionally, the DoN will undertake any consultation applicable by law and regulation. No decision will be made to implement any alternative for homebasing the P-8A aircraft until the Supplemental EIS process is completed and a new ROD is signed by the DoN.

During the 45-day public comment and agency review period following release of the Draft Supplemental EIS, anticipated in Summer 2013, the DoN will schedule public meetings to discuss findings of the Draft Supplemental EIS and to receive public comments. The public meetings will be held near each of the homebasing locations. Dates, locations, and times for the public meetings will be announced in theFederal Registerand local media at the appropriate time.

The public comment period on the NWSTF Boardman EIS will be extended until December 6, 2012. Comments may be submitted in writing to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attention: Mrs. Amy Burt, NWSTF Boardman EIS Project Manager, 1101 Tautog Circle Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington, 98315-1101. In addition, comments may be submitted online athttp://www.NWSTFBoardmanEIS.comduring the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked by December 6, 2012, to ensure they become part of the official record. All written comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following libraries:

1. Multnomah County Library—Central Library, 801 Southwest 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

2. Oregon Trail Library District—Boardman Library, 200 South Main Street, Boardman, Oregon.

3. Oregon Trail Library District—Heppner Branch, 444 North Main Street, Heppner, Oregon.

4. Salem Public Library—Central Branch, 585 Liberty Street Southeast, Salem, Oregon.

5. Salem Public Library—West Salem Branch, 395 Glen Creek Road Northwest, Salem, Oregon.

6. Stafford Hansell Government Center, 915 Southeast Columbia Drive, Hermiston, Oregon.

Copies of the Draft EIS are available for electronic viewing athttp://www.NWSTFBoardmanEIS.com.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47631), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0532, which is available for either public viewing online athttp://www.regulations.gov,or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system athttp://www.regulations.gov,either to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing athttp://www.regulations.govas EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go towww.regulations.gov.

Title:NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating (Renewal).

ICR Numbers:EPA ICR Number 0663.11, OMB Control Number 2060-0001.

ICR Status:This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract:The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WW. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an initial notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are also required semiannually.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 43 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities:Owners or operators of beverage can surface coating facilities.

Estimated Number of Respondents:48.

Frequency of Response:Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:5,134.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:$597,892, which includes $497,092 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $100,800 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates:There is no change in labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. However, there is an increase in the total labor and Agency costs as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in cost estimates reflects updated labors rates available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

Abstract:The Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms booklet is updated every two years, to comply with the statutory mandate that EPA conduct a survey of hazardous waste generation at least every two years. The report, known as the “Biennial Report,” has been conducted since 1989, every odd-numbered year, known as the data collection year. The even-numbered years are known as the reporting years. The ICR has been renewed every data collection year, and the forms have been made available to respondents at the beginning of the reporting year. However, EPA is amending the current ICR this year so that the booklet for the next cycle, the 2013 cycle, will be available at the beginning of the data collection year. This change is in response to many requests by States.

The proposed changes to the 2013 booklet include: (1) Some management method codes will be consolidated in order to ease reporting, (2) the waste minimization codes will be revised in order to assist filers with reporting their waste minimization activities, and (3) editorial changes will be made to the description of some source codes in order to improve clarity for filers.

This amendment will not affect the Notification booklet or the Part A Permit Application booklet, which are both part of this ICR.

Form Numbers:8700-13 A/B.

Respondents/affected entities:Business or other for-profit as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond:mandatory (RCRA sections 3002 and 3004).

Estimated number of respondents:56,672.

Frequency of response:Biennially.

Total estimated burden:432,903 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost:$18,404,963 (per year), includes $18,153,496 annualized labor and $251,467 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates:There is a decrease of 7,341 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to changes in the waste minimization data reported in Form GM (i.e., use of a revised set of waste minimization codes for which the requirement to submit comments is optional).

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier HHS-OS-17883-30D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title:Teen Pregnancy Prevention Replication Evaluation Study: Follow-up Data Collection.

Abstract:The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary (OS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is overseeing and coordinating adolescent pregnancy prevention evaluation efforts as part of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. OAH is working collaboratively with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on adolescent pregnancy prevention evaluation activities.

OAH will jointly oversee with ASPE the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Replication Evaluation Study (TPP Replication Study). The TPP Replication Study will be a random assignment evaluation which will determine the extent to which evidence-based program models that have been shown to be effective in an earlier trial, demonstrate effects on adolescent sexual risk behavior and teenage pregnancy when they are replicated with different populations.

OAH and ASPE are proposing follow-up data collection activity as part of the TPP Replication Evaluation. Specifically, there will be two follow-up data collection points: (1) Short-term follow-up data collection 6 to 12 months post-baseline; and (2) longer-term follow-up data collection 18-24 months post-baseline. Respondents will be asked to answer carefully selected questions about risk and protective factors related to teen pregnancy, intermediate outcomes, and behavioral outcomes.

The survey data will be collected through private, self-administered questionnaires completed by study participants, i.e. adolescents assigned to a select school or community teen pregnancy prevention program or a control group. Surveys will be distributed and collected by trained professional staff.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information:Information from this data collection will be used to perform meaningful analysis to determine significant program effects. The findings from this evaluation will be of interest to the general public, to policy-makers, and to organizations interested in teen pregnancy prevention.

Likely Respondents:Adolescents, either assigned to teen pregnancy preview programs or part of a control group.

Burden Statement:Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions, to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information, to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and reviewthe collection of information, and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

I. The Think Cultural Health Web Site Program

The Think Cultural Health Web site Program was created in recognition of the effectiveness of on-line distance learning. It supports the HHS/OS/OASH/OMH in complying with the cultural competency requirements of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148), as well as the HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, the National Stakeholder Strategy for Achieving Health Equity, Healthy People 2020, the Secretary's Strategic Plan priorities, and the Assistant Secretary for Health's Public Health Quality Agenda. The program will use a Web site to post information such as cultural competency, language access and health disparities articles, and notices of health disparities conferences for viewing by any visitors to the site. Other resources, consisting of training and newsletters, will be available through the Web site to health professionals who register to use those resources. The Think Cultural Health system will not collect PII about visitors, but will collect PII about registrants/users. Use of the resources offered on the site is voluntary, but registration information is required to determine if the site is used by variety of health professionals, representing different disciplines, skill sets, and demographic locations. The provision of data concerning the registrant's gender and race is optional. Additionally, training and test records are needed for reports to accrediting bodies.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, and uses PII in a system of records. A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in theFederal Registera SORN identifying and describing each system of records the agency maintains, including the purposes for which the agency uses PII in the system, the routine uses for which the agency discloses such information outside the agency, and how individual record subjects can exercise their rights under the Privacy Act (e.g., to determine if the system contains information about them).

Domini Bean, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400T, Rockville, MD 20850,domini.bean@fda.hhs.gov.

As a direct result of discussions that have been adjunct to the U.S./Chile Free Trade Agreement, Chile has recognized FDA as the competent U.S. food safety authority and has accepted the U.S. regulatory system for dairy inspections. Chile has concluded that it will not require individual inspections of U.S. firms by Chile as a prerequisite for trade, but will accept firms identified by FDA as eligible to export to Chile. Therefore, intheFederal Registerof June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36190), FDA announced the availability of a revised guidance document entitled “Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Dairy Product Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting to Chile.” The guidance can be found athttp://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ImportsExports/ucm078936.htm.The guidance document explains that FDA has established a list that is provided to the government of Chile and posted onhttp://www.fda.gov/Food/InternationalActivities/Exports/ucm120245.htm,which identifies U.S. dairy product manufacturers/processors that have expressed interest to FDA in exporting dairy products to Chile, are subject to FDA jurisdiction, and are not the subject of a pending judicial enforcement action (i.e., an injunction or seizure) or a pending warning letter. The term “dairy products,” for purposes of this list, is not intended to cover the raw agricultural commodity raw milk. Application for inclusion on the list is voluntary. However, Chile has advised that dairy products from firms not on this list could be delayed or prevented by Chilean authorities from entering commerce in Chile. The guidance explains what information firms should submit to FDA in order to be considered for inclusion on the list and what criteria FDA intends to use to determine eligibility for placement on the list. The document also explains how FDA intends to update the list and how FDA intends to communicate any new information to Chile. Finally, the guidance notes that FDA considers the information on this list, which is provided voluntarily with the understanding that it will be posted on FDA's Web site and communicated to, and possibly further disseminated by, Chile, to be information that is not protected from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under the guidance, FDA recommends that U.S. firms that want to be placed on the list send the following information to FDA: Name and address of the firm and the manufacturing plant; name, telephone number, and email address (if available) of the contact person; a list of products presently shipped and expected to be shipped in the next 3 years; identities of agencies that inspect the plant and the date of last inspection; plant number and copy of last inspection notice; and, if other than an FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report. FDA requests that this information be updated every 2 years.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The estimate of the number of firms that will submit new written requests to be placed on the list, biannual updates, and occasional updates is based on FDA's experience maintaining the list over the past 7 years. The estimate of the number of hours that it will take a firm to gather the information needed to be placed on the list or update its information is based on FDA's experience with firms submitting similar requests. FDA believes that the information to be submitted will be readily available to the firms.

On average, over the last 3 years, the list contained approximately 176 firms. FDA estimates that, each year, approximately 25 new firms will apply to be added to the list. In any given year, some firms choose not to resubmit their information. These firms are removed from the list quarterly. This occurrence results in the number of firms to remain at approximately 176. We estimate that a firm will require 1.5 hours to read the guidance, gather the information needed, and to prepare a communication to FDA that contains the information and requests that the firm be placed on the list for a total of 37.5 hours, rounded to 38. Under the guidance, every 2 years each producer on the list must provide updated information in order to remain on the list. FDA estimates that each year approximately half of the firms on the list, 88 firms (176 × 0.5 = 88), will resubmit the information to remain on the list. We estimate that a firm already on the list will require 1.0 hours to biannually update and resubmit the information to FDA, including time reviewing the information and corresponding with FDA, for a total of 88 hours. In addition, FDA expects that, each year, approximately 25 firms will need to submit an occasional update and each firm will require 0.5 hours to prepare a communication to FDA reporting the change, for a total of 12.5 hours, rounded to 13.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in theFederal Registerconcerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under 42 U.S.C. 243, FDA is required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities in the enforcement of their health regulations and is authorized to assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases. Under this authority, FDA participates with State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038, “Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.” FDA uses this information to publish the “Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List,” a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish processors certified under the cooperative program. If FDA did not collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations. Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and its effectiveness would be nullified.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

FDA estimates that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228 hours (2,280 submissions × 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is based on FDA's experience and the number of certificates received in the past 3 years.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in theFederal Registerconcerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

HACCP principles are designed to reduce the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors through preventive controls. FDA has developed two technical assistance reference manuals that interpret and promote the application of HACCP principles to reduce the risk of foodborne illness in the operation of retail and food service establishments.

The responsibility and authority for regulating retail and food service establishments lie primarily with State and local governments. Officials in State, local, territorial, and tribal agencies inspect these food facilities, license establishments, issue permits, and enforce their State or local government's laws and regulations. FDA's Retail Food Protection Program provides assistance to the more than 3,000 State and local government agencies that regulate the retail food industry nationally. The primary objective of the Retail Food Protection Program is to prevent foodborne illness at the retail level of the food industry by directing activities toward promotion of effective State and local regulatory programs. FDA provides assistance to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions through multiple means including, but not limited to, training and technical assistance. Authority for providing such assistance is derived from section 311 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243). In addition, FDA's mission under section 903(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A)) includes ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and sanitary, and section 903(b)(4) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to cooperate with food retailers, among others, in carrying out this part of its mission.

The first manual, entitled “Managing Food Safety: A Manual for the Voluntary Use of HACCP Principles for Operators of Food Service and Retail Establishments” (Operator's Manual) (available athttp://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ManagingFoodSafetyHACCPPrinciples/Operators/default.htm), provides operators of retail and food service establishments a roadmap for developing a food safety management system based on HACCP principles. Food safety management systems allow establishment operators to take a proactive role in ensuring that the food served or sold in their establishment is safe. Rather than responding to a foodborne illness when it occurs, they can prevent it by taking active steps to eliminate, prevent, or reduce to an acceptable level food safety hazards that may cause someone to become sick or injured.

The second manual, entitled “Managing Food Safety: A Regulator's Manual for Applying HACCP Principles to Risk-based Retail and Food Service Inspections and Evaluating Voluntary Food Safety Management Systems” (Regulator's Manual) (available athttp://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ManagingFoodSafetyHACCPPrinciples/Regulators/default.htm), provides State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory authorities with a model for prioritizing inspections using a risk-based approach. The Regulator's Manual provides a roadmap for evaluating retail and food service establishments based on the application of HACCP principles.

FDA developed the manuals as technical assistance reference resources for regulators and operators to help reduce the risk of foodborne illness. There is no Federal requirement that retail and food service establishments implement food safety management systems based on HACCP principles. State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory authorities decide whether to require food safety management systems in the operation of retail and food service establishments. Regulators and operators will not submit information to FDA based on these manuals.

Regulators and retail and food service operators use the manuals as technical assistance reference resources. The Regulator's Manual contains information, recommendations and model documents for State, local, territorial, and tribal regulators who wish to develop practices for risk-based inspections of retail and food service establishments based on the application of HACCP principles. The Operator's Manual contains information, recommendations and model documents for operators of retail and food service establishments who wish to develop and/or validate the practices used in a food safety management system based on HACCP principles.

Description of Respondents:The respondents are State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions and operators of retail and food service establishments in the United States. Respondents are from both the public sector (State, local, territorial, and tribal governments) and the private sector (for-profit businesses).

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The number of operator recordkeepers estimated in column 2 of Table 1 is based on FDA's goal to have 50,000 (1/2of 1 percent) of the approximately one million U.S. retail and food service operators implement the recommendations outlined in the two manuals, as estimated in 2009 (73 FR 77721, at 77722). FDA's estimate of the total number of retail and food service establishments is based on numbers obtained from the two major trade organizations representing these industries, the Food Marketing Institute and the National Restaurant Association. Gathering reference material to develop and/or validate food safety management system practices is a one-time burden. We assume that those 50,000 operators have utilized FDA's technical assistance manuals to thedegree that they chose to do so over the past 3 years and over the next 3 years will only need to reference these manuals on an as-needed basis. FDA estimates that, annually, approximately one half of the operators, 25,000, will choose to reference FDA's information, recommendations or model documents.

The number of regulator recordkeepers estimated in column 2 of Table 1 is based on FDA's estimate that there are approximately 3,000 State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions. Gathering and reviewing reference material to develop practices for risk-based inspections of retail and food service establishments based on HACCP principles is a one-time burden. We assume that those 3,000 regulatory jurisdictions have utilized FDA's technical assistance manuals to the degree that they chose to do so over the past 3 years and over the next 3 years will only need to reference these manuals on an as-needed basis. FDA estimates that, annually, approximately one half of the regulatory jurisdictions (1,500) will choose to reference FDA's information, recommendations or model documents.

The hours per record estimated in column 2 of Table 1 are based on FDA's experience with similar technical assistance materials offered by the Agency. FDA estimates that over the next 3 years regulators and operators will only need to reference these manuals on an as needed basis. We estimate that it will take an operator with a specific need for information approximately 12 minutes (0.2 hour) to gather and record the data from the manuals. We estimate that it will take a regulator with a specific need for information approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hour) to gather and record the data from the manuals.

The total recordkeeping burden of the technical assistance manuals is 5,375 hours, as shown in Table 1.

FDA is announcing the availability of a compliance guidance for small business entities entitled “Labeling for Bronchodilators: Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antiasthmatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Small Entity Compliance Guide.” This small entity compliance guide applies to OTC bronchodilator drug products used to treat asthma that are marketed without an approved application (i.e., under the OTC bronchodilator monograph) (21 CFR part 341). OTC bronchodilators are those that contain any of the ephedrine ingredients (i.e., ephedrine, ephedrine hydrochloride, ephedrine sulfate, and racephedrine hydrochloride) or epinephrine ingredients (i.e., epinephrine, epinephrine bitartrate, and racepinephrine hydrochloride) listed under 21 CFR 341.16.

This guidance summarizes the July 26, 2011, final rule (76 FR 44475) regarding OTC bronchodilator drug products, which makes the following changes to the OTC regulations:

• Sets forth a new use statement, warnings (including an Asthma Alert warning), and directions that are required in the labeling of OTC bronchodilator drug products under 21 CFR 341.76.

• Revises labeling requirements for OTC bronchodilator drug products to ensure consistency with the standardized Drug Facts content and formatting requirements set forth in 21 CFR 201.66.

Manufacturers must be in compliance with the rule beginning on January 23, 2012.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on labeling for OTC bronchodilator drug products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES) or electronic comments tohttp://www.regulations.gov.It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docketnumber found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at eitherhttp://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htmorhttp://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests on Pooled and Individual Samples from Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components, including Source Plasma, to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus,” dated October 2012. FDA is providing blood establishments that collect Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion or for further manufacture, including recovered plasma, Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, with recommendations concerning the use of FDA-licensed NAT to screen blood donors for HBV DNA. FDA is also providing these blood establishments with recommendations for product testing and disposition, donor management, methods for donor requalification, and product labeling.

In addition, FDA is notifying those blood establishments that FDA considers the use of an FDA-licensed HBV NAT to be necessary to reduce adequately and appropriately the risk of transmission of HBV. FDA-licensed HBV NAT can detect evidence of infection at an earlier stage than is possible using previously approved HBsAg and anti-HBc tests. Therefore, FDA is recommending the use FDA-licensed HBV NAT, in accordance with the requirements under Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, 610.40(a) and (b) (21 CFR 610.40(a) and (b)).

The guidance supplements previous memoranda and guidance from FDA to blood establishments concerning the testing of donations for HBsAg and anti-HBc, and the management of donors and donations mentioned in those documents. Note that testing Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion and Source Leukocytes for further manufacture for HBsAg and anti-HBc, and Source Plasma for HBsAg, should continue when a blood establishment implements HBV NAT. FDA may consider advancements in technology for testing blood donations, as well as data obtained following the implementation of HBV NAT, to make future recommendations on adequate and appropriate testing for HBV.

In theFederal Registerof November 28, 2011 (76 FR 72950), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title, dated November 2011. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In addition to minor editorial changes made to improve clarity, changes to the draft guidance include revised labeling recommendations and an extension of the time for implementation of the guidance to 6 months after publication of the final guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated November 2011.

The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. Thesecollections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in § 601.12 and in §§ 606.121 and 610.40 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0338 and 0910-0116, respectively.

Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES) or electronic comments tohttp://www.regulations.gov.It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at eitherhttp://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htmorhttp://www.regulations.gov.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether theproposed collection 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 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:Eligibility of a Nonprofit Corporation/Housing Consultant Certification.

OMB Control Number, if applicable:2502-0057.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:The information collected on the “Eligibility of a Nonprofit Corporation/Housing Consultant Certification” form provides HUD with information to determine whether the sponsor has qualifications necessary for successful sponsorship of housing projects. HUD Program Offices use the data to evaluate a potential sponsor's/mortgagor's qualifications at the pre-application stage to determine that all the documentation required by Chapter 8 of the MAP and Chapter 14 of Handbook 4470.1

Agency form numbers, if applicable:HUD-3433, HUD-3434, HUD-3435, andHUD-92531.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:The number of burden hours is 43. The number of respondents is 100; the number of responses is 110. The frequency of response is on occasion; and the hourly burden is 1hour and 45 minutes.

Status of the proposed information collection:This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection 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 minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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:Multifamily Housing Service Coordinator Program.

OMB Control Number:2502-0447.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:

1. HUD uses the grant applications (SF-424, HUD-91186, and other related documents) to assess the need and proposed use of grant funds and owners' ability to administer those funds.

2. HUD staff will use requests for extensions (HUD-91186-A) to evaluate anticipated program costs and the continued need for the program.

3. The LOCCS Payment Voucher (HUD-50080-SCMF) is used to monitor release of grant funds to reimburse eligible program costs over the term of the grant. Grant recipients will similarly use this voucher to track and record their requests for payment reimbursement for grant-funded expenses.

4. The Department is revising the Semi-Annual Performance Report, HUD-92456. Changes include the following:

A. Additional sources of funding;

B. Modification of resident statistics and the numbers of project tenants and neighborhood residents served by the Service Coordinator during the reporting period;

C. Adding hire date for the Service Coordinator and date of program inception;

D. Adding number of contacts to number of residents that the Service Coordinator links to various supportive services;

E. Providing a glossary of definitions of supportive service types;

F. Modifying the section for reporting time allocation of monthly work responsibilities;

G. Adding a new item to highlight community engagement; including meetings with community agencies and residents and Attendance at or planning of community events, and

H. Adding a new section to track aging in place statistics.

The semi-annual Performance Reports will be used to gauge program performance and effective use of Federal funds to meet stated program goals. The Department proposes the new changes to obtain more specific, accurate, and relevant data. To complete the form, Housing owners and Service Coordinators will develop and maintain meaningful data that reflect the efficacy of the Service Coordinator program. The Burden Hours per Response remains the same at six hours. (Previous requests had overstated the amount of time required to complete the report.)

5. The Department is proposing a new form to be used by field office staff to perform Service Coordinator program reviews. This proposed form is provided in this Notice to solicit comments from the public, even though the form is designed for use by HUD field office staff. The Department requires a consistent protocol to review and evaluate Service Coordinator programs. The use of this form will allow for consistent and thorough program assessment. It will also inform housing owners, management agents, and Service Coordinators about program requirements and expected performance.

6. SF-425

7. HUD-96010

Agency Form Numbers, If Applicable:HUD-2880, HUD-50080-SCMF, HUD-91186, HUD-91186-A, HUD-92455, HUD-92456, HUD-96010, SF-424, SF-424-Supp, SF-425, and SF-LLL.

Estimation of the Total Numbers of Hours Needed to Prepare The Information Collection Including Number of Respondents, Frequency of Response, and Hours of Response:The number of respondents is 10,290; the frequency of responses is quarterly, semi-annually, and annually, with a total of 22,070 total annual responses. The estimated time to prepare collection varies from 15 minutes to 40 hours, with a total of 74,800 annual burden hours.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection:This is a revision of a previously approved collection.

Title:30 CFR Part 250, subpart L, Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface Commingling, and Security.

OMB Control Number:1014-0002.

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

The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701,et seq.) at section 1712(b)(2) prescribes that an operator will “develop and comply with such minimum site security measures as the Secretary deems appropriate, to protect oil or gas produced or stored on a lease site or on the Outer Continental Shelf from theft.”

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

Regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, subpart L, implement these statutory requirements. We use the information to ensure that the volumes of hydrocarbons produced are measured accurately, and royalties are paid on the proper volumes. Specifically, we need the information to:

• Determine if measurement equipment is properly installed, provides accurate measurement of production on which royalty is due, and is operating properly;

• Obtain rates of production data in allocating the volumes of production measured at royalty sales meters, which can be examined during field inspections;

• Ascertain if all removals of oil and condensate from the lease are reported;

• Determine the amount of oil that was shipped when measurements are taken by gauging the tanks rather than being measured by a meter;

• Ensure that the sales location is secure and production cannot be removed without the volumes being recorded; and

• Review proving reports to verify that data on run tickets are calculated and reported accurately.

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

Frequency:Varies by section, but primarily monthly, or on occasion.

Description of Respondents:Potential respondents comprise Federal oil, gas and sulphur lessees and/or operators.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is a total of 32,957 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden:We have identified two non-hour cost burdens, both of which are cost recovery fees. Note that the actual fee amounts are specified in 30 CFR 250.125, which provide a consolidated table of all the fees required under the 30 CFR 250 regulations. The currently approved non-hour cost burden total in this collection of information is an estimated $600,065. The cost burdens are for: (1)Filing fees associated with submitting requests for approval of simple applications (applications to temporarily reroute production (for a duration not to exceed 6 months); production tests prior to pipeline construction; departures related to meter proving, well testing, or sampling frequency ($1,271 per application)) or, (2) submitting a request for approval of a complex application (creation of new facility measurement points (FMPs); association of leases or units with existing FMPs; inclusion of production from additional structures; meter updates which add buyback gas meters or pigging meters; other applications which request deviations from the approved allocation procedures ($3,760 per application)).

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

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

Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.

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

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

Acting BSEE Information Collection Clearance Officer:Cheryl Blundon (703) 787-1607.

The park has involved the community in information gathering for developing a shared vision for the Paseo del Morro National Recreational Trail Extension as part of an effort led by the NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program. Meetings were held with the community in January 2010, August 2010, March 2011, and October 2011, to begin discussions on trail extension and connectivity. The development of the Draft EIS will use the information gathered in those meetings, along with future meetings in collaboration with the RTCA Program, to assist with alternative development.

The NPS will provide additional opportunities for the public to provide written comments upon publication of the Draft EIS. The NPS welcomes public participation by Federal, State, and local agencies as well as other concerned organizations and private citizens throughout the preparation process of the EIS.

The responsible official for this EIS is David Vela, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

In the Multisale FEIS, BOEM evaluated three alternatives, which are summarized below:

Alternative A—The Proposed Action:This is BOEM's preferred alternative identified in the Multisale FEIS. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the WPA for oil and gas operations, with the following exceptions:

(1) Whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication date of the Multisale FEIS); and

(2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4 nautical mile buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United States and Mexico.

The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses virtually all of the WPA's 28.58 million acres. As of August 2012, approximately 20.8 million acres of the WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 229 is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas.

Alternative B—The Proposed Action Excluding the Unleased Blocks Near Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features:This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), with the exception of any unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation.

Alternative C—No Action:This alternative would cancel the proposed WPA Lease Sale 229 and is identified as the environmentally preferred alternative.

After careful consideration, BOEM has selected the proposed action, identified as BOEM's preferred alternative (Alternative A) in the Multisale FEIS. BOEM's selection of the preferred alternative reflects an orderly resource development with protectionof the human, marine, and coastal environments, while also ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for these resources and that free-market competition is maintained.

Record of Decision Availability:To obtain a single printed or CD-ROM copy of the ROD for proposed WPA Lease Sale 229, you may contact the BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 250I), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). An electronic copy of the ROD is available on BOEM's Internet Web site athttp://boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub .L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSM will be submitting to OMB for renewed approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR Part 850—Permanent Regulatory Program Requirements—Standards for Certification of Blasters. The information submitted by respondents is required to obtain a benefit. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM's submission of the information collection request to OMB.

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

Title:30 CFR Part 850—Permanent Regulatory Program Requirements—Standards for Certification of Blasters.

OMB Control Number:1029-0080.

Summary:The information is used to identify and evaluate new blaster certification programs. Part 850 implements Section 719 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 719 requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations which provide for each State regulatory authority to train, examine and certify persons for engaging in blasting or use of explosives in surface coal mining operations. Each State that wishes to certify blasters must submit a blasters certification program to OSM for approval.

Bureau Form Numbers:None.

Frequency of Collection:Once.

Description of Respondents:State regulatory authorities and Indian tribes.

Total Annual Responses:1.

Total Annual Burden Hours:267 hours.

The National Coordination Committee on the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) Initiative (“SANE/SART AI/AN Initiative Committee” or “Committee”) was established by the Attorney General to provide valuable advice to OVC to encourage the coordination federal, tribal, state, and local efforts to assist victims of sexual violence within AI/AN communities, and to promote culturally relevant, victim-centered responses to sexual violence within those communities.

Meeting Agenda:The agenda will include: (a) Traditional opening ceremonies, welcome, and introductions; (b) remarks from the Acting Director of OVC; (c) presentations by and about the AI/AN SANE-SART Initiative demonstration sites and federal Working Groups; (d) small and large group discussions; (e) the development of recommendations regarding the coordination of federal partners to address sexual violence; and (f) a closing ceremony and adjournment.

The meeting is open to the public. Photo identification will be required. Space is limited.

Potentially gassy (explosive) conditions underground are largely controlled by main fans. When accumulations of explosive gases, such as methane, are not swept from the mine by the main fans, they may reasonably be expected to contact an ignition source. The results of such contacts are usually disastrous, and multiple fatalities may be reasonably expected to occur. The Main Fan Operation and Inspection standard contains significantly more stringent requirements for main fans in gassy mines than for main fans in other mines. Regulations 30 CFR 57.22204, which only applies to gassy metal and nonmetal underground mines, requires main fans to have pressure-recording systems. The standard also requires main fans to be inspected daily while operating if persons are underground and certification made of such inspections by signature and date. Certifications and pressure recordings must be retained for one year and made available to authorized representatives of the Secretary.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.See5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0030. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2013; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in theFederal Registeron July 17, 2012 (77 FR 42004).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection within 30 days of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0030. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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.

Agency:DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection:Main Fan Operation and Inspection (I-A, II-A, III, and V-A Mines).

OMB Control Number:1219-0030.

Affected Public:Private Sector—businesses or other for profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents:7.

Total Estimated Number of Responses:6,930.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:2,386.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden:$2,800.

OSHA is hosting an open informal public meeting of the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group to provide interested groups and individuals with an update on GHS-related issues and an opportunity to express their views orally and in writing for consideration in developing U.S. Government positions for the upcoming UNSCEGHS meeting. The public is invited to attend without prior notification.

The Meeting Agenda, in general, is as follows:

• Discussion of working papers for the 24th Session of the UNSCEGHS

• Update on UNSCEGHS correspondence group activity

• Discussion of the program of work for the 2013-2014 biennium

The GHS was formally adopted by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in December 2002. The GHS is a single, harmonized system for classification of chemicals according to their health, physical, and environmental effects. It also provides harmonized communication elements, including labels and safety data sheets. The GHS is considered to be a living document and is regularly revised and updated as necessary to reflect new technology and scientific developments or to provide additional explanatory text. OSHA incorporated the GHS 3rd revision into its Hazard Communication Standard on March 26th of this year, 77 FR 17574, and intends to update the standard from time to time through rulemaking in order to remain consistent with any revisions to the GHS as appropriate under the OSH Act.

The UNSCEGHS is responsible for maintaining and updating the GHS. The U.S. has been an active member of the UNSCEGHS for many years, and OSHA currently serves as the head of the U.S. delegation for this Sub-committee.

In preparation for the bi-annual meetings of the UNSCEGHS, the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group meets to discuss issues related to the GHS and to develop a coordinated U.S. position on issues and proposals regarding the GHS. The U.S. Interagency Coordinating Group consists of U.S. agencies that regulate in the area of chemical hazard communication and includes the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and OSHA.

Information on the work of the UNSCEGHS, including meeting agendas, reports, and documents from previous sessions, can be found on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport Division Web site located at the following web address:http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html.The UNSCEGHS bases its decisions on Working Papers. The Working Papers for the 24th session of the UNSCEGHS are located athttp://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c42012.html.

Informal Papers submitted to the UNSCEGHS provide information for the subcommittee and are used either as a mechanism to provide information to the subcommittee or as the basis for future Working Papers. Informal Papers for the 24th session of the UNSCEGHS are located at:http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc4/c4inf24.html.

This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), (Jan. 25, 2012).

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number (888) 606-5936; pass code “Science Committee”, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link ishttps://nasa.webex.com/,the meeting number on November 14 is 993 494 156, and the password is SC@Nov14; the meeting number on November 15 is 991 469 535, and the password is SC@Nov15. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign Nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Marian Norris via email atmnorris@nasa.govor by fax at (202) 358-4118. U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to submit their name and affiliation 3 working days prior to the meeting to Marian Norris.

The meeting will be open to the public. Meeting attendees may enter from the Pennsylvania Avenue entrance. Photo identification will be required. No visitor parking is available at the Archives building; however there are commercial parking lots and metered curb parking nearby.

Meetings:

1. DATE: December 03, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Education, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

2. DATE: December 04, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Geospatial and Visualization Research, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

3. DATE: December 05, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Archives and Digital Collections, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

4. DATE: December 06, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Computationally-Intensive Research, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

4. DATE: December 10, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Archives and Digital Collections, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

6. DATE: December 11, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 415.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program on the subject of Music and Performing Arts, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

7. DATE: December 12, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Public Programs, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

8. DATE: December 12, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 315.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Fellowship Programs at Independent Research Institutions grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

9. DATE: December 13, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 402.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grants grant program on the subject of Scholarly Communications, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

10. DATE: December 13, 2012.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ROOM: 415.

This meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program on the subject of U.S. History and Culture, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.

On August 8, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in theFederal Registerof a permit application received. A Waste Management Permit was issued on November 8, 2012 to: Harry R. Anderson, Permit No. 2013 WM-003.

The National Women's Business Council (NWBC) is a non-partisan federal advisory council that serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress, and the Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners. Members of the Council are prominent women business owners and leaders of women's business organizations.

One of NWBC's current research priorities is to segment the market of women entrepreneurs to understand differences in opportunities, challenges, motivations, and expectations they face in starting and growing their businesses. To NWBC's knowledge, no government agency has yet delineated a segmentation of women entrepreneurs. At the same time, NWBC would like to understand if and how the motivations and expectations of women entrepreneurs may result in self-limiting perceptions about the potential of their businesses and would like to assess which messaging is most effective in overcoming potential self-limiting perceptions.

NWBC has acquired the services of a research firm to propose a segmentation of women entrepreneurs based on existing and available data and to conduct in-depth analysis of different segments of women entrepreneurs through qualitative research. The analysis will focus on how the expectations and motivations of each segment differs in order to provide insight into what messaging can best be used to help these different segments overcome potential self-limiting perceptions and grow their businesses. The research proposed would build knowledge about how women business owners view the potential for theirendeavors and provide guidance on how messages about entrepreneurship resonate with segments of women within this population. The resulting data can then inform the NWBC and other policymakers about how to reach out to women entrepreneurs to encourage maximum growth for their businesses.

The qualitative research would consist of a set of twelve focus groups with up to 12 individuals in each focus group with different segments of women entrepreneurs. Questions asked during the focus groups would elicit information on motivations and expectations of women entrepreneurs, as well as any self-limiting perceptions that the respondents may hold about their businesses and the potential for growth. The questions will also elicit reactions to messaging that is commonly provided to women through public and private small business service providers to determine which segments of the population are more receptive to the different messages and to identify any new messages that should be deployed.

Title:Focus Group Research: Women Entrepreneurs, Self-Limiting Perceptions, and Segmentation.

Description of Respondents:Women entrepreneurs in a range of industries and sectors across the United States.

Form Number:n/a.

Annual Responses:144.

Annual Burden:144.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0272 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:

•Federal Rulemaking Web Site:Go tohttp://www.regulations.govand search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0272.

•NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email topdr.resource@nrc.gov.The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers for documents that pertain to the AFRRI license renewal are provided in Section II, Availability of Documents, of this document.

•NRC's PDR:You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.