The Phoenix Financial Management System was established as an Agency-wide system of record since it is required to collect, maintain or store personal data requiring protection under the Privacy Act. It is USAID's core financial management system and accounting system of record. Phoenix enables USAID to effectively and efficiently analyze, allocate and report on US foreign assistance funds. Phoenix includes modules such as General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivables, and Budget Execution, which are required to perform necessary accounting operations. Phoenix falls under strict regulatory audit requirements from the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the General Accountability Office.

The assessment area covers about 36,803 acres of National Forest System lands within T. 35 N., R. 28 & 29 E., and T. 36 N., R. 28 & 29 E., Willamette Meridian. Landmark locations include, Bannon Mountain, Tunk Mountain, Crawfish Lake, Aeneas, Barnell, Lost, Cole, Bench and Jungle Creeks, and Barnell Meadows.

The purpose of this assessment is to authorize continued grazing in the project area consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines as amended providing forage for permitted livestock grazing is proposed because of the following:

• Public Law 104-19 Section 504 of the 1995 Rescissions Act, as amended, requires each National Forest to establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and updating allotment management plans for all rangeland allotments on National Forest System lands.

• Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

• It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (CFR 222.2(c); and Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2203.1).

• Recent surveys of the analysis area identified some areas that are of concern or are currently not meeting or moving toward desired conditions in a manner that is consistent with the Okanogan Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. There is a need to modify range infrastructure and livestock management to move toward desired conditions for soils, vegetation and riparian resources. Livestock grazing is one of the factors that contribute to these altered resource conditions.

The proposed action authorizes continued livestock grazing at current levels using a combination of range improvements and adaptive management strategies to meet or move toward meeting Forest Plan Standards and to attain resource specific desired conditions.

This alternative would implement adaptive management strategies analyzed in detail to provide management options if changes to the Proposed Action grazing strategy areneeded. Monitoring would be designed for early detection of resource conditions that would trigger management changes. Triggers would be developed to identify when a specific threshold is about to be reached and cattle need to be moved. The length of time each pasture is grazed and whether additional fences would be installed would be determined by monitoring results. Adaptive management strategies include installation of water developments in the first stage and may include construction of additional fences in subsequent years if needed, where the permittee and the Forest Service agree that additional fencing would improve livestock management and riparian areas. A monitoring plan would be implemented to determine progress in attainment of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Range improvement proposals include:

• Removal of approximately 3 miles of fence no longer needed for livestock management and 2 non-functioning water developments.

• Relocation of 4 troughs and one corral outside of the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) and 1 fence approximately 1.5 miles long.

• Development of 16 springs including exclosures around spring source.

• Reconstruction of 3 existing spring developments.

• Construction of 2 new corrals.

• Construction of 1 hardened crossing on Aeneas Creek.

• Possible construction of approximately 13 miles of new pasture fence for rested areas.

More detailed information about the proposed action and maps can be accessed on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest internet sitehttp://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=38873.

In addition to the Proposed Action and any alternative that is developed following the scoping effort, the project interdisciplinary team will analyze the effects of:

•No Action alternative:No grazing permits would be reauthorized; cattle would be removed from all allotments within two years. There would be no change of allotment management in this two year period. All structural improvements currently in place would be allowed to deteriorate over time or be removed if funding is available.

•Accelerated improvement:This alternative would reauthorize grazing at current numbers with the implementation of a four-year strategy that includes installation of water developments in the first year, the construction of fences in the second, third year and fourth years. This alternative would rest from livestock grazing these newly created pastures with the most sensitive riparian areas.

Range improvement proposals include:

• Removal of approximately 3 miles of fence no longer needed for livestock management and 2 non-functioning water developments.

• Relocation of 4 troughs and one corral outside the RHCA and 1 fence approximately 1.5 miles long.

• Development of 16 springs including exclosures around spring source.

• Reconstruction of 3 existing spring developments.

• Construction of 2 new corrals.

• Construction of 1 hardened crossing on Aeneas Creek.

• Construction of approximately 13 miles of new pasture fence for rested areas.

The responsible official will be the Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801.

An environmental analysis will evaluate site-specific issues, consider management alternatives and analyze the potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives. An environmental impact statement will provide the Responsible Official with the information needed to decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, or an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to reauthorize grazing in the Bannon, Aeneas, Revis, and Tunk grazing Allotments.

This EIS will tier to the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and its subsequent amendments, which provide overall guidance for land management activities on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Preliminary issues identified include the effects of livestock grazing on riparian resources such as stream bank and channel instability, high stream width/depth ratio, lack of diverse riparian vegetation, high stream sedimentation, and soil compaction, displacement or erosion.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Environmental Impact Statement. Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in identifying issues, and determining how to best manage the resources, and focus the analysis.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the commenter with subsequent environmental documents.

Background

The antidumping duty orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), Poland, and Ukraine were published on September 7, 2001.See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine,66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001).1

On July 2, 2012, the Department initiated the second sunset reviews of these orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,77 FR 39218 (July 2, 2012) (“notice of initiation”). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic parties: The Rebar Trade Action Coalition (“RTAC”) and its individual members, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Long Steel North America, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., and Commercial Metals Company (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Each individual member of the RTAC is a manufacturer of a domestic-like product in the United States and, accordingly, is a domestic interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

On July 30, 2012, the Department received adequate substantive responses to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from respondent interested parties with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting expedited (120-day) sunsetreviews of the antidumping duty orders for Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, the PRC, and Ukraine.

The product covered by the orders is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e.,non deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating.

Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders remains dispositive.

All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 1, 2012, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users athttp://iaaccess.trade.govand in the Central Records Unit in Room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, the PRC and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Availability of Documents

Copies of the draft Proposed Plan, draft Implementing Agreement and draft EIS/PTEIR are available for public review during regular business hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Marine Fisheries Service (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT); Mendocino County Library, Fort Bragg Branch Library, 499 Laurel Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437; and Mendocino County Library, Main Branch Library, 105 North Main Street, Ukiah, CA 95482. Individuals wishing to obtain copies of the draft Proposed Plan, draft Implementing Agreement, and draft EIS/PTEIR should contact either of the Services by telephone (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by letter (seeADDRESSES). These documents also are available on the NMFS' Southwest Region Web site athttp://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/nepa.htmand the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Web site athttp://www.fws.gov/arcata/.

The initial Notice of Intent to prepare an draft EIS/EIR for this project was published in theFederal Registeron June 6, 2002 (67 FR 38932), and public scoping meetings were held on June 25, June 26, and June 27, 2002.

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.), and Federal regulations prohibit the take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened by either of the Services (16 U.S.C. 1538). The ESA defines the term “take” as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532). Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the Services may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish or wildlife; i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.

Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA, and therefore cannot be authorized under an incidental take permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to them under a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). All species included on an incidental take permit would receive assurances under the Services “No Surprises” regulation 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5).

The application for an incidental take permit was prepared and submitted by Mendocino Redwood Company (Applicant). The Applicant has prepared an HCP to satisfy the application requirements for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under the ESA, a section 2835 permit under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2002 (NCCPA), and for compliance with California Code of Regulations 14 §§ 916.9(w)(3)-(4), 919.9(d), 919.11, and 1092.21(d) under the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs). Thus, the Proposed Plan constitutes an HCP pursuant to the ESA, and a Natural Community Conservation Plan pursuant to the California NCCPA.

The Applicant seeks an 80-year incidental take permit for covered activities within a proposed 213,244 acre Plan Area located entirely in Mendocino County, California. The Proposed Plan Area includes commercial timberlands owned by Mendocino Redwood Company that are located west of U.S. Route 101, and includes portions of the Albion, Big, Garcia, South Fork Eel, Navarro, Noyo, and upper Russian River river watersheds, as well as portions of Cottaneva, Howard, Hardy, Juan, Alder, Elk, Greenwood, and Mallo Pass creek watersheds.

The Applicant has requested permits that will authorize take of nine animals listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and two species that arenot currently listed under the Act. The following five listed species are proposed for coverage under the NMFS permit: Coho salmon (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit [ESU]) (Oncorhynchus kisutch); coho salmon (Central California Coast ESU) (O. kisutch); Chinook salmon (California Coastal ESU) (O. tshawytscha); steelhead (Northern California Distinct Population Segment [DPS]) (O. mykiss); and steelhead (Central California Coast DPS) (O. mykiss). The following four listed species are proposed for coverage under the USFWS permit: California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); and Point Arena mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra). The proposed USFWS permit would also cover two animal species that are not currently listed under the ESA: Northern red-legged frog (R. aurora); and coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei).

If the Proposed Plan is approved and the permits are issued, take authorization of covered listed species would be effective at the time of permit issuance. Take of the currently nonlisted covered species would be authorized concurrent with the species' listing under the ESA, should they be listed during the permit period. The Proposed Plan is intended to be a comprehensive document, providing for species conservation and habitat planning, while allowing the Applicant to better manage ongoing forestry operations. The Proposed Plan also is intended to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take of covered species as an alternative to the current project-by-project approach.

In order to comply with the requirements of the ESA, California Endangered Species Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Act (NCCPA), and the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), the Proposed Plan addresses a number of required elements, including: Species and habitat goals and objectives; evaluation of the effects of covered activities on covered species, including indirect and cumulative effects; a conservation strategy; a monitoring and adaptive management program; descriptions of changed circumstances and remedial measures; identification of funding sources; and an assessment of alternatives to take of listed species.

Proposed covered activities within the Proposed Plan are all related to forestry operations and include timber felling, transportation, road and landing construction, maintenance, development and operation of rock pits and water drafting sites, site preparation, tree planting, thinning and other silvicultural activities, prescribed burning, habitat restoration and improvement, and monitoring and research in the Proposed Plan Area.

The Proposed Plan's conservation strategy was designed to maintain or improve habitat conditions for listed and nonlisted covered species. The Proposed Plan includes minimization measures, such as disturbance buffers and sediment control measures that would avoid or minimize take of covered species from ongoing operations. The Proposed Plan also includes mitigation for take of covered species, including maintenance and enhancement of riparian areas, wetland areas, hardwood stands, and late successional coniferous forest stands. A 1,237-acre Lower Alder Creek Management area also would be established at the outset of the Proposed Plan. The only forest management that would be permitted within this management area would enhance habitat conditions for the marbled murrelet in order to offset any loss of any occupied marbled murrelet habitat that occurs elsewhere in the proposed Plan Area during the permit term. Habitat protected under the Proposed Plan would be monitored, and annual reports documenting the status of the species and compliance with the Proposed Plan would be submitted to the Services.

Proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, a joint NEPA/CEQA document has been prepared. As co-lead Federal agencies, the Services have responsibility for compliance under NEPA and are providing notice of the availability of the draft EIS/PTEIR, which evaluates the impacts of proposed issuance of the permit and implementation of the Proposed Plan, as well as a reasonable range of alternatives.

The draft EIS/PTEIR analyzes five alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, described above. The five alternatives being considered by the Services are the following:

Proposed Plan Alternative:Under this alternative, the Proposed Plan as described above would be adopted. The Applicant would receive an 80-year incidental take permit for 11 species under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and Section 2835 of the NCCPA.

No Action Alternative:Under this alternative, the Proposed Plan would not be adopted, and permits pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and Section 2835 of the NCCPA would not be issued by the Services and California Department of Fish and Game, respectively. The Applicant would operate under existing California Forest Practice Rules and seek compliance with Federal and California ESAs on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative A:Under this enhanced HCP alternative, the permit term and species covered would be the same as under the Proposed Plan, but there would be additional measures to enhance conservation of key aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Additional measures would include some larger protective streamside buffers and higher tree retention standards.

Alternative B:Under this terrestrial reserves alternative, the permit term would be the same as under the Proposed Plan, but only two terrestrial species (northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet) would be covered, and the minimization and mitigation for the take of covered species would be largely achieved via a system of species-specific no-harvest reserves. Unlike the other alternatives, non-reserve lands would be managed in a manner that emphasizes even-aged management of timber stands. Under this alternative, the California permit issued would not be under the NCCPA, but rather under Section 2080.1 or 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Alternative C:Under this alternative, the Federal and California permits would be issued for only 40 years, during which time lands would be managed as under the Proposed Plan. After 40 years, land would be managed as under the No Action Alternative. Point Arena mountain beaver, northern red-legged frog, and coastal tailed frog would not be included as covered species on the take permits. Under this alternative, the California permit issued would not be under the NCCPA, but rather under Section 2080.1 or 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The Services invite the public to comment on the draft Proposed Plan, draft implementing agreement, and draft EIS/PTEIR during a 90-day public comment period beginning on the date of this notice. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be made available to the public.

Comments submitted in an email will be accepted provided they do not exceed 6 megabytes in size and are virus free. Hypertext email links to other Web pages or publications shall not be deemed the equivalent of written comment.

The Services will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to them to prepare a final EIS/PTEIR. A permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the final EIS/PTEIR.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and Service regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6). We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.

This notice is provided pursuant to the ESA and regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6), to inform the public that the FEIS and HCP, and the Services' responses to public comments are available for review, and that the Services have filed a FEIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for public notice. The decision on whether to issue ITPs to Stanford will be made by the Services no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the EPA's public notice. Copies of the FEIS, HCP and IA are available for public review during regular business hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the USFWS, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (seeADDRESSES), and the NMFS, North Central California Office (seeADDRESSES). Additionally, hard bound copies of the FEIS, HCP, and IA are available for viewing, or for partial or complete duplication, at the following locations:

1. Social Sciences Resource Center, Green Library, Room 121, Stanford, CA 94305.

2. Palo Alto Main Library, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Individuals wishing to obtain copies of the FEIS, HCP, or IA should contact either of the Services by telephone (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by letter (seeADDRESSES). These documents are also available electronically for review on the NMFS Southwest Region Web site at:http://swr.nmfs.noaa.govor the USFWS, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Web site athttp://www.fws.gov/sacramento/.

Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and Federal regulations prohibit the take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 1538). The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3(c)). NMFS further defines harm as an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and expands the list of essential behavioral patterns that can be impaired by habitat modification or degradation to include breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the Services may issue ITPs authorizing the take of listed species if, among other things, such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing ITPs for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32, and 222.307.

Each of the Services has received an application for an ITP for implementation of the HCP. The applications were prepared and submitted by The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University. The Applicant has prepared the HCP to satisfy the application requirements for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under the ESA .

The Applicant seeks a 50-year incidental take permit for Covered Activities within a proposed 8,180-acre permit area located in southern San Mateo and northern Santa Clara counties. The permit area includes approximately 8,000 acres of Stanford's lands. Located on portions of the SantaCruz Mountains and at the base of the San Francisco Peninsula, Stanford University is within two main watersheds, Matadero/Deer Creek and San Francisquito Creek watersheds. The San Francisquito Creek watershed spans San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles. This watershed includes San Francisquito, Los Trancos, Corte Madera, Bear, Dennis Martin, Sausal, and Alambique creeks, and portions of San Francisquito, Los Trancos, Corte Madera, and Bear creeks flow through Stanford lands. The Matadero/Deer Creek watershed is entirely within Santa Clara County, and portions of Matadero and Deer creeks flow through Stanford lands. In addition to significant riparian areas associated with the creeks, the permit area includes foothills, and most of the main campus that is located on an alluvial plain located between the foothills and San Francisco Bay.

The Applicant has requested permits that will authorize the take of four animal species, which are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and one animal species that may become listed under the ESA. The Applicant has requested coverage from the USFWS for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), and from NMFS for the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The Applicant has also requested coverage from the USFWS for the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), which is not listed under the ESA at the current time. Collectively these species are referred to as “Covered Species.”

If the proposed HCP is approved and the permits issued, take authorization of listed Covered Species would be effective at the time of permit issuance. Take of the currently non-listed Covered Species would be authorized concurrent with the species' listing under the ESA, should it be listed during the duration of the permit.

The proposed HCP is intended to be a comprehensive document, providing for species conservation and habitat planning, while allowing the Applicant to better manage ongoing operations and future growth. The proposed HCP also is intended to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take of Covered Species as an alternative to a project-by-project approach.

The proposed HCP addresses a number of required elements, including: Species and biological goals and objectives; evaluation of the effects of Covered Activities on Covered Species, including indirect and cumulative effects; a conservation strategy; a monitoring and adaptive management program; descriptions of changed circumstances and remedial measures; identification of funding sources; and an assessment of alternatives to take of listed species.

The HCP divides the permit area into four “zones.” Zone 1 supports one or more of the Covered Species or provides critical resources for the species. Zone 2 areas are occasionally occupied by a Covered Species and provide some of the resources used by the species, or buffers between occupied habitat and urbanized areas. Zone 3 consists of generally undeveloped land that provides only limited and indirect benefit to the Covered Species. Zone 4 includes urbanized areas that do not support the covered species. The covered activities described in the HCP include the ongoing operation and maintenance of several existing University facilities, and a limited amount of future development. Ongoing operations and maintenance are divided into the following categories of activities: Water management; creek maintenance; academic activities; utility installation and maintenance; general infrastructure; recreation and athletics; grounds and vegetation; agricultural and equestrian leaseholds; and commercial and institutional leaseholds. Up to 180 acres of development in Zones 1, 2, and 3 are also covered by the HCP, but the HCP does not supersede any permitting or entitlement required by other regulations. The HCP does not cover ongoing operations and maintenance associated with Searsville Dam, Searsville Reservoir and other facilities directly related to Searsville Reservoir

Stanford's proposed conservation strategy in the HCP is designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of Covered Activities, improve habitat conditions for listed Covered Species, and protect populations of the non-listed Covered Species. The HCP includes minimization measures that would avoid and minimize the take of Covered Species from ongoing operation and maintenance of most University facilities and future development. The HCP also includes mitigation for the loss of habitat, and proposes to conserve approximately 360 acres of riparian habitat with conservation easements within one year of issuance of the permits. Additional riparian habitat would be preserved as needed. A 315-acre “California Tiger Salamander Reserve” (Reserve) also would be established at the outset of the HCP. No development would be permitted within the Reserve for the term of the permits, and a portion of habitat within the 315-acre Reserve would be permanently protected to offset any loss of California tiger salamander habitat that occurs during the permit term. Habitat protected under the HCP would be managed and monitored, and annual reports documenting the status of the species and compliance with the HCP would be submitted to the Services. In addition to the minimization measures and mitigation for the loss of habitat, the HCP includes a number of potential habitat enhancements that Stanford may perform during the term of the permits. Other conservation activities include a California tiger salamander management plan that covers 95 acres, including Lagunita Reservoir and habitat around Lagunita Reservoir.

Proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the NEPA. As co-lead agencies, the Services prepared a Draft EIS which evaluated the impacts of the proposed issuance of the permit and implementation of the HCP, as well as a reasonable range of alternatives. The Draft EIS and Draft HCP were circulated for public review and comment. The public review period was initiated with the publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) in theFederal Registeron April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18482). The official comment period began with publication of the NOA and initially was scheduled to end on July 12, 2010. At the request of the public, the Services published a notice in theFederal Registeron July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41157) extending the public comment period an additional 45 days to August 30, 2010.

During the comment period, 30 comment letters were received from Federal and local agencies, environmental organizations, and the general public, including over 3000 form email messages. The primary issues raised in the comment letters and email messages were related to Searsville Dam and Reservoir. Many commenters requested Stanford revise the HCP and the Services prepare a supplemental DEIS for public review and comment. Comments received on the Draft EIS and Draft HCP and responses can be found in Volume II of the FEIS. Following the public comment period, in January 2011, Stanford revised the HCP to remove Covered Activities related to Searsville Dam, Reservoir, and Diversion. Accordingly, minimization measures for Searsville-related activities have also beenremoved from the HCP. Volume I of the FEIS incorporates all changes to the text, tables, and figures that were completed following the public review and comment period.

The FEIS analyzes three alternatives including the issuance of ITPs and the implementation of the proposed HCP described above. The issuance of 50-year take permits and Applicant implementation of the proposed HCP is considered the Preferred Alternative. Two other alternatives being considered by the Services include the following:

Under the No Action Alternative, the Services would not issue incidental take permits for implementation of the HCP. As a result, the Applicant would likely seek individual incidental take authorization as needed for new projects and ongoing operations that would result in the take of federally listed species.

Under the California Tiger Salamander Only Alternative, Stanford would prepare a HCP only for the California tiger salamander, and obtain section 10 authorization only for the take of California tiger salamander. Future development and ongoing activities that would result in the take of other listed species would be permitted individually, as needed.

The Services invite the public to review the final HCP, final IA, and FEIS during a 30-day public waiting period [seeDATESandSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION]. All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administration record and may be released to the public. Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home telephone numbers, and email addresses of respondents available for public review. 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 may 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. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6). We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.

The Services will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and public comments submitted to them to prepare their respective Records of Decision (RODs). Any comments received during this 30-day period will be considered during the Services' decision-making process. A permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of EPA's notice of the FEIS and completion of the RODs.

The original notice published in theFederal Registeron November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66818).

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, has 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 is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process, including a workshop and Webinars; 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 Assessment Process 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 summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the GMFMC, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, and the NOAA 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.

On Monday, December 10—The Visioning and Strategic Planning Working Group will meet from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. On Tuesday, December 11—The Visioning and Strategic Planning Working Group will meet from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. On Wednesday, December 12—The Executive Committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The Council will convene at 9 a.m. From 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., the Council will hold its regular Business Session to approve the October 2012 minutes and receive liaison, organizational, Executive Director, Science, and Committee Reports. From 11:30 a.m. until 12 p.m., the proposed rule on Amendment 5 to the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) regarding shark rebuilding and management measures will be presented. From 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m., Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish, River Herring, and Shad will be discussed. From 2:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., Special Management Zone (SMZ) Alternatives will be discussed. From 3:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.,. Black Sea Bass issues will be discussed. There will be a Public Listening Session from 5 p.m. until 6 p.m. on Wednesday evening with discussion of impacts from Hurricane Sandy. On Thursday December 13—The Demersal Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Board. From 9 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., summer flounder 2013 recreational management measures will be finalized with the Board. From 10:30 a.m. until 12 p.m., scup 2013 recreational management measures with the Board will be finalized. From 1 p.m. until 4 p.m., the black sea bass 2013 recreational management measures with the Board will be finalized. From 4 p.m. until 5 p.m., the Council will conduct any continuing and/or new business.

Agenda items by day for the Council's Committees and the Council itself are: On Monday, December 10—The Visioning and Strategic Planning Working Group will discuss the next steps for completing the draft strategic plan, finalize Science and Data and Ecosystems goal sequences, review top themes from the Visioning Project, and discuss objectives, strategies, and tactics for one strategic goal sequence. On Tuesday, December 11—The Visioning and Strategic Planning Working Group will review the outcomes from Monday and discuss objectives, strategies, and tactics for up to three strategic goals. On Wednesday, December 12—The Executive Committee will meet to identify the 2013 Council priorities and discuss the nominations for the Ricks E. Savage Award. The Council will hold its regular Business Session to approve the October minutes, and receive liaison, organizational, Executive Director, Science, and Committee Reports. The Council will receive a presentation from NMFS regarding Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP. The Council will hold its second meeting of Framework 8 to Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB). MSB Amendment 15 scoping results will be presented and confirmation on scope of Amendment for the Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) will be discussed along with an update on the January 15-17, 2013 Squid Management Workshop. The Council will discuss SMZ Alternatives. The Council will discuss Black Sea Bass issues with regard to the 2012 overages and review accountability measures and black sea bass data. The Council will hold a public listening session to discuss fishery impacts from Hurricane Sandy. On Thursday, December 13—the Council in conjunction with the ASMFC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Boards will review and discuss the associated Monitoring Committee's and Advisory Panel's recommendations and develop and approve 2013 recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Council will also discuss an update on Amendment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. The ASMFC Board will discuss an Addendum to enable State-by-State Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures. The Council will conduct any continuing and/or new business.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The workshop will include a discussion of2013 recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Alaska groundfish fisheries and Individual Fishing Quota fisheries and instructions for completing and submitting required reports and logbooks using seaLandings.

The final rule for monitoring and enforcement requirements in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands freezer longline fleet (77 FR 59053) mandates that vessel operators who opt into the program will be required to use an electronic logbook beginning in 2013.

NMFS will provide a demonstration of the latest version of seaLandings for at-sea catcher/processors and motherships, and training on how to submit daily production reports and landing reports with and without Individual Fishing Quota. NMFS will also provide a demonstration of the freezer longline catcher/processor electronic logbook in seaLandings.

This workshop will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Susan Hall, 907-586-7462, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

The Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission was established by Public Law 101-510, the BRAC Law, to recommend military installations for realignment and closure. Recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission were included in a report presented to the President on September 8, 2005. The President approved and forwarded this report to Congress on September 16, 2005, which became effective as public law on November 9, 2005, and must be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the BRAC Law. In 2005, NAS JRB Willow Grove, PA was designated for closure under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to this designation, on January 8, 2010, land and facilities at this installation were declared excess to the DoN and made available to other DoD components and other Federal agencies. The DoN has evaluated all timely Federal requests and made a decision to close the former NAS JRB Willow Grove on September 15, 2011.

The proposed action for this EIS is to accommodate the BRAC 2005 law. The BRAC-directed action includes disposal and reuse of NAS JRB Willow Grove and its excess properties. Upon completion of the disposal, the property will be redeveloped in accordance with the Horsham Township Authority (HLRA) Redevelopment Plan.

The EIS will consider the alternatives that are reasonable to accomplish the proposed action. Alternatives to be considered include: (1) Disposal of the property by the DoN and reuse in accordance with the HLRA's Preferred Land Use Plan; (2) Disposal of the property by the DoN with a higher-density reuse scenario; (3) Disposal of the property by the DoN and reuse as an airport; and (4) No Action in which the DoN would retain the property in a caretaker status and no reuse or development would occur.

Alternative 1 would meet the requirements of the BRAC Law by allowing for the disposal and reuse of NAS JRB Willow Grove. Reuse would be conducted in accordance with the HLRA Plan. The Plan provides a mix of land uses based on existing conditions on the installation and in the community, guiding principles for development established by the HLRA, and public participation. It is anticipated that full build-out of the Plan would be implemented over a 20-year period. The Reuse Plan calls for the development of approximately 444 acres (52%) of the total base property. In addition, approximately 418 acres (48%) would be dedicated to a variety of active and passive land uses, including recreation, open space, and natural areas. The plan also incorporates elements based on smart-growth principles, including pedestrian-friendly transportation features (e.g., walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes, and compact development), open spaces, and a mix of land use types.

Alternative 2 would also meet the requirements of the BRAC Law by allowing for disposal and reuse of NAS JRB Willow Grove. This alternative features a higher density of residential and community mixed-use development. Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative includes a mix of land use types, preserves open space and natural areas, and incorporates elements based on smart-growth principles, including pedestrian-friendly transportation and compact development. It is anticipated that full build-out of the higher-density scenario would be implemented over a 20-year period. The higher density alternative calls for the development of approximately 576 acres (67%) of the total base property. In addition, approximately 280 acres (32%) of the base would be dedicated to a variety of active and passive land uses, including recreation, open space, and natural areas.

Alternative 3 would maintain and reuse the existing airfield for private aviation purposes. The plan reuses the existing airfield and its supporting infrastructure (i.e., taxiways, parking aprons and hangar facilities). After accounting for the area being reused for aviation purposes, the remaining land available for development would be approximately 380 acres. This would be developed in a mix of land use types and densities, and preserves open space and natural areas. New development would be airport related industry and businesses.

Alternative 4 is required by NEPA and is the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, NAS JRB Willow Grove would be retained by the U.S. government in caretaker status. No reuse or redevelopment would occur at the facility.

The EIS will address potential direct, indirect, short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts on the human and natural environments, including potential impacts on topography, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, air quality, noise, infrastructure and utilities, traffic, cultural resources, land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and waste management. Known areas of concern associated with the BRAC action include impacts on socioeconomics due to loss of the military and civilian workforce, impacts on local traffic patterns resulting from reuse scenarios, and the clean-up of installation remediation sites.

The DoN is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and issues that should be addressed in the EIS. Agencies and the public are encouraged to provide written comments at scheduled public scoping meetings. Comments should clearly describe specific issues or topics that the EIS should address. Written comments must be postmarked or emailed by midnight December 31, 2012, and should be sent to: Director, BRAC Program Management Office Northeast, 4911 South Broad Street, Building 679, Philadelphia, PA 19112-1303, telephone 215-897-4900, fax 215-897-4902, email:david.drozd@navy.mil.

Requests for special assistance, sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired, language interpreters, or other auxiliary aids for scheduled public scoping meetings must be sent by mail or email by November 30, 2012, to Mr. Matt Butwin, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 348 Southport Circle, Suite 101, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23452, telephone 757-456-5356, ext. 2811, email:MButwin@ene.com.

As of October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.

While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first registerwith EPA's electronic reporting site—https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp.

Agenda:The agenda will include a discussion of a range of issues related to the resolution of systemically important financial companies pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. The agenda may be subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

Type of Meeting:The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available, on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the SR Advisory Committee before or after the meeting. This SR Advisory Committee meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet athttp://www.vodium.com/MediapodLibrary/index.asp?library=pn100472_fdic_SRAC.This service is free and available to anyone with the following systems requirements:http://www.vodium.com/home/sysreq.html.Adobe Flash Player is required to view these presentations. The latest version of Adobe Flash Player can be downloaded at:http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash.Installation questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high speed Internet connection is recommended. The SR Advisory Committee meeting videos are made available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event.

Section 1311(c)(1)(D) of the Affordable Care Act specifies that to be certified as a qualified health plan (QHP) and operate in the Exchange, a health plan must be accredited by a recognized accrediting entity on a uniform timeline established by the applicable Exchange. On July 20, 2012, we published a final rule in theFederal Register(77 FR 42658) titled, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Data Collection To Support Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits; Recognition of Entities for the Accreditation of Qualified Health Plans.” In that rule, we finalized 45 CFR 156.275(c), which specified the requirements for accrediting entities to be recognized for the purposes of fulfilling the accreditation requirement as part of QHP certification. We also established that, effective upon completion of the conditions at § 156.275 in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4), that the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) and URAC will be recognized as accrediting entities for the purposes of QHP certification and that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will notify the public of this recognition in theFederal Register. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule published on July 20, 2012, the recognition of accrediting entities in phase one is effective until it is rescinded or this interim phase one process is replaced by the phase two process.

NCQA and URAC met the requirements and criteria described in the final rule to be recognized as an accrediting entity (77 FR 42662 through 42668). Therefore, this notice serves as public notification that NCQA and URAC are recognized by the Secretary of HHS1 as accrediting entities for the purposes of QHP certification.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary to establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payments to acute care hospitals for new medical services and technologies under Medicare. Effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2001, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish (after notice and opportunity for public comment) a mechanism to recognize the costs of new services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In addition, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered “new” if it meets criteria established by the Secretary (after notice and opportunity for public comment). (See the FY 2002 IPPS proposed rule (66 FR 22693, May 4, 2001) and final rule (66 FR 46912, September 7, 2001) for a more detailed discussion.)

In the September 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 46914), we noted that we evaluated a request for special payment for a new medical service or technology against the following criteria in order to determine if the new technology meets the substantial clinical improvement requirement:

• The device offers a treatment option for a patient population unresponsive to, or ineligible for, currently available treatments.

• The device offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition in a patient population where that medical condition is currently undetectable or offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition earlier in a patient population than allowed by currently available methods. There must also be evidence that use of the device to make a diagnosis affects the management of the patient.

• Use of the device significantly improves clinical outcomes for a patient population as compared to currently available treatments. Some examples of outcomes that are frequently evaluated in studies of medical devices are the following:

++ Reduced mortality rate with use of the device.

++ Reduced rate of device-related complications.

++ Decreased rate of subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions (for example, due to reduced rate of recurrence of the disease process).

++ Decreased number of future hospitalizations or physician visits.

++ More rapid beneficial resolution of the disease process treatment because of the use of the device.

++ Decreased pain, bleeding or other quantifiable symptoms.

++ Reduced recovery time.

In addition, we indicated that the requester is required to submit evidence that the technology meets one or more of these criteria.

Section 503 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) amended section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Act to revise the process for evaluating new medical services and technology applications by requiring the Secretary to do the following:

• Provide for public input regarding whether a new service or technology represents an advance in medical technology that substantially improves the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries before publication of a proposed rule.

• Make public and periodically update a list of all the services and technologies for which an application is pending.

• Accept comments, recommendations, and data from the public regarding whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement.

• Provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS as to whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement before publication of a proposed rule.

The opinions and alternatives provided during this meeting will assist us as we evaluate the new medicalservices and technology applications for fiscal year (FY) 2014. In addition, they will help us to evaluate our policy on the IPPS new technology add-on payment process before the publication of the FY 2014 IPPS proposed rule.

As noted in section I. of this notice, we are required to provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS concerning whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. This meeting will allow for a discussion of the substantial clinical improvement criteria on each of the FY 2014 new medical services and technology add-on payment applications. Information regarding the applications can be found on our Web site athttp://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html.

The majority of the meeting will be reserved for presentations of comments, recommendations, and data from registered presenters. The time for each presenter's comments will be approximately 10 to 15 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Presenters will be scheduled to speak in the order in which they register and grouped by new technology applicant. Therefore, individuals who would like to present must register and submit their agenda item(s) via email tonewtech@cms.hhs.govby the date specified in theDATESsection of this notice.

In addition, written comments will also be accepted and presented at the meeting if they are received via email tonewtech@cms.hhs.govby the date specified in theDATESsection of this notice. Written comments may also be submitted after the meeting for our consideration. If the comments are to be considered before the publication of the proposed rule, the comments must be received via email tonewtech@cms.hhs.govby the date specified in theDATESsection of this notice.

For participants who cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting in person, an open toll-free phone line, (877) 267-1577, has been made available. The conference code is “7702.”

Also, there will be an option to view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live streaming technology and/or a webinar. Information on the option to participate via live streaming technology and/or a webinar will be provided through an upcoming listserv notice and posted on the New Technology Web site athttp://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html. Continue to check the Web site for updates.

Disclaimer:Because this is the first year that we are providing an option for live streaming technology and/or a webinar, we cannot guarantee the reliability of these technologies.

The Division of Acute Care in CMS is coordinating the meeting registration for the Town Hall Meeting on substantial clinical improvement. While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall Meeting in person must register to attend.

Registration may be completed on-line at the following web address:http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html.Select the link at the bottom of the page “Register to Attend the New Technology Town Hall Meeting”. After completing the registration, on-line registrants should print the confirmation page(s) and bring it with them to the meeting(s).

If you are unable to register on-line, you may register by sending an email tonewtech@cms.hhs.gov.Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address and fax number. If seating capacity has been reached, you will be notified that the meeting has reached capacity.

Because these meetings will be located on Federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend these meetings must register by the date specified in theDATESsection of this notice. Please allow sufficient time to go through the security checkpoints. It is suggested that you arrive at 7500 Security Boulevard no later than 8:30 a.m. e.s.t. if you are attending the Town Hall Meeting so that you will be able to arrive promptly for the meeting.

Security measures include the following:

• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

• Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.

All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building. Seating capacity is limited to the first 250 registrants.

On July 9, 2012, President Obama signed into law FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144, 126 Stat. 993). Title XI, Subtitle B, section 1111 of FDASIA added new sections 575, 576, and 577 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) regarding medical gases. Among other things, these new sections define the terms “designated medical gas” and “medical gas” and establish the process for the certification of a medical gas as a designated medical gas. (See sections 575(1) and (2) of the FD&C Act.) The sections describe the process for filing a request for certification and describe the information that should be included in the request for certification. (See section 576(a) of the FD&C Act.) Under section 576(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, if a certification is granted for a designated medical gas, the designated medical gas will be deemed to have in effect an approved new human drug application under section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) or an approved new animal drug application under section 512 (21 U.S.C. 360b) of the FD&C Act for certain specified indications and subject to all applicable postapproval requirements. Under section 576(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, requests for certification may be submitted to FDA beginning 180 days after the enactment of FDASIA, or January 5, 2013.

FDA is establishing a public docket for information pertaining to FDA's implementation of these new medical gas provisions. This action is intended to ensure that information submitted to FDA on the implementation of the medical gas provisions of FDASIA is available to all interested persons in a timely fashion. The Compressed GasAssociation and the Gases and Welding Distributors Association voluntarily submitted to the Agency its views on implementation of the medical gas provisions of FDASIA. FDA plans to place these comments in the public docket so they are readily available to all interested members of the public. FDA expects to place all additional submissions containing recommendations on how the Agency should implement the medical gas provisions of FDASIA in this docket, and directs the public to submit all comments related to these provisions to this docket. This docket will be open for comments for 1 year from the date of publication of this notice. In addition, as FDA implements the medical gas provisions of FDASIA, FDA plans to open other dockets. For example, we plan to issue a separateFederal Registernotice in the future to provide the public with an opportunity to submit comments on section 1112 of FDASIA. Section 1112(a)(1) of FDASIA provides that not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of FDASIA, the Secretary, after obtaining input from medical gas manufacturers and any other interested members of the public, must determine whether any changes to the Federal drug regulations are necessary for medical gases.

Interested persons may submit either written comments 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.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Vaginal Microbicides: Development for the Prevention of HIV Infection.” This guidance addresses nonclinical development, early phases of clinical development, phase 3 trial considerations, and safety considerations in vaginal microbicide development, including safety considerations in adolescent and pregnant populations. The guidance also provides some information on approaches for developing combination microbicide products such as drug-drug combinations, drug-device combinations containing a microbicide, or combination products containing a microbicide that are intended for multiple indications. With the recent approval of oral emtricitabine/tenofovir for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the effect of oral PrEP on microbicide trial designs is an emerging topic. The guidance discusses this issue; however, it should be noted the pertinent sections may be revised as FDA takes into consideration evolving opinions in the prevention field as well as public comments on this topic.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on developing vaginal microbicides for preventing HIV transmission. 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.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that 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 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, and the collections of information referred to in the guidance for clinical trial sponsors entitled “Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0581.

Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding the draft guidance to the Division of DocketsManagement (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 document at eitherhttp://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htmorhttp://www.regulations.gov.

Diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions in the United States and, more recently, worldwide. The morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes is anticipated to account for a substantial proportion of health care expenditures. Although there are many devices available that help patients manage the disease, FDA recognizes the need for new and improved devices for treatment of diabetes. One of the more advanced diabetes management systems is an artificial pancreas device system. An artificial pancreas system is a type of autonomous system that adjusts insulin infusion based upon the continuous glucose monitor via a control algorithm. On June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36542), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance document entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: The Content of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval Applications (PMA) for Low Glucose Suspend (LGS) Device Systems.” On December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76166), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance document entitled “The Content of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications for Artificial Pancreas Device Systems.” Ninety-seven sets of comments were received in total for both guidance documents. In response to comments, FDA made clarifying edits in several sections. Based on the similarities between the two draft guidance documents and the comments received, these two documents have been combined into one guidance document, which provides industry and Agency staff with recommendations for developing premarket submissions for artificial pancreas device systems (APDS) and is the subject of thisFederal Registerdocument. The guidance outlines considerations for development of clinical studies, and recommends elements that should be included in IDE and PMA applications for artificial pancreas systems, including threshold suspend systems (also known as low glucose suspend systems), single hormonal control systems, and bihormonal control systems. This guidance focuses on critical elements of safety and effectiveness for approval of this device type, while keeping in mind the risks diabetic patients face everyday.

Artificial pancreas device systems are class III devices and require the submission of a PMA. All components of the APDS (insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring system, blood glucose device, and control algorithm and signal processing functional component) are considered essential components of the system and will be regulated as class III devices when used as part of an APDS. As such, all information sufficient for approval of the components as part of the system should be provided in the PMA submission (e.g., manufacturing information, specifications, etc.).

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 the content of IDE and PMA applications for artificial pancreas device systems. 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 statute and regulations.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available athttp://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm.Guidance documents are also available athttp://www.regulations.gov.To receive the document “The Content of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA)Applications for Artificial Pancreas Device Systems,” you may either send an email request todsmica@fda.hhs.govto receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to 301-847-8149 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1759 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

This guidance refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. These collection 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 21 CFR 54.4 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0396; the collections of information in 21 CFR 56.115 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.

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.

Status:The meeting will be open to the public. The conference call access will be limited only by availability of telephone ports.

Purpose:The members of the ACICBL will begin the planning required to develop the legislatively mandated 13th Annual Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress. The meeting objectives are to: (1) Focus on a relevant topic that will enhance the mission of the Title VII training programs; (2) develop an outline that will inform the development of the 13th Annual Report; (3) provide an update on training programs; and (4) provide an update on the 12th Annual Report.

Agenda:The ACICBL agenda includes an opportunity for each member to offer ideas for the upcoming report, along with identifying consultants in specific areas who could provide expert testimony. The staff writer provided by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Health Professions, will offer a strategy for outlining the upcoming report. The agenda will be available days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site (http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/acicbl/acicbl.html). Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Individuals who plan to participate on the webinar should register at least one day prior to the meeting, using the following webinar information:https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/r5x1ckkknl6. The conference call-in number is 1-800-857-5750, using the participant passcode 6694174.

Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the ACICBL should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, at least 3 days prior to the meeting using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call or webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Interested parties should refer to meeting subject as the HRSA Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages.

You may submit comments and related material regarding whether this recommended interim voluntary guidance should be incorporated into future rulemaking documents concerning lifesaving and fire-fighting equipment, training and drills on board offshore facilities and MODUs operating on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. All comments received will be posted, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2012-0848) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.govand insert “USCG-2012-0848” in the “Search” box. Click “Search,” find this notice in the list of Results, and then click on the corresponding “Comment Now” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.govand insert “USCG-2012-0848” in the “Search” box. Click “Search” and use the filters on the left side of the page to highlight “Public Submissions” or other document types. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

The Report of Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Explosion, Fire, Sinking and Loss of Eleven Crew Members Aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling UnitDEEPWATER HORIZONin the Gulf of Mexico, April 20-22, 2010, and related Commandant's Final Action Memo, dated September 9, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as “Report”) contain a number of recommendations for OCS safety improvements that are presentlybeing evaluated for further regulatory action. (These documents may be found in the docket for this action, as indicated underADDRESSES). The Coast Guard believes that the five recommendations discussed below could yield significant safety improvements, and, pending issuance of further regulatory action, urges operators of MODUs and manned offshore facilities on the U.S. OCS to consider voluntary compliance with these items, to the extent appropriate and practicable.

The Report recommended that a fixed deluge system or multiple high capacity water monitors should be installed for the protection of the drill floor and adjacent areas, with consideration given to requiring automatic operation upon gas detection.

We are considering proposing requirements for installation of such systems, since it is believed that, in some circumstances, early employment of a deluge or monitor spray system during a drilling mishap could serve to prevent or delay ignition of an uncontrolled release of product and/or mitigate the effects of ignition.

As an interim measure, we recommend that operators of MODUs and manned offshore facilities should consider installation of fixed water spray systems for the protection of critical drill floor equipment, structural components and intervening fire barriers. A minimum water application rate of at least 0.50 gpm/ft2is recommended. If fixed high capacity water monitors are used as an alternative measure, use of at least two dual purpose fixed monitors, each with a minimum flow rate and pressure of 500 gpm at 100 psi should be considered. The monitors should be arranged for remote operation, or local manual operation from a protected location not likely to be cut off during a fire.

The Report recommended that the Commandant work to amend the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code) and its associated testing recommendations to ensure the adequacy of lifesaving appliance standards. In particular, the minimum average occupant weight of 165 or 181.5 lbs presently used to determine the carrying capacity of lifeboats is not considered representative of the weight of average offshore workers on the U.S. OCS, and thus lifeboat embarkation and evacuation could be hampered in an emergency due to occupant size.

We believe the existing requirements in the LSA Code, and associated Coast Guard type approval standards, are adequate for most shipboard applications subject to IMO requirements. Nevertheless, they are minimums. The number of requests the Coast Guard has received from offshore operators for approval of lifeboats designed to accommodate offshore workers larger than the average population is consistent with the Report's conclusion that current lifeboat design and testing requirements are not adequate for the physical build of the average offshore worker today. The Coast Guard is therefore considering proposing requirements for higher average occupant weight and size standards specifically for lifeboats used on MODUs and offshore facilities.

We recommend that operators of MODUs and manned offshore facilities should consider specifying any new or replacement lifeboats on the basis of an occupant average weight of at least 95 kg (210 lbs) per person (versus the current standard of 82.5 kg (181.5 lbs)), with a minimum seat width of 530 mm (21 inches) (versus the current standard of 430 mm (17 inches)). A number of Coast Guard approved SOLAS lifeboats have already been approved to this standard by request of the customer(s), and are currently available for use on OCS facilities.

The Report recommended that the Commandant clarify 46 CFR 109.213(g)(5), which requires that onboard training in the use of davit-launched liferafts must take place at intervals of not more than 4 months, and that “whenever practicable”, this must include the inflation and lowering of a liferaft. The regulations permit the inflation and lowering of a davit launched liferaft to be performed only “whenever practicable” because an operational raft would need to be taken out of service to perform the drill, and would remain out of service until inspected and repacked by an approved servicing facility ashore. It was anticipated that the requirement to deploy the rafts “whenever practicable” would encourage scheduling drills to coordinate with the required periodic servicing of the facility's liferafts, to avoid having them repeatedly sent for servicing. However, the current requirement to inflate and deploy a liferaft “whenever practicable” also potentially allows for indefinite deferral of this important training.

To promote hands-on familiarity with davit-launched liferaft operations, the Coast Guard is considering proposing requirements for drills to include the inflation and lowering of a davit-launched liferaft at specified intervals.

In the interim, we recommend that operators of MODUs and manned offshore facilities fitted with davit-launched liferafts should consider the carriage of a dedicated training liferaft (which need not be serviced at an authorized facility after it is used in drills) for the crew to practice the necessary steps for successful deployment, including inflation of the raft, connection to the launching appliance, lowering, and recovery of the liferaft.

Alternatively, when the liferafts onboard the MODU or facility become due for required periodic servicing, the crew should be permitted to deploy them during drills, prior to being sent to a shoreside approved facility for servicing and repacking.

The Report recommended that the Commandant work with IMO to amend the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU Code) to prohibit the dual purpose acceptance of life boats as rescue boats on MODUs.

The Coast Guard believes totally enclosed lifeboats are not well suited for use as rescue boats on MODUs and offshore facilities, and is considering changing the regulations that permit this practice. When a dual purpose life/rescue boat is fully loaded and being used as a survival craft, it is not available for use as a rescue boat, and vice versa. Rescue boats are primarily intended to marshal liferafts, and for man overboard situations. In order to carry out this mission, they are fitted with special launching and retrieval appliances that allow their recovery onboard in harsh weather and sea conditions. Dual purpose lifeboats do not have similar launching and retrieval capability, and on MODUs and offshore facilities, lifeboats can be difficult or impossible to safely recover in anything but the most benign conditions due to the large air gap and the lack of a ship's side to potentially provide a lee.

Until new regulations are proposed, we recommend that operators of new MODUs and manned offshore facilities should provide a dedicated approved SOLAS rescue boat (USCG approval series 160.156 or equivalent) and dedicated approved launchingappliance instead of relying on a dual approved life/rescue boat to meet this requirement. Operators of existing MODUs or facilities that currently use a dual approved life/rescue boat to meet this requirement are urged to supplement their life saving capability with a dedicated approved SOLAS rescue boat and launching appliance.

For MODUs or facilities with a large air gap, operators should consider the improved launching and recovery capabilities of an approved fast rescue boat with a dedicated fast rescue boat launching appliance (which is equipped with motion damping and a constant tensioning winch).

The Report recommended the Commandant amend 46 CFR 109.213 to require performance of a man overboard drill on at least a quarterly basis.

We agree that 46 CFR 109.213, as well as the relevant OCS Activities regulations in 33 CFR Subchapter N, should include a quarterly man overboard drill, and are considering proposing regulation changes for this purpose.

Until new requirements are proposed, the Coast Guard urges operators of all MODUs and manned offshore facilities on the U.S. OCS to consider performing a man overboard drill on at least a quarterly basis, including deployment of a rescue boat, where provided, to simulate the recovery of a person from the water.

This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 43 U.S.C. 1331,et seq.,and 33 CFR 1.05-1. The guidance contained in this notice is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it itself a rule. It is not intended to nor does it impose legally binding requirements on any party. It represents the Coast Guard's current thinking on this topic and provides the public with an indication of future action being considered by the Coast Guard.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to submit comments and related material in response to this notice. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2012-0640), and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online athttp://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number (USCG-2012-0640) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this notice.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

To view comments, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number (USCG-2012-0640) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with the facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located. Under 33 CFR 127.007(e), an owner or operator planning such an expansion must also file or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) that addresses the proposed increase in LNG or LHG marine traffic in the associated waterway. Oil Tanking North America submitted an LOI on May 12, 2011 and a WSA on April 24, 2012 regarding the company's proposed expansion of its LHG facilities in Houston and Texas City, Texas.

Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine traffic on the affected waterway.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed increase in LHG marine traffic in Houston and Texas City, Texas. The Coast Guard believes that input from the public may be useful to the COTP with respect to development of the LOR. Additionally, the Coast Guard tasked the Area Maritime Security Committee, Houston-Galveston, Texas, with forming a subcommittee comprised of affected port users and stakeholders, including appropriate members of the Harbor Safety Committee. The goal of the subcommittee will be to gather information to help the COTP assess the suitability of the associated waterway for increased LHG marine traffic as it relates to navigational safety and security.

On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, “Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.” NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build and operate LNG facilities. While NVIC 01-2011 is specific to LNG, it provides useful process information and guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build and operate LHG facilities as well. The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating Oil Tanking North America's WSA. A copy of NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this notice and also on the Coast Guard's Web site athttp://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.

This notice is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.

This notice informs the public that theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Public Housing Mortgage Program and Section 30.

OMB Approval Number:2577-0265.

Form Numbers:None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:Section 516 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) (Pub. L. 105-276, October 21, 1998) added Section 30, Public Housing Mortgages and Security Interest, to the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437z-2). Section 30 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to approve a Housing Authority's (HA) request to mortgage public housing real property or grant a security interest in other tangible forms of personal property if the proceeds of the loan resulting from the mortgage or security interest are used for low-income housing uses. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) must provide information to HUD for approval to allow PHAs to grant a mortgage in public housing real estate or a security interest in some tangible form of personal property owned by the PHA for the purposes of securing loans or other financing for modernization or development of low-income housing. The title of the information collection has been changed to be more clearly descriptive of the range of transactions that would be reviewed under this collection for compliance with Section 30. There are several circumstances other than a mixed finance transaction that would potentially trigger this collection. For example, most recently Energy Performance Contract (EPC) transactions that provide for a security interest in energy improvements have been reviewed for approval under Section 30.

Total estimated burden hours:3,760.

Status:Revision of a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Previous Participation Certification.

OMB Approval Number:2502-0118.

Form Numbers:HUD-2530 .

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:Thisinformation is necessary to ensure that responsible individuals and organizations participate in HUD's multifamily housing programs. The information will be used to evaluate participants' previous participation in government programs and ensure that the past record is acceptable prior to granting approval to participate in HUD's multifamily housing programs. The collection of this information is designed to be 100 percent automated and digital submission of all data and certifications is available via HUD's secure Internet systems. However HUD will provide for both electronic and paper submissions until it publishes revised regulations.

Total estimated burden hours:7,500.

Status:Revision of a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring Program (Mark to Market).

OMB Approval Number:2502-0533.

Form Numbers:HUD 9625, HUD 9624.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:The Mark to Market Program is authorized under the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 as extended by the Market to Market Extension Act of 2001. The information collection is required and will be used to determine the eligibility of FHA insured multifamily properties for participation in the Mark to Market program and the terms on which such participation should occur as well as to process eligible properties from acceptance into the program through closing of the mortgage restructure in accordance with program guidelines. The result of participation in the program is the refinancing and restructure of the property's FHAinsured mortgage and, generally the reduction of Section 8 rent payments and establishment of adequately funded accounts to fund required repair and rehabilitation of the property. Agency form numbers, if applicable: Operating Procedures Guide (OPG) Forms: Accommodation Agreement—Debt Assgn—TPA Post Restr (Form/Apdx C), Accommodation Agreement—Debt Forgiveness—TPA Post Restr (Form/Apdx C), Agreement of Assignment of Debt to QNP (Form/ApdxC), Allonge—Debt Assignment From QNP (Form/Apdx C), Allonge—Debt Assignment to QNP (Form/Apdx C), Assignment of Debt from QNP (Form/Apdx C), Assumption & Modification of Use Agmt (Assignment) (Form/Apdx C), Assumption and Modification of Use Agreement—Forgiveness (Form/Apdx C), OPG 11.1, OPG 3.1, OPG 3.2, OPG 3.3, OPG 3.4, OPG 4.10, OPG 4.11, OPG 4.12, OPG 4.2, OPG 4.3, OPG 4.4, OPG 4.7, OPG 4.8, OPG 5.4, OPG 5.5, OPG 7.11, OPG 7.12, OPG 7.13, OPG 7.14, OPG 7.21, OPG 7.22, OPG 7.23, OPG 7.25, OPG 7.4, OPG 7.8.

Total estimated burden hours:2,412.

Status:Extension without change a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Application for the Transfer of Physical Assets.

OMB Approval Number:2502-0275.

Form Numbers:HUD-92266.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:This information will be used to ensure that HUD multifamily housing properties are not placed in physical, financial, or managerial jeopardy during a transfer of physical assets.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned ResidentialProperties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance.

OMB Approval Number:2539-0009.

Form Numbers:None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:Requirements for notification of leadbased paint hazard in federally-owned residential properties and housing receiving Federal assistance, as codified in 24 CFR 35.

Total estimated burden hours:167,744.

Status:Revision of a currently approved collection.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order inNational Coalition for the Homelessv.Veterans Administration,No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

HUD announces its intention to sell in MHLS 2013-1 certain unsubsidized mortgage loans (Mortgage Loans) secured by multifamily and healthcare properties located throughout the United States. The Mortgage Loans are comprised of non-performing mortgage loans. A final listing of the Mortgage Loans will be included in the BIP. The Mortgage Loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the Mortgage Loans.

The Mortgage Loans may be stratified for bidding purposes into several mortgage loan pools. Each pool may contain Mortgage Loans that generally have similar performance, property type, geographic location, lien position and other characteristics. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or may bid on individual loans. A mortgagor who is a qualified bidder may submit an individual bid on its own Mortgage Loan. Interested Mortgagors should review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they may also be eligible to qualify to submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or on individual loans in MHLS 2013-1.

The BIP will describe in detail the procedure for bidding in MHLS 2013-1. The BIP will also include a standardized non-negotiable loan sale agreement (Loan Sale Agreement).

As part of its bid, each bidder must submit a deposit equal to the greater of $100,000 or 10% of the bid price. In the event that the bidder's aggregate bid is less than $100,000, the minimum deposit shall be not less than fifty percent (50%) of the bidder's aggregate bid. HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bids in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, the bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders. Closings are expected to take place between December 18 and December 21, 2012.

These are the essential terms of sale. The Loan Sale Agreement, which will be included in the BIP, will contain additional terms and details. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the Loan Sale Agreement are not subject to negotiation.

The BIP will describe the due diligence process for reviewing loan files in MHLS 2013-1. Qualified bidders will be able to access loan information remotely via a high-speed Internet connection. Further information on performing due diligence review of the Mortgage Loans will be provided in the BIP.

HUD reserves the right to add Mortgage Loans to or delete Mortgage Loans from MHLS 2013-1 at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, without prejudice to HUD's right to include any Mortgage Loans in a later sale. Mortgage Loans will not be withdrawn after the Award Date except as is specifically provided in the Loan Sale Agreement.

This is a sale of unsubsidized mortgage loans, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, 12 U.S.C. 1715z-11a(a).

HUD selected a competitive sale as the method to sell the Mortgage Loans. This method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these Mortgage Loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the Mortgage Loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans.

In order to bid in the sale, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The following individuals and entities are ineligible to bid on any of the Mortgage Loans included in MHLS 2013-1:

1. Any employee of HUD, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household;

2. Any individual or entity that is debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24;

3. Any contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, principal or affiliate of any of the foregoing) who performed services for, or on behalf of, HUD in connection with MHLS 2013-1;

4. Any individual who was a principal, partner, director, agent or employee of any entity or individual described in subparagraph 3 above, at any time during which the entity or individual performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with MHLS 2013-1;

5. Any individual or entity that uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under subparagraphs 1 through 4 above to assist in preparing any of its bids on the Mortgage Loans;

6. Any individual or entity which employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD (other than in such employee's official capacity) who is involved in MHLS 2013-1;

7. Any affiliate, principal or employee of any person or entity that, within the two-year period prior to November 1, 2012, serviced any of the MortgageLoans or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD;

8. Any contractor or subcontractor to HUD that otherwise had access to information concerning the Mortgage Loans on behalf of HUD or provided services to any person or entity which, within the two-year period prior to November 1, 2012, had access to information with respect to the Mortgage Loans on behalf of HUD;

9. Any employee, officer, director or any other person that provides or will provide services to the potential bidder with respect to such Mortgage Loans during any warranty period established for the Loan Sale, that serviced any of the Mortgage Loans or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD or within the two-year period prior to November 1, 2012, provided services to any person or entity which serviced, performed services or otherwise had access to information with respect to the Mortgage Loans for or on behalf of HUD;

10. Any mortgagor or operator that failed to submit to HUD on or before October 31, 2012, audited financial statements for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 (for such time as the project has been in operation or the prospective bidder served as operator, if less than three (3) years) for a project securing a Mortgage Loan;

11. Any individual or entity and any Related Party (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement) of such individual or entity that is a mortgagor in any of HUD's multifamily and or healthcare housing programs and that is in default under such mortgage loan or is in violation of any regulatory or business agreements with HUD, unless such default or violation was cured on or before October 31, 2012;

Prospective bidders should carefully review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they are eligible to submit bids on the Mortgage Loans in MHLS 2013-1.

HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding MHLS 2013-1, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or individual loan, upon the closing of the sale of all the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to MHLS 2013-1, HUD will have the right to disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated there under.

This notice applies to MHLS 2013-1 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.

On October 4, 2012 (77 FR 60712), HUD published a notice in theFederal Registerrequesting information from the general public, PHAs, owners and management agents, public housing residents, multifamily housing residents and other stakeholders to help inform HUD on how it might best support housing providers and residents in implementing smoke-free policies for both public housing and multifamily housing. In the October 4, 2012 notice, HUD provided a list of topics for which HUD is seeking information and established a comment due date of November 5, 2012. In response to recent requests for additional time to submit public comments, HUD is announcing through this notice that it is reopening the public comment period for an additional 60-day period. Interested persons should refer to the October 4, 2012 notice for the list of topics to which HUD is seeking information.

On October 4, 2012, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) published a notice announcing the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (Committee), and inviting nominations for membership on the committee. The Committee will provide advice on matters and actions relating to the establishment and operations of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and the DOI Climate Science Centers. In doing so, the Committee will obtain input from Federal, state, tribal, local government, nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, and academic institutions.

The Department has determined that additional time is required to enable members to be nominated for the committee.

We are seeking nominations for individuals to be considered as Committee members. Nominations should include a resume that describes the nominee's qualifications in enough detail to enable us to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and to contact a potential member.

Members of the Committee will be composed of approximately 25 members from both the Federal Government, and the following interests: (1) State and local governments, including state membership entities; (2) Non-governmental organizations, including those whose primary mission is professional and scientific and those whose primary mission is conservation and related scientific and advocacy activities; (3) American Indian tribes and other Native American entities; (4) Academia; (5) Individual landowners; and (6) Business interests.

In addition, the Committee may include scientific experts, and will include rotating representation from one or more of the institutions that host the DOI Climate Science Centers.

The Committee will meet approximately 2-4 times annually, and at such times as designated by the DFO. The Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to the Committee. Members appointed as special Government employees are required to file on an annual basis a confidential financial disclosure report.

No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the Committee.

First Solar Development, Inc. (First Solar) has requested a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain and decommission the 300-megawatt (MW) Stateline Project from the BLM and a separate well permit from the County of San Bernardino. The BLM is responding to the ROW application as required by FLPMA. The proposed project located on BLM-administered lands would include access roads, a photovoltaic arrays, an electrical substation, a meteorological station, a monitoring and maintenance facility, water wells, and a 2.3-mile generation tie-line on up to 2,143 acres. The project location is in San Bernardino County approximately 2 miles south of the Nevada-California border and 0.5 miles west of Interstate 15.

The BLM's purpose and need for the Stateline EIS/EIR is to respond to First Solar's application for a ROW grant to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a photovoltaic solar energy facility on public lands in compliance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable Federal laws. The BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with modification, or deny a ROW to First Solar. In connection with its consideration of the Stateline ROW application, the BLM is proposing to amend the CDCA Plan by designating the project area as either suitable or unsuitable for solar energy development. The CDCA Plan (1980, as amended), recognized the potential compatibility of solar energy generation facilities with other uses on public lands; however, it requires that all sites proposed for power generation or transmission not already identified in the plan be considered through the plan amendment process. While connected, the decision to amend the CDCA plan is separate from the decision to approve the ROW application. As part of its consideration of project impacts, the BLM may also amend the CDCA Plan to address cumulative impacts of this and other developments in the Ivanpah Valley watershed. Specifically, the BLM will consider whether to expand the boundaries of the Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA).

The Draft Plan Amendment and Draft EIS/EIR analyze four project development alternatives, including the proposed action, which is analyzed as Alternative 1: 300 MWs of development on 2,143 acres. The other alternatives include—Alternative 2: 300 MWs of development on 2,385 acres; Alternative 3: 300 MWs of development on 2,151 acres; and Alternative 4: 232 MWs of development on 1,766 acres. In addition to project-related impacts, all project development alternatives analyze potential expansion of the current boundaries of the Ivanpah DWMA. The management prescriptions for the Ivanpah DWMA are defined in Appendix A, Section A.2, of the Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (July 2002). If the DWMA is expanded, these management prescriptions will be applied to the expansion.

The Draft Plan Amendment and Draft EIS/EIR also analyze three No Project alternatives—Alternative 5: No Action; Alternative 6: No Project and amendment of the CDCA Plan to find the Project area unsuitable for solar development; and Alternative 7: No Project and amendment of the CDCA Plan to find the Project area suitable for solar development.

The Draft Plan Amendment and EIS/EIR evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Stateline on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, special status species, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, traffic, visual resources, lands with wilderness characteristics, cumulative effects and areas with high potential for renewable energy development.

A Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Plan Amendment and EIS/EIR for the Stateline Project was published in theFederal Registeron August 4, 2011 (76 FR 47235). The BLM held one joint public scoping meeting with San Bernardino County at the Primm Valley Golf Course on August 31, 2011. The formal scoping period ended on September 6, 2011.

Please note that public comments will be available for public review at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

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.

The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 104-333. The 28 members represent business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and the operations of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 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)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval for the collection of information found at 30 CFR part 769—Petition process for designation of Federal lands as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining operations and for termination of previous designations. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this collection. This collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0098.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), aFederal Registernotice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 17, 2012 (77 FR 49827). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title:30 CFR Part 769—Petition process for designation of Federal lands as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining operations and for termination of previous designations.

OMB Control Number:1029-0098.

Summary:This part establishes the minimum procedures and standards for designating Federal lands unsuitable for certain types of surface mining operations and for terminating designations pursuant to a petition. The information requested will aid the regulatory authority in the decision making process to approve or disapprove a request.

Bureau Form Number:None.

Frequency of Collection:Once.

Description of Respondents:People who may be adversely affected by surface mining on Federal lands.

Total Annual Responses:1.

Total Annual Burden Hours:1,000.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the offices listed in theADDRESSESsection. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

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.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 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)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval for the collection of information for 30 CFR 874.16, and the AML Contractor Information Form which is found in the Applicant/Violator System (AVS) handbook. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this collection. This collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0119.

As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), aFederal Registernotice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 17, 2012 (77 FR 49827). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title:30 CFR 874.16—Contractor Eligibility and the Abandoned Mine Land Contractor Information Form.

OMB Control Number:1029-0119.

Summary:30 CFR 874.16 requires that every successful bidder for an AML contract must be eligible under 30 CFR 773.15(b)(1) at the time of contract award to receive a permit or conditional permit to conduct surface coal mining operations. Further, the regulation requires the eligibility to be confirmed by OSM's automated Applicant/Violator System (AVS) and the contractor must be eligible under the regulations implementing Section 510(c) of the Surface Mining Act to receive permits to conduct mining operations. This form provides a tool for OSM and the States/Indian tribes to help them prevent persons with outstanding violations from conducting further mining or AML reclamation activities in the State.

Bureau Form Title:AML Contractor Information Form (No form number).

Frequency of Collection:Once per contract.

Description of Respondents:AML contract applicants and State and Tribal regulatory authorities.

Total Annual Responses:279 bidders and 46 State/Tribal responses.

Total Annual Burden Hours:169.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the offices listed in theADDRESSESsection. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

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.

Background.This investigation is being instituted in response to a petition filed on November 15, 2012, by Utah Refractories Corp., Lehi, UT.

Participation in the investigation and public service list.Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in theFederal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference.The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on December 6, 2012, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be filed with the Office of the Secretary (William.bishop@usitc.govandSharon.bellamy@usitc.gov) on or before December 4, 2012. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions.As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before December 11, 2012, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please consult the Commission's rules, as amended, 76 FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (Oct. 6, 2011), available on the Commission's Web site athttp://edis.usitc.gov.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The following is a temporary order and a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, athttp://www.sec.gov/search/search.htmor by calling (202) 551-8090.

1. Wells Fargo Bank is a national banking association wholly-owned, directly and indirectly, by Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”). Through its direct and indirect subsidiaries, Wells Fargo, a registered financial holding company and bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, offers banking, brokerage, advisory and other financial services to institutional and individual customers worldwide. Wells Fargo also is the ultimate parent of the other Applicants, who, as direct or indirect, majority-owned or wholly-owned, subsidiaries of the same ultimate parent, are, or may be considered to be, under common control with Wells Fargo Bank.

2. Effective December 1, 2011, and August 24, 2012, respectively, two separately identifiable departments within Wells Fargo Bank, Abbot Downing Investment Advisors and Wells Capital Management Singapore, each became registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and each serves as an investment adviser to one or more Funds (as defined below). First International, Metropolitan West, Golden Capital, Alternative Strategies, WF Funds Management, Wells CapitalManagement, Peregrine, and Galliard are registered as investment advisers under the Advisers Act and serve as investment advisers or sub-advisers to various Funds. Alternative Strategies Brokerage and WF Funds Distributor are registered as broker-dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and each serves as principal underwriter to various Funds. “Fund” means any registered investment company, including a registered unit investment trust (“UIT”) or registered face amount certificate company, as well as a business development company (“BDC”) or employees' securities company (“ESC”). “Fund Servicing Activities” means acting as an adviser, sub-adviser or depositor to Funds, or principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company, UIT, registered face amount company or ESC.

3. On July 12, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Wells Fargo Bank in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) in a civil action.2 The Complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). More specifically, the Complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank's policies caused African-American and Hispanic borrowers to be placed into subprime loans at higher rates than similarly-situated white borrowers and to pay higher costs, fees and interest rates than similarly-situated white borrowers. Applicants state that Wells Fargo Bank has not been advised by the Department of Justice that any employee of Wells Fargo discriminated intentionally on the basis of race or national origin. On July 12, 2012, Wells Fargo Bank executed a Consent Order, in which it denied the allegations of the Complaint other than those facts deemed necessary to the jurisdiction of the District Court. Pursuant to that Consent Order, on September 20, 2012, the District Court entered a judgment that, among other things, enjoins Wells Fargo Bank from violating the anti-discrimination provisions of the ECOA and the FHA in connection with originating residential mortgages (the “Injunction”), and requires Wells Fargo Bank to pay $125 million in compensation to borrowers who may have suffered as a result of the alleged ECOA and FHA violations, contribute at least $50 million to a homebuyer assistance program, and implement other measures that are designed to ensure Wells Fargo Bank's future adherence to fair lending practices.

1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person who has been enjoined from acting as a bank, or from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with such activity, from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of any registered investment company, or a principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company, UIT or registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act extends the prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) to a company any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include, among others, any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that Wells Fargo Bank is, or may be considered to be, under common control with and therefore an affiliated person of each of the other Applicants. Applicants state that the entry of the Injunction may result in Applicants being subject to the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act because Wells Fargo Bank is enjoined from engaging in or continuing certain conduct and/or practices in connection with its banking activity.3

2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking temporary and permanent orders exempting the Applicants and the other Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act. On September 21, 2012, Applicants received a temporary conditional order from the Commission exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act with respect to the Injunction from September 20, 2012 until the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent order or, if earlier, November 16, 2012.

3. Applicants believe they meet the standard for exemption specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).

4. Applicants state that the conduct giving rise to the Injunction did not involve any of the Applicants acting in their capacity as investment adviser, sub-adviser, or principal underwriter for Funds. Applicants also state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the Injunction did not involve any Fund or the assets of any Fund for which they provided Fund Servicing Activities. Applicants further state that to the best of their reasonable knowledge: (i) None of the Applicants' (other than certain of Wells Fargo Bank's) current or former directors, officers or employees had any knowledge of, or had any involvement in, the conduct alleged in the Complaint to have constituted the alleged violations that provided a basis for the Injunction; (ii) the personnel who were involved in the violations alleged in the Complaint have had no involvement in, and will not have any future involvement in, providing advisory, sub-advisory, depository or underwriting services to Funds; and (iii) because the personnel of the Applicants involved in Fund Servicing Activities did not have any involvement in the alleged misconduct, shareholders of Funds that received investment advisory, depository and principal underwriting services from the Applicants were not affected any differently than if those Funds had received services from any other non-affiliated investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter.

5. Applicants further represent that the inability of Applicants to continue providing Fund Servicing Activities would result in potentially severe financial hardships for both the Funds and their shareholders. Applicants state that they will distribute written materials, including an offer to meet in person to discuss the materials, to the board of directors of each Fund, including the directors who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of such Fund, and their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, if any, regarding the Injunction, any impact on the Funds, and the application. The Applicants will provide the Funds with allinformation concerning the Injunction and the application that is necessary for the Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the federal securities laws.

6. Applicants also assert that, if the Applicants were barred from engaging in Fund Servicing Activities, the effect on their businesses and employees would be severe. The Applicants state that they have committed substantial capital and resources to establishing expertise in advising and sub-advising Funds and in support of their principal underwriting business.

7. Applicants state that several Applicants and certain of their affiliates have previously received orders under section 9(c), as described in greater detail in the application.

Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant to the application will be subject to the following condition:

The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.

Accordingly,

It is hereby ordered,pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the Applicants and the other Covered Persons are granted a temporary exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), effective forthwith, solely with respect to the Injunction, subject to the condition in the application, until the date the Commission takes final action on their application for a permanent order.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/14/2012, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133878 and for economic injury is 133880.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of NEW YORK, dated 11/03/2012, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia, dated 09/19/2012 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Presentation on eel collection, stocking and research by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (2) presentation recognizing former alternateCommissioner Herbert Sachs; (3) resolution concerning FY-2014 federal funding of the Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System and National Streamflow Information Program; (4) Low Flow Protection Policy; (5) proposed rulemaking; (6) ratification/approval of grants; (7) administrative appeal filed by East Hempfield Township Municipal Authority; and (8) Regulatory Program projects. Projects listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on November 15, 2012, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 77 FR 64576, October 22, 2012.

Title:State Right-of-Way Operations Manuals.

Background:It is the responsibility of each State Department of Transportation (State) to acquire, manage and dispose of real property in compliance with the legal requirements of State and Federal laws and regulations. Part of providing assurance of compliance is to describe in a right-of-way procedural (operations) manual the organization, policies and procedures of the State to such an extent that these guide State employees, local acquiring agencies, and contractors who acquire and manage real property that is used for a federally funded transportation project. Procedural manuals assure the FHWA that the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) will be met. The State responsibility to prepare and maintain an up-to-date right-of-way procedural manual is set out in 23 CFR 710.201(c). The regulation allows States flexibility in determining how to meet the manual requirement. This flexibility allows States to prepare manuals in the format of their choosing, to the level of detail necessitated by State complexities. Each State decides how it will provide service to individuals and businesses affected by Federal or federally-assisted projects, while at the same time reducing the burden of government regulation. States are required to update manuals to reflect changes in Federal requirements for programs administered under Title 23 U.S.C. The State manuals may be submitted to FHWA electronically or made available by posting on the State Web site.

Respondents:52 State Departments of Transportation, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Frequency:Annually.

Estimated Average Burden per Response:75 hours per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:75 hours for each of the 52 State Departments of Transportation. The total is 3,900 burden hours annually.

Public Comments Invited:You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

Title:Federal-Aid Highway Construction Equal Employment Opportunity.

Background:Title 23, Part 140(a), requires the FHWA to ensure equal opportunity regarding contractors' employment practices on Federal-aid highway projects. To carry out this requirement, the contractors must submit to the State Transportation Agencies (STAs) on all work being performed on Federal-aid contracts during the month of July, a report on its employment workforce data. This report provides the employment workforce data on these contracts and includes the number of minorities, women, and non-minorities in specific highway construction job categories. This information is reported on Form PR-1391, Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contractors Summary of Employment Data. The statute also requires the STAs to submit a report to the FHWA summarizing the data entered on the PR-1391 forms. This summary data is provided on Form PR-1392, Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contractors Summary of Employment Data. The STAs and FHWA use this data to identify patterns and trends of employment in the highway construction industry, and to determine the adequacy and impact of the STA's and FHWA's contract compliance and on-the-job (OJT) training programs. The STAs use this information to monitor the contractors-employment and training of minorities and women in the traditional highway construction crafts. Additionally, the data is used by FHWA to provide summarization, trend analyses to Congress, DOT, and FHWA officials as well as others who request information relating to the Federal-aid highway construction EEO program. The information is also used in making decisions regarding resource allocation; program emphasis; marketing and promotion activities; training; and compliance efforts.

Respondents:11,077 annual respondents for form PR-1391, and 52 STAs annual respondents for Form PR-1392, total of 11,129.

Frequency:Annually.

Estimated Average Burden per Response:FHWA estimates it takes 30 minutes for Federal-aid contractors to complete and submit Form PR-1391 and 8 hours for STAs to complete and submit Form PR-1392.

Estimated Total Amount Burden Hours:Form PR-1391- 5,539 hours per year;Form PR-1392-416 hours per year, total of 5,955 hours annually.

Public Comments Invited:You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

On October 10, 2012, at 77 FR 61654, the FHWA published a notice regarding actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to the proposed State Route 11 and Otay Mesa East Land Port of Entry project in the City and County of San Diego, State of California.

The original notice indicated that claims seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before April 8, 2013, which represents 180 days after publication in theFederal Register. However, the recently enacted “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21) (Sec. 1308, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 STAT. 405), amended 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) as of October 1, 2012, to provide that any claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on a highway project is barred unless the claim is filed 150 days after publication of a notice in theFederal Register. As such, any claim seeking judicial review of the above referenced highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 9, 2013. Also, if the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such a claim, then that shorter time period still applies.