The Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) stakeholder registry is an email subscription service that allows individuals to receive information about PPQ activities on a variety of plant health topics. PPQ has redesigned the registry to enable PPQ to more effectively communicate urgent messages to the public and keep the public informed on day-to-day activities. Current subscribers will need to subscribe to the new PPQ Stakeholder Registry in order to continue receiving emails on PPQ-related topics.

Subscribers will be able to choose from an array of PPQ topics such as PPQ hot issues, Federal notices, irradiation programs, foreign pests and diseases, plant pest programs, and updates to manuals and the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database. Subscribers may also select how often to receive emails, Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds, or Short Message Service (SMS) messages.

Current and new subscribers may sign up now for the new registry at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new or by clicking on the red envelope icon throughout the plant health pages on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/index.shtml. The current PPQ stakeholder registry will be disabled on July 8, 2011. Questions concerning the PPQ stakeholder registry may be directed to APHISPPQstakeholderregistry@aphis.usda.gov.

The overall purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the negative effects of invasive plants on the structure and function of native plant communities and on other natural resource values that can otherwise be adversely impacted by invasive plants and to update analysis of the effects of Forestwide integrated invasive plant management. The proposal is in response to an underlying need to implement policy and direction provided at the National, Regional, State, and Forest levels, which includes control and containment of invasive plants on the Salmon-Challis National Forest (Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species, 2004 National Invasive Species Strategy and Implementation Plan, 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan, 2009 Intermountain Region Invasive Species Management Strategy, 2005 Idaho Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds, 1987 Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1988 Salmon National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan).

The need of the proposed action is multifaceted:

Invasive plants are diminishing the natural resource values of the Forest.

Forest resources are negatively impacted by existing and expanding invasive plant species populations. These species are known to out-compete native plants, which can result in reduced productivity and biodiversity, habitat loss, and associated economic impacts.

There must be a timely response to new infestations, new invasive plant species, and landscape scale disturbances.

On the Salmon-Challis National Forest, landscape level tree mortality and disturbance from insects and wildfires have increased and are likely to continue to increase the potential for invasive plant infestations. The Forest needs the flexibility to treat expanded and/or newly identified infestations in a timely manner. Existing decisions for invasive plant management on the Forest do not address new species or provide priorities for managing new infestations. Updating these decisions would allow the Forest to satisfy the need to incorporate early detection and rapid response into the invasive plant management program.

Existing invasive plant populations on the Salmon-Challis National Forest require active and adaptive management.

Invasive plant infestations already exist throughout the Salmon-Challis National Forest and without management will likely increase in density and distribution. Active and adaptive integrated pest management is necessary to contain invasive plants within existing boundaries, reduce infestation densities, and retard the establishment of new infestations. Control efforts should be focused on infestations that can realize the greatest resource benefits — those with the highest risk of spread, those that have not become established, and those that have the best likelihood of success of control. New analysis and planning is needed to make available the most current tools and guide their best use. Rehabilitation of degraded landscapes can inhibit the spread and establishment of invasive plants.

Appropriate rehabilitation efforts are a critical component of a fully functional invasive plant management program. The goals of rehabilitating degraded areas may include preventing new infestations, preventing the reoccurrence of eradicated infestations, and/or reducing the density and spread of existing infestations. Post-fire rehabilitation efforts may incorporate one or more of the established control techniques outlined in the Proposed Action.

Federal, State, and Forest Service laws, regulation, policy and direction relating to invasive plant management must be implemented and followed.

Implementing invasive species laws and policies requires aggressive invasive plant management. This analysis would identify the strategies that the Salmon-Challis National Forest would use to comply with laws and policies pertaining to invasive plant management.

The Salmon-Challis National Forest proposes to implement adaptive and integrated invasive plant management on current and potential infested areas outside of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area. Management activities would include inventory and assessment designed to support Early Detection Rapid Response, control methods, implementation and effectiveness monitoring, and rehabilitation. Activities would be implemented with partners at the federal, state, and local level where opportunities exist.

To provide for “Early Detection Rapid Response” (EDRR), the Forest would design a plan that allows treatment of invasive plant infestations located outside of currently identified infested areas. Infestations outside of currently identified areas may include new sites that arise in the future, or sites that currently exist, but have not been identified in Forest inventories to date. The intent of EDRR is to allow timely control, so that new infestations can be treated when they are small, preventing establishment and spread, while reducing the costs and potential side effects of treatment.

Proposed control methods would be based on integrated pest management principles and methods known to be effective for each target species. They include, but are not limited to, mechanical techniques, such as mowing and pulling; cultural practices, such as the use of certified noxious weed-free hay; biological control agents, such as pathogens, insects, and controlled grazing; and herbicides that target specific invasive plant species. Control methods could be employed alone or in combination to achieve the most effective control. Treatment methods would be based on the extent, location, type, and character of an infestation and would be implemented using project design features. A maximum of 30,000 acres would be proposed for treatment annually. Management priority would be based on factors such number and size of known infestations, proximity to vectors or susceptible habitat, and ability to outcompete desirable plant species. The priority of species to be treated would vary based on these factors and could change over time. These priorities would be used to guide selection of specific management activities for particular infestations.

Rehabilitation activities would be designed and implemented based on the conditions found in and around infested areas. Both active and passive (allowing plants on site to fill in a treated area) revegetation would be considered. Rehabilitation techniques would be assessed and implemented in order to promote native plant communities that are resistant to infestation by invasive plants.

Forest Supervisor, Salmon-Challis National Forest, 1206 S. Challis St., Salmon, Idaho 83467.

The Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to treat invasive plants on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, outside the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, and if so, what methods, how much treatment and what strategies (including adaptive management and EDRR) will be used to contain, control, or eradicate invasive plants.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments that would be most useful are those concerning developing or refining the proposed action, in particular are site specific concerns and those that can help us develop treatments that would be responsive to our goal to control, contain, or eradicate invasive plants. 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. Public meetings are anticipated to be held following publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Presentation of non-Forest Service project submittals by project proponents; (2) Public comment on meeting proceedings. This meeting is open to the public.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) published a document in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011, (76 FR 24860), inviting public comment on the following possible types of cooperative regulatory activities between the United States and the European Union: Information-sharing agreements; technical assistance; memoranda of understanding, mutual recognition agreements; collaboration between regulators before initiating rulemaking proceedings; agreements to align particular regulatory measures; equivalency arrangements; and accreditation of testing laboratories or other conformity assessment bodies. These comments will serve as a basis for discussion with the European Union on regulatory cooperation activities to undertake which will support the President's National Export Initiative and serve as a basis for discussion within the U.S.—EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum.

The notice published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24860) informed interested parties that DOC would accept written comments until June 2, 2011. Several associations and organizations with an interest in these activities informed DOC of their inability to submit comments within the 30-day deadline and requested additional time. Based on these requests, DOC is reopening the comment period until August 8, 2011, to provide interested parties additional time to prepare and submit comments. DOC will accept comments received no later than August 8, 2011 and will not consider any further extensions to the comment period.

Requirements for Submissions: In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments should be submitted under docket number ITA-2011-0006. To find this docket, enter the docket number in the “Enter Keyword or ID” window at the http://www.regulations.gov home page and click “Search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with that docket number. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Submit a Comment.” The http://www.regulations.gov Web site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a comments field, or by attaching a document. ITA prefers submissions to be provided in an attached document. (For further information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on the “Help” tab.)

All comments and recommendations submitted in response to this notice will be made available to the public. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. The top of any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL”. Any person filing comments that contain business confidential information must also file in a separate submission a public version of the comments. The file name of the public version of the comments should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. If a comment contains no business confidential information, the file name should begin with the character “P”, followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.

The purpose of the work session is to review work products, including possible bias in the Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) associated with multiple encounters during mark selective fisheries. The results of the analyses will be submitted for review during the Council's 2011 salmon methodology review process.

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

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

The purpose of the EFHRC meeting is to continue the periodic review of essential fish habitat (EFH) identification and descriptions for species managed under the Pacific Council's Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The EFHRC will discuss data needs, interim products, and future meeting planning. Other issues relevant to the EFH review may be addressed as time permits.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the EFHRC for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. EFHRC 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 EFHRC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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

The purpose of the Stock Assessment Review Panels are to review draft 2011 stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information for widow rockfish, spiny dogfish, sablefish, Dover sole, greenspotted rockfish and blackgill rockfish stock assessments, work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions, and produce Stock Assessment Review Panel reports for use by the Pacific Council family and other interested persons for developing management recommendations for 2013-14 fisheries. No management actions will be decided by the Panels. The Panels' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Pacific Council at its September meeting in San Mateo, CA.

The Stock Assessment Review Panel for widow rockfish and spiny dogfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 9 a.m., Monday, July 11, 2011 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 12 and will continue through Friday, July 15, 2011 beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 15, 2011.

The Stock Assessment Review Panel for sablefish and Dover sole stock assessments will be held beginning at 9 a.m., Monday, July 25, 2011 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 26 and will continue through Friday, July 29, 2011 beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 29, 2011.

The Stock Assessment Review Panel for the greenspotted rockfish and blackgill rockfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 9 a.m., Monday, August 8, 2011 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The panel will reconvene on Tuesday, August 9, and will continue through Friday, August 12, 2011 beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The panel will adjourn on Friday, August 12, 2011.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the Panel participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Stock Assessment Review Panel action during these meetings. Panel 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 Panel participants' 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 aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2011. This comment period ended June 22, 2011. No public comments were received from this Notice.

Description: The Corporation is seeking approval of NCCC Team Leader Application which is used by citizens to apply for the position of NCCC Team Leader.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: NCCC Team Leader Application.

OMB Number: 3045-0005.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: NCCC team leader applicants.

Total Respondents: 400.

Frequency: Bi-annual application.

Average Time per Response: Two hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 800.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on June 13, 2011 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 229, Taxes, and related clause at DFARS 252.229-7010; OMB Control Number 0704-0390.

Needs and Uses: DoD uses this information to determine if DoD contractors in the United Kingdom have attempted to obtain relief from customs duty on vehicle fuels in accordance with contract requirements.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 300.

Number of Respondents: 75.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 75.

Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

The clause at DFARS 252.229-7010, Relief from Customs Duty on Fuel (United Kingdom), is prescribed at DFARS 229.402-70(j) for use in solicitations issued and contracts awarded in the United Kingdom that require the use of fuels (gasoline or diesel) and lubricants in taxis or vehicles other than passenger vehicles. The clause requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with evidence that the contractor has initiated an attempt to obtain relief from customs duty on fuels and lubricants, as permitted by an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: Student Support Services Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0525.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,034.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 15,510.

Abstract: Student Support Services Program grantees must submit the report annually. The reports are used to evaluate grantees' performance, and to award prior experience points at the end of each project (budget) period. The Department also aggregates the data to provide descriptive information on the projects and to analyze the impact of the Student Support Services Program on the academic progress of participating students.

Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain or from the Department's Web site at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4542. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

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

The Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities (the Commission) is established under Section 772 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, Public Law 110-315, dated August 14, 2008. The Commission is established to conduct a comprehensive study, which will—(I) “Assess the barriers and systemic issues that may affect, and technical solutions available that may improve, the timely delivery and quality of accessible instructional materials for postsecondary students with print disabilities, as well as the effective use of such materials by faculty and staff; and (II) make recommendations related to the development of a comprehensive approach to improve the opportunities for postsecondary students with print disabilities to access instructional materials in specialized formats in a time frame comparable to the availability of instructional materials for postsecondary nondisabled students.”

In making recommendations for the study, “the Commission shall consider—(I) How students with print disabilities may obtain instructional materials in accessible formats within a time frame comparable to the availability of instructional materials for nondisabled students; and to the maximum extent practicable, at costs comparable to the costs of such materials for nondisabled students; (II) the feasibility and technical parameters of establishing standardized electronic file formats, such as the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard as defined in Section 674(e)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to be provided by publishers of instructional materials to producers of materials in specialized formats, institutions of higher education, and eligible students; (III) the feasibility of establishing a national clearinghouse, repository, or file-sharing network for electronic files in specialized formats and files used in producing instructional materials in specialized formats, and a list of possible entities qualified to administer such clearinghouse, repository, or network; (IV) the feasibility of establishing market-based solutions involving collaborations among publishers of instructional materials, producers of materials in specialized formats, and institutions of higher education; (V) solutions utilizing universal design; and (VI) solutions for low-incidence, high-cost requests for instructional materials in specialized formats.”

The Commission will meet in open session on Monday and Tuesday, and will review and discuss the first draft of the Commission's report to the Secretary and Congress. The Commission will also receive briefings from subject matter experts on several different topics of interest.

The purpose of the public hearing is for the Commission to receive information from its stakeholders on issues pertaining to accessible instructional materials in postsecondary education. The public hearing session will address issues related to law, technology, the market model, and low-incidence/high-cost materials. Additionally, the public hearing will focus on individual experiences related to accessible instructional materials in postsecondary education.

Detailed minutes of the meeting and hearing, will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Commission proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, United States Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202, Monday-Friday during the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting ( e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Elizabeth Shook at (202) 245-7642, no later than June 30, 2011. We will make every attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but, cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Participants who wish to comment at the public hearing are encouraged to register in advance by calling Janet Gronneberg at CAST at 781-245-2212 (voice) or 781-245-9320 (TTY) or jgronneberg@cast.org by June 30, 2011. The Commission requests that organizations with multiple participants designate no more than one individual to speak on its behalf. Participants who will be testifying in person must report to the hearing registration desk at least thirty minutes prior to their scheduled time. A period of time will be reserved for individuals who choose to not register in advance. Participation in the hearing for unregistered participants will be subject to availability. Comments should be limited to five minutes per person or organization, but participants have the option of supplementing their testimony with written statements that will be part of the official hearing record. The Commission will have technology to facilitate PowerPoint presentations as needed.

Members of the public who would like to offer comments as part of the public hearing remotely may submit written comments to AIMCommission@ed.gov or by mail to Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities, 550 12th St., SW., Room PCP-5113, Washington, DC 20202. All submissions will become part of the public record.

Members of the public also have the option of participating in the open meeting and public hearing remotely. Remote access will be provided via an Internet webinar service utilizing VoiP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). For the July 11th, 2011 portion of the meeting from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., the URL is https://aimpsc.ilinc.com/join/yvbmysr. The login will be available to the public starting at 8 a.m. (Pacific). On July 12th, the URL will be https://aimpsc.ilinc.com/join/bbmtzsh for the Commission meeting from 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., and the login will be open to public at 8 a.m. (Pacific).

The URL for the public hearing portion of the meeting from 4 p.m.-9 p.m. will be https://aimpsc.ilinc.com/join/yvbmyjr. The login will open to public at 3:45 p.m. (Pacific). Login information is also provided via the Commission's public listserv at pscpublic@lists.cast.org and posted at the following site: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/aim/index.html.

Electronic Access to this Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1800; or in the Washington, DC area at 202-512-0000.

The SEAD Initiative was launched in July 2010 as part of the Clean Energy Ministerial's Global Energy Efficiency Challenge ( http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org ). The Clean Energy Ministerial is a global forum for accelerating the transition to clean energy technologies. SEAD's purpose is to leverage high-level political dialogue to advance on-the-ground appliance and equipment efficiency efforts. SEAD activities are conducted by five working groups, covering standards and test procedures, awards, procurement, incentives, and cross-cutting technical analysis.

Fourteen SEAD member governments announced plans for an international awards competition for super-efficient appliances at the second Clean Energy Ministerial in April 2011. DOE leads the multilateral Working Group that is developing the SEAD Awards competition together with SEAD initiative counterparts from Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Awards Working Group has selected televisions as the product for this first annual awards competition, since TVs contribute about 6-8 percent of global residential electricity consumption. Subsequent rounds of the awards competition will focus on other major energy-using appliances that are internationally traded and can be evaluated using established, internationally-recognized test methods. The awards competition will address product categories on a rotating basis, with a given product type being featured every few years.

The 2012 SEAD Global Appliance Efficiency Awards for Televisions will allow consumers to differentiate and choose the most efficient product in their markets within a given size category. A total of 20 awards are planned: One per size category (small/medium/large) for commercially-available products in each of four locations  1 (Australia, Europe, India, and the United States); one international award per size category from among the winners of each region—a “best of the best” in each of the three size categories; and five “emerging technology” awards (one emerging technology award per market with no differentiation by size, and a fifth award for the “best of the best” of these models). Efficiency will be evaluated via internationally-recognized test methods, 2 and all potential winning products will be subject to verification testing to ensure the integrity of the awards.

Requested Input: The Awards Working Group is interested in comments and feedback from interested stakeholders on all aspects of the draft program rules. However, comments addressing the following issues would be particularly valuable:

• Proposed nomination period, testing, dispute resolution, and award timing, particularly with regard to typical product production cycles and marketing/promotional needs;

• Proposed emerging technology award requirements, including use of the proposed evaluation methodology for Automatic Brightness Control (ABC) at 10, 100, 150, and 300 lux from the forthcoming revision of the ENERGY STAR Televisions test method; 3 and

• Proposed size boundaries for small/medium/large product categorization.

More information on DOE's participation in the SEAD Initiative and the Clean Energy Ministerial can be found at: http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org.

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-549B, “Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Information,” includes both the Index of Customers (IOC) report under Commission regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 284.13(c) and three capacity reporting requirements. One of these is in Commission regulations at 18 CFR 284.13(b) and requires reports on firm and interruptible services. The second is at 18 CFR 284.13(d)(1) and requires pipelines make information on capacity and flow information available on their Internet Web sites. The third is at 18 CFR 284.13(d)(2) and requires an annual filing of peak day capacity.

On April 4, 1992, in Order No. 636 (RM91-11-000), the Commission established a capacity release mechanism under which shippers could release firm transportation and storage capacity on either a short- or long-term basis to other shippers wanting to obtain capacity. Pipelines posted available firm and interruptible capacity information on their electronic bulletin boards (EBBs) to inform potential shippers.

On August 3, 1992, in Order No. 636-A (RM91-11-002), the Commission determined through staff audits, that the efficiency of the capacity release mechanism could be enhanced by standardizing the content and format of capacity release information and the methods by which shippers accessed this information, which pipelines posted to their EBBs

On March 29, 1995, through Order 577 (RM95-5-000), the Commission amended § 284.243(h) of its regulations to allow shippers the ability to release capacity without having to comply with the Commission's advance posting and bidding requirements.

On February 9, 2000, in Order No. 637 (RM98-10-000), to create greater substitution between different forms of capacity and to enhance competition across the pipeline grid, the Commission revised its capacity release regulations regarding scheduling, segmentation and flexible point rights, penalties, and reporting requirements. This resulted in more reliable capacity information availability and price data that shippers needed to make informed decisions in a competitive market as well as to improve shipper's and the Commission's ability to monitor the market for potential abuses.

18 CFR 284.13(d)(2) requires an annual peak day capacity report of all interstate pipelines, including natural gas storage only companies. This report is generally a short report showing the peak day design capacity or the actual peak day capacity achieved, with a short explanation, if needed. The regulation states:

This annual report/filing is publicly available, while other more specific interstate pipeline and storage capacity details are filed as CEII, such as the Annual System Flow Diagram (FERC-567) which are not publicly available.

In Order 581, issued September 28, 1995 (Docket No. RM95-4-000), the Commission established the IOC quarterly information requirement. This Order required the reporting of five data elements in the IOC filing: the customer name, the rate schedule under which service is rendered, the contract effective date, the contract termination date, and the maximum daily contract quantity, for either transportation or storage service, as appropriate.

In a notice issued separate from Order 581 in Docket No. RM95-4-000, issued February 29, 1996, the Commission, through technical conferences with industry, determined that the IOC data reported should be in tab delimited format on diskette and in a form as proscribed in Appendix A of the rulemaking. In a departure from past practice, a three-digit code, instead of a six-digit code, was established to identify the respondent.

In Order 637, issued February 9, 2000 (Docket Nos. RM98-10-000 and RM98-12-000), the Commission required the filing of: the receipt and delivery points held under contract and the zones or segments in which the capacity is held, the common transaction point codes, the contract number, the shipper identification number, an indication whether the contract includes negotiated rates, the names of any agents or asset managers that control capacity in a pipeline rate zone, and any affiliate relationship between the pipeline and the holder of capacity. It was stated in the Order that the changes to the Commission's reporting requirements would enhance the reliability of information about capacity availability and price that shippers need to make informed decisions in a competitive market as well as improve shippers' and the Commission's ability to monitor marketplace behavior to detect, and remedy anti-competitive behavior. Order 637 required a pipeline post the information quarterly on its Internet websites instead of on the outdated EBBs.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the FERC-549B reporting requirements, with no changes.

Burden Statement: The estimated annual public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $7,876,183 (115,068 hours/2,080 hours  1 per year, times $142,372  2 ). The estimated annual burden per respondent is $61,056 (rounded).

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 31, 2011, 76 FR 5366, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0077, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742.

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

Title: Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1596.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0226.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: Information collected under this rulemaking is necessary to implement the requirements of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program for evaluating and regulating substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and globally under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Under CAA Section 612, EPA is authorized to identify and restrict the use of substitutes for class I and class II ozone-depleting substances where EPA determines other alternatives exist that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The SNAP program, based on information collected from the manufacturers, formulators, and/or sellers of such substitutes, identifies acceptable substitutes. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory under Section 612 for anyone who sells or, in certain cases, uses substitutes for an ozone-depleting substance after April 18, 1994, the effective date of the final rule. Measures to protect confidentiality of information collected under the SNAP program are based on EPA's confidentiality regulations (40 CFR 2.201 et seq., or Subpart B). Submitters may designate all or portions of their forms or petitions as confidential. EPA requires the submitters to substantiate their claim of confidentiality. Under CAA Section 114(c), emissions information may not be claimed as confidential.

To develop the lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes, the Agency must assess and compare “overall risks to human health and the environment” posed by use of substitutes in the context of particular applications. EPA requires submission of information covering a wide range of health and environmental factors. These include intrinsic properties such as physical and chemical information, ozone depleting potential, global warming potential, toxicity, and flammability, and use-specific data such as substitute applications, process description, environmental release data, exposure data during use of a substitute, environmental fate and transport, and cost information. Once a completed submission has been received, a 90 day review period under the SNAP program will commence. Any substitute which is a new chemical must also be submitted to the Agency through a Premanufacture Notice under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Alternatives that will be used as sterilants must be filed jointly with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and with SNAP.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: manufacturers, importers, formulators and processors of substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 221.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 6,683.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $476,742, which includes $22,281 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,521 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This is due to changes in EPA's estimates of the burden hours and number of respondents fulfilling reporting and record-keeping requirements.

The development of new substitutes resulted in a greater number of persons filing a SNAP Information Notice or TSCA/SNAP Addendum to increase slightly, but also resulted in fewer respondents keeping records for alternatives that are subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits. In addition, respondents filing a SNAP Information Notice reported a decrease in total annual burden of hours when collecting data to complete the form and when responding to requests for additional information. This decrease may be attributable to increased respondent familiarity with EPA's forms, more examples in the public record for respondents to research and use in preparing responses, and general increased availability of computer software and information via the Internet.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10022), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0832, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270.

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

Title: EPA's WasteWise Program (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1698.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0139.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA's voluntary WasteWise program encourages businesses and other organizations to reduce solid waste through waste prevention, recycling, and the purchase or manufacture of recycled-content products. WasteWise participants include partners who commit to implementing waste reduction activities tailored to their specific needs, and endorsers who promote WasteWise and recruit organizations to join the program.

WasteWise requires partners to register for membership in the program. Previously, WasteWise used paper forms that we estimate took 40 hours for partners and 10 hours for endorsers to complete. In 2009, WasteWise implemented a web-based data management and reporting system for the collection and reporting of data. Under the new web-based system, partners and endorsers enter their data on-line.

The Partner Registration Form identifies an organization and its facilities registering to participate in WasteWise, and requires the signature of a senior official that can commit the organization to the program. (This form is completed on-line and is submitted electronically.) Within two months of registering, each partner is required to submit baseline data on existing waste reduction programs to EPA via an Annual Assessment Form. (This is an on-line form that is completed and submitted electronically.) Partners are also encouraged to set waste reduction goals for the upcoming year. On an annual basis, partners are required to report, via the Annual Assessment Form, on the accomplishments of their waste prevention and recycling activities. Partners report the amount of waste prevented and recycled, amount of recycled-content materials purchased, and (where appropriate) the amount of recovered materials used in the manufacture of new products. They also provide WasteWise with information on total waste prevention revenue, total recycling revenue, total avoided purchasing costs due to waste prevention, and total avoided disposal costs due to recycling and waste prevention. Additionally, they are encouraged to submit new waste reduction goals.

Endorsers, which are typically trade associations or state/local governments, submit an Endorser Registration Form upon registering for the program. (This is an on-line form that is completed and is submitted electronically.) The Endorser Registration Form identifies the organization, the principal contact, and the activities to which the Endorser commits. EPA plans to expand the information requested of Endorsers by requiring them to submit a summary of their endorser activities annually. All registration and reporting information will be submitted electronically using the existing on-line, web-based data management and reporting system.

EPA's WasteWise program uses the submitted information to (1) Identify and recognize outstanding waste reduction achievements by individual organizations, (2) compile results that indicate overall accomplishments of WasteWise members, (3) identify cost-effective waste reduction strategies to share with other organizations, (4) identify topics on which to develop technical assistance materials and other information, and (5) further encourage the growth of industry-specific sustainable practices.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response for the Partner Registration Form, 34.5 hours per response for the Partner Annual Assessment Form, 3 hours per response for the Endorser Registration Form, and 5 hours per response for the Endorser Annual Assessment Form. This results in an estimated annual partner respondent burden of 51 hours for new partners, 48 hours for established partners, 7 hours for new endorsers, and 3 hours for established endorsers.

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

Respondents/Affected Entities: Businesses, not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local, or Tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,222.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 25,844.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,138,570, includes $2,138,570 annualized labor costs and $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 44,506 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to an update in the number of partners to reflect who are the active partners, as well as an online reporting system that has greatly reduced burden for respondents and the agency.

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, a Title V operating permit proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

EPA received a petition from the Petitioners dated October 29, 2009, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the Title V operating permit to TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC for the operation of a coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington for the following reasons: (I) The Title V permit failed to provide for the control of carbon dioxide emissions, an air contaminant that is detrimental to human health and welfare, property, and business; (II) The Title V permit failed to provide for the control of mercury emissions, an air contaminant that is detrimental to human health and welfare, property, and business; (III) The Title V permit failed to provide for adequate control of nitrogen oxide emissions, an air contaminant that is detrimental to human health and welfare, property, and business; (IV) The Title V permit failed to require Reasonably Available Control Technology for the control of carbon dioxide emissions or for mercury emissions; and (V) The Title V permit's start-up, shut-down and malfunction provisions are contrary to recent case law interpreting the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

On April 28, 2011, the Administrator issued an order denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion to deny the petition for objection.

The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. The final agenda will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/children .

Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Martha Berger at 202-564-2191 or berger.martha@epa.gov.

Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical peer review advice, consultation and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency actions, positions and regulations. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public teleconference to initiate an advisory, followed by a two-day meeting. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate EPA and SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

EPA is conducting a review of its regulatory standards in 40 CFR part 192—Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings. In accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation and Control Act (UMTRCA) section 206, EPA is authorized to develop standards for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with residual radioactive materials. The Agency is currently undertaking a review to determine if the existing standards, last revised by EPA in 1995, should be updated. The expectation is that In-Situ Leach Recovery (ISL/ISR) operations will be the most common type of new uranium extraction facility in the U.S. These facilities can affect groundwater. Accordingly, EPA is seeking scientific advice and relevant technical criteria to establish standards and procedures, including the relevant period for monitoring ISL/ISR facilities once uranium extraction operations are completed, to provide reasonable assurances of aquifer stability and groundwater protection.

The EPA has requested the SAB review a draft technical document on ISL/ISR post closure stability monitoring to evaluate what criteria should be considered to establish a specific period of monitoring for ISL/ISR facilities, once uranium extraction operations are completed. Among the issues to be considered are whether a time frame can be established; whether specific site characteristics, features or benchmarks can be used to aid in establishing a post-closure monitoring time period; and if other technical approaches should be considered by EPA to provide reasonable assurances of aquifer stability and groundwater protection.

The SAB Staff Office requested nominations of experts in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 226, Weds, November 24, 2010, pages 71702-71703) and has formed an expert panel by augmenting the RAC with additional experts to review the EPA's draft technical report, which will be used as a basis to evaluate the technical and scientific issues pertaining to standards in 40 CFR Part 192—Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.

Availability of Meeting Materials: The Agenda and other materials in support of the teleconference and two-day meeting will be placed on SAB Web site in advance of the teleconference and meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Those interested in being placed on the public speakers list for the July 6, 2011 teleconference should contact Dr. Kooyoomjian at the contact information provided above no later than noon on July 5, 2011. Those interested in being placed on the public speakers list for the July 18 and 19, 2011 meeting should contact Dr. Kooyoomjian by noon on July 15, 2011. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via e-mail at the contact information noted by noon July 5, 2011 for the teleconference, and by noon on July 14, 2011 so that the information may be made available to the Panel members on the augmented RAC for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document, because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Kooyoomjian at (202) 564-2064 or e-mail at kooyoomjian.jack@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Kooyoomjian preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference or meeting to give as much time as possible to process your request.

EPA's information about point source water pollution and their compliance with the CWA is largely built on paper-based reporting systems developed nearly forty years ago and initially focused on a subset of point source pollution. Since then, the universe of permitted facilities has grown exponentially and there is significant interest in the electronic reporting of information for this expanded universe of regulated facilities. Electronic data collection and transmission could potentially: (1) Aid regulated facilities in reporting their NPDES compliance monitoring data; (2) reduce burden on states as electronic data submissions eliminate the need for transferring data from paper-based forms to databases; (3) provide more timely and accurate data for enforcement targeting and reporting; (4) increase transparency on regulatory compliance; and (5) enhance EPA's oversight and states' management of the NPDES program. EPA and many states already have built electronic reporting tools for some of the CWA NPDES compliance monitoring information. For example, in June 2009, EPA built and made publicly available an electronic reporting tool, Network Discharge Monitoring Report (NetDMR), for the electronic reporting of Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data from the regulated facilities to EPA. 2

In the future, EPA would like to supplement existing electronic reporting options with the `open platform e-file' option, to allow providers the opportunity of providing electronic reporting services to their clients ( e.g., NPDES permitted facilities). Similar to the IRS system, the open platform e-file option would rely on third-party commercial software providers to gather monitoring data via an application user interface for the NPDES regulated community to report the data to EPA and state agencies electronically. Currently, this is only a technical proof of concept demonstration effort, but if and when EPA was to fully implement the open platform e-file option, EPA would need to review and determine if the third-party commercial software meets the standards, protocols and specifications for electronic reporting, and how these software providers would share this data with EPA through the Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Environmental Information Exchange Network (“Exchange Network”) services. EPA would also need to coordinate with states to fully implement the open platform e-file option as EPA has authorized 46 states to manage the NPDES permit program. 3 EPA conducted such coordination with the development and implementation of NetDMR. The Agency does not intend to purchase services from any provider as part of this technical proof of concept. If and when EPA was to fully implement the open platform e-file option all financial transactions would be between the providers and members of the regulated community. EPA will not be a party to these transactions.

EPA will use the webinar as means to provide an overview and the scope and schedule for the `technical proof of concept' for the open platform e-file option. The webinar is open to all interested persons but will be mainly focused on providing information to providers that might be interested in participating in a `technical proof of concept' for the open platform e-file option. The webinar will also answer questions for persons interested in participating in the technical proof of concept demonstration.

The webinar will provide an overview on the following topics:

• Agency's Clean Water Action Plan, the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, and the potential role for the open platform e-file option.

• EPA's CDX and Exchange Network Web services that could support the open platform e-file option.

• Scope of the technical proof of concept for the open platform e-file option (DMR data).

• Schedule and requirements for third-party providers interested in participating in the technical proof of concept.

• Solicit questions from the webinar participants on the technical proof of concept demonstration.

The technical proof of concept is open to all providers; however, providers must describe and provide examples of their work experience and technical experience in the data exchange and the NPDES permit program. In order to participate in the technical proof of concept interested third-party providers must submit a letter of interest, not to exceed 5 pages, to Ms. Reed, see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, by Wednesday, July 27, 2011, indicating their interest in participating in the technical proof of concept demonstration along with a short description of their company, contact information, and work experience (including examples) in using the following standards, protocols, and specifications in order to use EPA Exchange Network services:

• The Node 2.0 Functional Specifications and Protocols ( http://www.exchangenetwork.net/node/node2.0.htm ).

• Integrated Compliance Information System-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) Flow Configuration Document, DMR Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema, ICIS DMR Batch User Guide, ICIS DMR Data Exchange Template, and ICIS DMR Example XML Instance Document ( http://www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/water/icisnpdes.htm ).

• Exchange standards that include: Extensible Markup Language (XML); Simple Object (SOAP) v 1.2; Web Services Description Language (WSDL) v1.1; Secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (https) ( see NIST 800-52); WS-Security v 1.0; and Message Transmission Optimization mechanism (MTOM).

The description should include the following items to illustrate the experience the provider has in meeting the requirements identified above:

EPA will review these written submissions to identify the providers that meet EPA's eligibility requirements for participation in the technical proof of concept. EPA will determine eligibility based on the providers written submissions of their work experience (including examples) in using data exchange standards, protocols, and specifications ( see previous three bullets) and the NPDES permit program ( see previous paragraph). Based on these written submissions EPA will identify and notify all eligible providers that they have been accepted in the participation in the technical proof of concept. EPA will use the webinar to outline the process and factors that it will be used for determining eligibility for participation in the technical proof of concept.

EPA will work with these third-party providers to conduct an initial service test to connect, authenticate, submit and download a sample document to a service to be provided by EPA. This initial test will identify the third-party providers that can successfully connect to and use EPA's data exchange services, using the following standards and the Node 2.0 functional specification and protocols and the exchange standards identified above. EPA will assist these software providers in setting up and conducting this services test and in identifying the criteria for demonstrating a successful connection and use of EPA's data exchange services. See Appendix A, “Technical Proof of Concept Objective, Scope, Criteria for Success.” The initial services test will need to be completed by August 4, 2011. EPA may grant an extension to this date for good cause and will notify provider participants of any changes to this date. Those unable to demonstrate basic connectivity and use of services within this time frame will not be able to continue their participation in the technical proof of concept. EPA will send written notification to these providers identifying whether they demonstrated a successful connection to EPA's data exchange services. Providers that have not demonstrated a successful connection and use of EPA services may send an e-mail to Mr. Roy Chaudet, EPA's Office of Environmental Information, if they wish EPA to re-consider its decision ( chaudet.roy@epa.gov ). During the basic services test period, technical questions can be directed to Mr. Chaudet or Ms. Alison Kittle, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( kittle.alison@epa.gov ).

Third-party providers that successfully pass the initial services test will then conduct another test demonstrating the ability for their application to perform automated electronic submissions of DMR data to EPA. EPA will not use actual DMR data for this test but will provide sample data ( e.g., pollutant monitoring data, permit limits) to third-party software providers to use to create and test their DMR submissions in this technical proof of concept. EPA will also assist these providers in setting up and conducting this test and in identifying the criteria for demonstrating a successful transmission of DMR data to EPA. See Appendix A, “Technical Proof of Concept Objective, Scope, Criteria for Success.” This second test will need to be completed by September 30, 2011. EPA may grant an extension to this date for good cause and will notify provider participants of any changes to this date.

Given that this is only a technical proof of concept demonstration, the requirements of the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), 40 CFR Part 3, will not be included in this proof of concept. 5 EPA notes that full implementation of the open platform e-file option would require compliance with CROMERR and any future requirements of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

EPA will use the webinar to solicit names of persons interested in a technical proof of concept for the open platform e-file option for the electronic submission of DMRs. However, participation in the webinar is not a prerequisite for participation in the technical proof of concept. At the conclusion of the technical proof of concept demonstration, EPA will provide a summary of results of the proof of concept demonstration in the docket for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ( see EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274) and on the Web page supporting this demonstration. Participation in this technical proof of concept is voluntary and EPA will not be providing funds for participation. Additionally, EPA will not use this technical proof of concept demonstration or its results to endorse the commercial products or services of any third-party software providers.

EPA and the Federal government are prohibited from endorsing any product, service or enterprise. EPA will also not use participation in the technical proof of concept as an eligibility factor for participation in potential future related data exchange projects or with any potential production deployment of third-party data exchange. Persons that are interested in participating in the technical proof of concept but cannot attend the webinar should contact Ms. Reed, see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The RoC is a Congressionally mandated document that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances (collectively referred to as “substances”) that may pose a hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. Substances are listed in the report as either known or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. The listing of a substance in the RoC indicates a potential hazard, but does not establish the exposure conditions that would pose cancer risks to individuals in their daily lives. For each listed substance, the RoC provides information from cancer studies that support the listing as well as information about potential sources of exposure and current Federal regulations to limit exposures. Each edition of the RoC is cumulative, that is, it lists newly reviewed substances in addition to substances listed in the previous edition. Information about the RoC is available on the RoC Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12 ) or by contacting Dr. Lunn ( see ADDRESSES above).

The NTP prepares the RoC on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. For the 12th RoC, the NTP followed an established, multi-step process with multiple opportunities for public input, and used established criteria to evaluate the scientific evidence on each candidate substance under review ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15208 ).

The 12th RoC contains 240 listings, some of which consist of a class of structurally related chemicals or agents. There are six new listings and two revised listings in this edition. The revised listings include (1) Formaldehyde, which was previously listed as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen and is now listed as known to be a human carcinogen, and (2) certain glass wool fibers (inhalable). Glass wool (respirable) was first listed in the 7th RoC as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, but the scope of the listing changed and now certain glass wool fibers (inhalable) are listed as reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. The six new listings to the 12th RoC include one substance, aristolochic acids, listed as known to be human carcinogens, and five substances—captafol, cobalt-tungsten carbide: powders and hard metals, o-nitrotoluene, riddelliine, and styrene—listed as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product Fusilev (levoleucovorin calcium), a folate analog. Levoleucovorin rescue is indicated after high-dose methotrexate therapy in osteosarcoma and is also indicated to diminish the toxicity and counteract the effects of impaired methotrexate elimination and/or inadvertent overdosage of folic acid antagonists. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Fusilev (U.S. Patent No. 6,500,829) from the University of Strathclyde, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration and that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. In a letter dated June 1, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Fusilev represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Fusilev is 6,993 days. Of this time, 703 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 6,290 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: January 15, 1989. The applicant claims December 15, 1988, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was January 15, 1989, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 18, 1990. The applicant claims December 14, 1990, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for FUSILEV (NDA 20-140) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 20-140 was submitted on December 18, 1990.

3. The date the application was approved: March 7, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 20-140 was approved on March 7, 2008.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 797 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August 22, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 20, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) electronic or written comments and written petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product BROVANA (arformoterol tartrate). BROVANA is indicated for the long term, twice daily (morning and evening) maintenance treatment of bronchoconstriction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for BROVANA (U.S. Patent No. 6,589,508) from Sepracor Inc. (now Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration and that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. In a letter dated June 1, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BROVANA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BROVANA is 3,118 days. Of this time, 2,819 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 299 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: March 26, 1998. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on March 26, 1998.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 12, 2005. The applicant claims December 8, 2005, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for Brovana (NDA 21-912) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 21-912 was submitted on December 12, 2005.

3. The date the application was approved: October 6, 2006. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 21-912 was approved on October 6, 2006.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 745 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August 22, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 20, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) electronic or written comments and written petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product DEXILANT (dexlansoprazole). DEXILANT is indicated for healing of all grades of erosive esophagitis (EE); maintaining healing of EE; and treating heartburn associated with symptomatic nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received patent term restoration applications for DEXILANT (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276, and 6,939,971) from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining these patents' eligibility for patent term restoration and that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. In a letter dated June 1, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of DEXILANT represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for DEXILANT is 1,675 days. Of this time, 1,278 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 397 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 2, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on July 2, 2004.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 31, 2007. The applicant claims December 28, 2007, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for DEXILANT (NDA 22-287) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 22-287 was submitted on December 31, 2007.

3. The date the application was approved: January 30, 2009. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-287 was approved on January 30, 2009.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 822 or 959 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August 22, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 20, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) electronic or written comments and written petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 4, 2011.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, regarding the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. The Board makes interim advisories to the Administrator of FEMA, through the United States Fire Administrator, whenever there is an indicated urgency to do so in fulfilling its duties. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions which are approved by the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits an annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA, in writing. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

The Board will review Academy program activities, including procedural changes for off-campus deliveries, the FEMA Flood Surge Training Report, introduce the Residential Sprinkler Plan Review course curriculum to State Fire Training partners, unfunded course development requests, introduce a new mechanism for receiving current training deficiencies as a means to guide future course development, discuss State training grants and implications of budget funding received late in the fiscal year, and discuss options for classroom technical coordination with other campus offices. The Board will discuss the status of deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) campus, the FY 2011 Budget Request/FY 2012 Budget Planning, new Geo-Thermal challenges, and emergency preparedness of students on campus. The Board will review and consider reports from the Applicant Outreach Subcommittee, Emergency Medical Services Subcommittee, Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE)/Professional Development Subcommittee, and Training Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE) Review Subcommittee. After discussion of these topics, there will be a public comment period. After deliberation, the Board will recommend action to the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy and the Administrator of FEMA.

Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . If you provide an e-mail address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period ( see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above ( see ADDRESSES ).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR Part 17, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR Part 18 require that we invite public comment before final action on these permit applications. Under the MMPA, you may request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service Director.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples of Galapagos penguin ( Spheniscus mediculus ), Galapagos hawk ( Buteo galapagoensis ) and medium tree finch ( Camarhynchus pauper ) for disease and health evaluation for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education, one African leopard ( Panthera pardus ), one Siberian tiger ( Panthera tigris altaica ), and 6 tigers ( Panthera tigris ). The captive-born animals are being imported from Schweiberdingen, Germany in cooperation with Alexander Lacey.

The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests an amendment to the permit to authorize harassment of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) by adjusting the video camera equipment and conducting aerial surveys using FLIR (forward looking infrared) and ground-truth surveys with snowmobiles near dens for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over the remainder of the 5-year period of the permit.

The applicant requests an amendment and renewal of the permit to take up to 6000 walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus ) annually by biopsy darting and up to 50 walrus annually for tagging; to collect unlimited number of specimens from dead animals; to conduct aerial surveys; and to import unlimited number of biological specimens for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal Register , we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review.

The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Vizio, Inc. on June 16, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital televisions and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Coby Electronics Corp. of Lake Success, NY; Curtis International, Inc. of Etobicoke, ON; ESI Enterprises Inc. of Van Nuys, CA; MStar Semiconductor, Inc. of Taiwan; ON Corp US, Inc. of San Diego, CA; Renesas Electronics Corporation of Japan; Renesas Electronics America, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA; Sceptre, Inc. of City of Industry, CA and Westinghouse Digital, LLC, Orange County, CA.

The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2819”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules ( see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).

The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Twin Star International, Inc. and TS Investment Holding Corp. on June 17, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, certain processes for manufacturing or relating to same and certain products containing same. The complaint names as respondents Shenzhen Reliap Industrial Co. of Shenzhen, China and Yue Qui Sheng (a.k.a. Jason Yue) of Shenzhen City, China.

The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2821”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).

The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Kaneka Corporation on June 17, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain coenzyme Q10 products and method of making same. The complaint names as respondents Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. of China; ZMC-USA, L.L.C. of The Woodlands, TX; Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company of China; Pacific Rainbow International Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company Inc. of Japan; Maypro Industries, Inc. of Purchase, NY and Shenzhou Biology & Technology Co., Ltd. of China.

The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;

(iii) indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and

(iv) indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2822”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its 3rd Quarterly Meeting for 2011. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include: Goddard Space Flight Center Overview, Commercial Crew Update, Safety Metrics Update, and Knowledge Capture Update.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch at susan.burch@nasa.gov or by telephone at (202) 358-0550 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport, visa, or green card in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can provide identifying information 3 working days in advance by contacting Crystal McCrimmon at 301-286-6296 or email crystal.d.mccrimmon@nasa.gov. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

On April 13, 2011, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit application received. The permit was issued on June 17, 2011 to: Paul Ponganis, Permit No. 2012-001.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2011, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 12643B and for economic injury is 12644B.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Arkansas, dated 05/02/2011, is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/14/2011 and continuing through 06/03/2011.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2011, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 12639B and for economic injury is 12640B.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2011, 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 12637B and for economic injury is 126380.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas, dated 05/02/2011 is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/14/2011 and continuing through 06/03/2011.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2011, 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 12641B and for economic injury is 126420.

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Arkansas, dated 05/02/2011, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

Following is a description of the subject airport property to be released at Shell Lake Municipal Airport in Shell Lake, Wisconsin and described as follows:

In a notice published on January 19, 2011 [76 FR 3209], VA presented its Draft Master Plan for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center campus (hereafter “WLA campus”) of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VA GLAHS), and solicited public comment on the DMP for a period of 30 days. The purpose of the DMP was to satisfy the legislative mandate of the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 regarding “a master plan for the use of the lands * * * over the next 25 years and over the next 50 years.” This is a land use plan that guides the physical development of the campus to support its mission of patient care, teaching, and research. The plan reflects legislative restrictions on the property and discusses developmental goals and design objectives for the campus. The plan includes guidelines and criteria for land use and reuse on the campus, which provides a variety of services including inpatient and outpatient medical care, rehabilitation, residential care, mental health care and long-term care services. In addition, the campus serves as a center for medical research and education.

We received 29 comments on the DMP. All of the comments opposed at least one portion of the DMP. The majority of comments included one or more of the following topics: homeless housing for veterans on the WLA campus, existing land use, bicycle access within or through the campus, and the plan's level of detail regarding specific projects. The subject matter of most of the comments can be grouped into several categories, and we have organized our discussion of the comments accordingly.

There were a number of comments regarding how the DMP addressed homeless housing for veterans, particularly permanent housing on the grounds of the WLA campus. A single commenter expressed concern that increasing services to homeless veterans would negatively impact the surrounding community, stating that the VA already attracts “homeless pedestrians” who “offend customers by requesting donations.” The eradication of homelessness among veterans has been deemed a priority mission by Secretary Shinseki, and it is only in pursuing that mission that vagrancy problems are likely to be eliminated. We therefore make no change based on this comment.

The majority of commenters believed the DMP should address the increased need for housing and services by veterans who are homeless. The DMP did address this issue, under the heading, “Community Care/Homeless Programs.” (p. 38) This section details the numbers of emergency shelter beds (55), transitional housing beds (1,500), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 permanent housing vouchers (940), and community residential beds for veterans with chronic disabilities (300). In addition, under the heading, “Domiciliary Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment,” the plan describes the existing 321-bed facility, which houses both male and female veterans and provides coordinated, integrated, rehabilitative, and restorative mental health care in a residential program. (p. 38)

Several commenters expressed concern that plans to renovate Building 209 were not sufficient to meet the need for homeless veterans housing. Citing a pressing need and possible cost efficiencies, several commenters suggested that Buildings 205 and 208 be renovated at the same time as building 209. The DMP states that Buildings 205, 208, and 209 have been identified for potential renovation, to serve as housing for homeless veterans. As stated in the DMP, VA “* * * does not commit to any specific project, construction schedule, or funding priority.” As projects are further evaluated and authorized, both the needs of the veterans and the historical and environmental impacts of the projects will be considered. We therefore make no change based on this comment.

Some commenters suggested that VA was negligent in its responsibility towards homeless veterans, specifically stating that VA GLAHS was remiss in not providing shelter. In response, we note that VA GLAHS has one of the most recognized programs in the nation for serving homeless veterans, called the Comprehensive Homeless Center. The Comprehensive Homeless Center has many components dedicated to providing shelter for homeless veterans including: access to extended residential care for veterans with serious mental health and medical problems through the aforementioned VA GLAHS Domiciliary, which has 321 beds; case management of over 1,500 veterans with mental health issues living independently in the community through the HUD-VA Supported Housing Program; case management of approximately 300 veterans with a diagnosis of mental illness in board and care and assisted living facilities; same-day access to primary care, mental health care, and housing placement at the centralized screening clinic; and specialty dual diagnosis housing programs for veterans with both mental health and substance abuse issues. In particular, we note that VA operates a widely recognized transitional housing program on the WLA campus, where approximately 1,200 community transitional housing beds have been secured for homeless veterans. Veterans in transitional housing programs stay for 3-to-18 months while receiving a range of medical, mental health and rehabilitative services; a high percentage of veterans who complete this transitional housing program move on to independent housing.

In addition, the Comprehensive Homeless Center helps homeless veterans develop the skills they need to find jobs that will keep them off the streets. Homeless veterans are provided access to vocational rehabilitation and job-finding programs through private agencies with funding provided by the VA and the Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program.

The Comprehensive Homeless Center has an active outreach program. Great efforts are made to locate homeless veterans at homeless congregating areas like shelters and rescue missions. Outreach efforts also include area jails for incarcerated homeless veterans.

Because VA GLAHS is already providing these extensive programs to end homelessness among veterans, we make no changes based on these comments.

One commenter was concerned with the fact that the WLA campus has a zero-tolerance policy toward alcohol and drug use on campus, and how that policy affects our programs for homeless veterans.

Substance abuse is a persistent and recurring issue among homeless veterans, especially those coping with mental health problems such as PTSD. The WLA campus is a drug- and alcohol-free campus, and as such does not support a “housing first” model of care. The “housing first” approach provides housing for individuals regardless of whether or not they are currently abusing drugs and/or alcohol. This model differs from traditional approaches that require clients to reach a certain level of functioning through treatment before receiving long-term housing. In order to maintain a substance-free campus for the benefit of veterans undergoing treatment, VA GLAHS partners with various off-campus organizations and agencies throughout Greater Los Angeles to safely house and work with veterans who fall within the “housing first” criteria. We therefore make no change based on this comment.

A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding existing land use agreements on the WLA campus. These commenters listed the various agreements, and called for the cancellation of all agreements with “* * * all commercial, non-profit, special-interest, non-Veteran entities,” expressing the belief that these agreements were a misappropriation of veterans land. The approved Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services (CARES) plan, which included public participation, allowed for retaining existing Enhanced Sharing Agreements (ESA) until their respective expiration. It is expected that renewal of these ESAs, as well as any new ESAs will need to adhere to the guiding principles and criteria set forth in the DMP, once the DMP is finalized. Furthermore, each of the existing agreements was executed pursuant to and in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 8151-8153 (commonly referred to as VA's enhanced sharing authority). The existing agreements benefit the veterans' community in some way. For example, the ESA with the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) that covers the Jackie Robinson Memorial Stadium provides veterans' organizations such as the American Legion with access to athletic facilities, as well as providing free admission to veterans for all home baseball games.

We also received comments regarding the Veterans Park Conservancy (VPC) agreement. These commenters each brought up a misperception that the VPC agreement will create a park for the public and not for veterans. To clarify, the Veterans Memorial Park exists and is being used for the benefit of veterans, to enhance and support patient-centered care, recreation therapy and mental health programs and staff. The area will have limited public access, as does the rest of the WLA campus. There was concern expressed by one commenter regarding Megan's Law, should children be present on the campus where veterans who are convicted sex offenders may reside. Again, the campus is a place for veterans to heal, and is not available for traditional public use. The development of a Veterans Memorial Park does not in any way change the local policy on public use of the grounds. Megan's Law applies the same today as it will when the VPC project is completed.

One commenter stated that the “inclusion of the State Veterans Home as Federal VA land in all maps” was not consistent with the DMP, which states that 13.5 acres were transferred to the State of California via a quitclaim deed for the use of the State Veterans Home. The acreage in question was in fact deeded to the State of California in March 2007. The transfer took place prior to congressionally imposed restrictions on the use of the 388 acres composing West LA, i.e. Section 224 (a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161. The section of the DMP that covers Zone 2, the zone that borders the State Veterans Home, contains a map that reflects this transfer and defines the Zone as “up to the new California State Veterans Home.” The 13.5 acre area on which the State Veterans Home is located is not included as within the boundary of Zone 2, as it is in fact State property. (pg. 28)

We also received comments about the parking lot at Barrington Park, which is under the jurisdiction and control of, and operated by, the City of Los Angeles. Some commenters reported that potentially homeless individuals sleep in cars and other vehicles overnight in the lot. As that parking lot is not within VA's jurisdiction and control, we make no change to the DMP due to this information.

We received one comment regarding the Army Reserve area adjacent to the west side of the south area of the WLA campus. Specifically, the commenter asked whether this area will become VA property, should the Army Reserve no longer have need for this area. The land was part of an inter-agency transfer of property to the U.S. Corps of Engineers in 1955. VA does not have a legal interest in the disposition of that property. Therefore, we make no change in the DMP due to this comment.

There were a number of comments regarding the specific details of projects and land use programs addressed in the DMP. The DMP is a general use plan, and is inherently not project-specific.

Commenters sought more detail on the heights of buildings, the operating hours of projects once completed, the distance from proposed project sites to residential homes, square footage of projects, cost projections, environmental and historical impact, and many other project-specific details.

As stated in the plan, VA “does not commit to any specific project, construction schedule, or funding priority.” As projects are further evaluated and authorized, both the needs of the veterans and the historical and environmental impacts of the projects will be considered. Several of these comments were in regard to the specific prioritization and timeline for conversion of Buildings 205, 208 and 209.

One commenter expressed concern that the DMP inhibited new programs on the WLA campus by creating a “maze of redundant processes and unnecessary roadblocks to Veteran-friendly development.” The DMP incorporates legislative decisions such as Public Law 100-322, section 421(b) (2), which restrict development with respect to public-private partnerships. VA GLAHS will abide by the guidelines and criteria set forth in the DMP with respect to land use opportunities that provide direct benefit for veterans.

One commenter was concerned that the DMP did not advance the CARES plan, expressing that the CARES process should have included a needs assessment of all under-utilized and vacant asset on the WLA campus. A needs assessment was indeed performed during the CARES process, during VA's subsequent Strategic Capital Investment Planning (SCIP) process, and preparation of the DMP, to identify the assets that can be redirected to better serve the needs of veterans. Therefore, we make no changes based on these comments.

Several commenters felt that the 1888 deed granting the West Los Angeles land formed a charitable trust that requires VA, as trustee of the purported trust, to maintain a National Home for Veterans. Some of these commenters felt that the DMP was a violation of that purported trust by suggesting the land be used for purposes other than housing veterans. VA disagrees with the assertion that the 1888 deed rendered VA a charitable trustee for the WLA campus. The 1888 deed contained certain language expressing the donor's desire that a National Home for Veterans (NHV) be built on the underlying property that was donated to the United States, which land is now under VA's jurisdiction and control. The donor's desire, while merely an expression of purpose and intent of the donation, has been satisfied, as a NHV was built on the WLA campus. Notably, the NHV still exists on the campus.

Moreover, in Farquhar v. United States, 912 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1990), descendents of the original land donors previously challenged the ability of the United States to transfer a portion of the land donated under the 1888 deed. In denying the descendants' position, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the creation of the NHV ( i.e., the Pacific Branch of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers) in the same year that the land was originally deeded to the United States, satisfied the donor's desire ( i.e., purpose and intent) for donating the land to the United States.

Based on the foregoing, we make no change based on this comment.

Several commenters weighed in on transit services and traffic issues, particularly regarding potential bicycle access on the WLA campus and on the grounds of the Los Angeles National Cemetery. The majority of these comments expressed a desire to include in the DMP access that reflects “* * *the needs of the cycling community.” Several commenters expressed a desire to use the National Cemetery as a thoroughfare for cyclists. While we would encourage certain of our veterans to cycle for their health, to encourage cycling on campus and on National Cemetery property would almost exclusively benefit the public, and not veterans. The additional traffic and security concerns that would accompany any increase in cycling activity, combined with the fact that it is not primarily of benefit to veterans, makes including this kind of access for cycling on campus undesirable; however, as projects are further developed and approved, this issue will be further evaluated through VA's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Therefore, we make no changes to the DMP based on these comments.

We also received comments seeking more information on the proposed Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) Purple Line expansion, which eventually will travel the length of Wilshire Boulevard to Santa Monica. As mentioned in the DMP, (pg. 28) the project is in the initial planning phase and there are no details to provide. Metro has proposed building a station on the WLA campus as part of this expansion project and has identified a few locations that might serve its needs. However, any such station affecting the campus would be subject to applicable law and statutory restrictions, and must not interfere with the VA GLAHS priority of maintaining the peaceful and healing environment of our health care campus.

One commenter asked if the VA would “cooperate with the surrounding governmental jurisdictions to complete traffic studies and provide traffic mitigation for the increased traffic” that may result from any increased land use. As stated in the DMP, traffic, parking, and circulation studies will be conducted as part of VA's compliance with NEPA. (pg. 18) Though the WLA campus is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, Federal agencies generally consider State and local zoning laws and codes when undertaking any new project. We therefore make no change based on these comments.

One commenter expressed concern that separate supportive housing was not available for female veterans and their children. To clarify, there is dedicated housing for women veterans as part of our Domiciliary Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Program facility, located on the north campus in Buildings 217 and 214. The program serves male and female veterans with mental health issues such as substance abuse and/or combat trauma.

While there is no specific on-campus housing for female veterans with children, VA GLAHS has an extensive network of off-campus providers who meet this need through HUD-VA Supported Housing and Grant and Per Diem programs throughout Los Angeles County and neighboring counties. VA GLAHS's Comprehensive Homeless Center also includes a dedicated outreach team for homeless female veterans. VA GLAHS has adequate programs in place to meet the housing needs of women veterans with children.

A commenter stated that there was a need for a separate facility dedicated to the general healthcare needs of female veterans. The VA GLAHS's Women Veterans Health Program has dedicated clinicians, programs and facilities to meet the unique needs of female veterans in a safe, women-only environment. Services offered include gynecology services, breast exams and mammography, reproductive health care, and menopause treatment. Additionally, mental health services including treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse are also available for women. Through the Women Veterans Health Program, VA GLAHS provides female veterans the health care and mental health services they need in a safe and supportive, women-only environment. We therefore make no change based on this comment.

There were several comments seeking clarification regarding the National Cemetery Administration's columbarium project. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is comprised of three administrations: the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The columbarium enables VA to support the provision of Federally guaranteed benefits offered by the Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration. One commenter expressed dismay that the project would lower surrounding real estate values. Another commenter felt that the columbarium project was depriving living veterans of land that might be converted to housing for the homeless. Again, the burial benefits offered veterans are entitlements provided by the Federal Government. The land designated for columbaria does not contain any structures that have been identified as potential homeless housing, so the use of the land for columbaria does not in any way deprive homeless veterans of potential living space. As projects such as the columbarium are further evaluated and authorized, both the needs of the veterans and the historical, environmental, and socio-economical impacts of the projects will be considered.

Some commenters wanted to know the exact location of the columbarium. Regarding requests for specific details regarding the size, hours of operation, and access points for this potential project that is only a concept at this stage, VA has not finalized details beyond the information that was contained in the DMP. The NEPA process is complete. The draft Environmental Assessment was released for public comment with none received. The resultant Finding of No Significant Impact was signed on February 2, 2011. We make no change to the DMP due to these comments.

Several commenters expressed concerns that the public was not being afforded adequate time to offer input on the DMP during the public comment process. The Federal Register process in which VA GLAHS engaged to obtain comments from veterans and the public is the most public and transparent process available for including veterans and the public in the development of this DMP. Additionally, the DMP that was published on January 19, 2011, fully incorporates the approved CARES plan, which included a series of public hearings and meetings as part of its approval process. The DMP is also consistent with the recently released SCIP. Finally, VA GLAHS has ongoing meetings with Veteran Service Organizations, community groups, and other local stakeholders, at which recurring updates on land use at the WLA campus are provided.

Several commenters suggested that a new DMP be created. We have reviewed these comments, and while we respect the opinions of the individual commenters, VA is of the position that this DMP, once finalized, will address the mandate and meet the criteria to be submitted and serve as a final Master Plan for the WLA campus. Therefore, we make no changes based on these comments. As projects outlined in the Master Plan are further evaluated and authorized, both the needs of the veterans and the historical, environmental, and socio-economical impacts of the projects will be considered. Details of these projects will be developed and released to the public for comment through VA's compliance with NEPA.

There were several comments to the effect that the DMP serves the needs of outside interests over those of veterans. Particularly, these comments referenced a misperception that the agreement with Veterans Park Conservancy would result in the development of a “public park.” This DMP provides for land use and reuse for the direct benefit of veterans, and puts in place guidelines and criteria that will assure the land is used to support the mission of offering the highest quality health care, research, education and disaster response to serve the needs of veterans and the community. The 10 Guiding Principles of the DMP clearly state the criteria that VA GLAHS will use in considering any land use or reuse, (p. 24) and none of these 10 principles reflects serving the community as a priority. While the WLA campus does exist within a community and VA GLAHS is proud to be a part of encouraging healthy communities, serving the needs of the community never takes precedence over serving the needs of the veterans. Therefore, we make no change based on these comments.

We received several comments regarding recreation for Veterans on campus. Specifically, these commenters wanted to see the development of more outdoor sports facilities for veterans, such as a fitness center and tennis courts, etc.

The DMP addressed both planned recreation areas for veterans and green space where veterans can engage in therapeutic outside activities. A fitness and recreation area, completed in 2010, is located adjacent to the west side of Building 500. It includes machines and stations where veterans can work out at their own pace, as well as a padded surface for a safe area for less ambulatory veterans to get exercise. It is open every day from dawn until dusk.

Regarding outside recreation activities, VA GLAHS continues the long tradition of having a golf course on campus for veterans. The course, operated by United States Veterans Initiative (U.S. Vets), is open from sun-up to sun-down 7 days a week, and Veteran residents and inpatients receive first priority for play. The Veteran community has second priority, finally followed by the general public as space is available. VA also has beneficial use of the athletic facilities at the Brentwood School and MacArthur Field as part of the land use agreements for those spaces.

A planned future recreational and therapeutic area for veterans is provided for under the agreement with Veterans Park Conservancy. The development of a Veterans Memorial Park will be designed in coordination with VA patient-centered care, recreation therapy and mental health programs and staff. An initial phase of the project, the historic Rose Garden, will be completed in fall of 2011. This area, located just across the street from the Domiciliary, will include meditative gardens, tables for chess and checkers, and soothing fountains, making it a space ideal for both for recreational and therapeutic use. Also on the north campus is the Japanese Garden, a peaceful environment with lush plants, waterfalls, and Koi fish for veterans to enjoy. Finally, on the south campus, adjacent to the American Red Cross facility, there are walking trails, succulent gardens and colorful native plants for veterans, as well as loved ones staying in the Fisher House, to enjoy year-round.

The agreement with UCLA for the Jackie Robinson Stadium includes free admission to home baseball games for veterans.

Physical Therapy and Recreation Therapy programs also exist to provide veterans with unique recreation experiences in a safe and supportive environment. Through these programs, veterans are able to participate in skiing, surfing, and compete in the Golden Age Games each year.

We believe that the DMP adequately addressed therapeutic recreation opportunities for veterans. Therefore, we make no changes based on these comments; however, as projects are further evaluated and authorized, opportunities to provide additional recreational areas to veterans may be considered as part of VA's compliance with NEPA.

Two commenters challenged VA's authority to use ESAs as a contracting vehicle for land use programs on the WLA campus. ESAs are legally authorized under 38 U.S.C. 8153, a Federal statute that deals with VA land sharing agreements. All existing agreements have been legally reviewed and approved at local and national levels, and all future agreements will follow the same approval process. Therefore, we make no changes based on these comments.

For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the DMP without change as the Master Plan for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. The Master Plan is available at http://www.losangeles.va.gov/. The Master Plan conforms to the relevant laws in effect on the date of publication. A change in law, such as the Administration's proposed Civilian Property Realignment Act, could impact this property. If these laws change, VA will update the Master Plan accordingly.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 19, 2011, for publication.