The regulations contained in 7 CFR part 319 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of plants, plant parts, and plant products into the United States in accordance with the authority conferred on the Secretary of Agriculture by the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ). The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the U.S. Department of Agriculture agency responsible for enforcing the regulations and considering requests to amend the regulations to allow the importation of plants, plant parts, or plant products that are not currently allowed importation under the regulations.

Persons who request changes to the import regulations and who wish to import plants, plant parts, or plant products that are not allowed importation into the United States, must file a request with APHIS for consideration to determine whether the new commodity may be safely imported. The regulations in § 319.5 set forth the procedures for submitting requests and supporting information, which includes information about the requestor, information about the commodity to be imported, shipping information, a description of pests and diseases associated with the commodity, risk mitigation or management strategies, and additional information as determined by APHIS to complete a pest risk analysis in accordance with international standards. Once the risk analysis has been completed and APHIS makes the determination that the risks associated with the commodity in question can be adequately mitigated, the risk analysis is made available for public comment either through a notice published in the Federal Register or as a supporting document with a proposed rule published in the Federal Register .

Our stakeholders have expressed an interest in knowing more about the commodity import approval process and participating at an earlier stage in the development of risk assessments as they are being drafted. To this end, APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program has created a Web site  1 that will provide stakeholders with information about the commodity import approval process for plants and plant products, including fruits, vegetables, plants for planting, cut flowers, wood, and wood products. The Web site will describe each major step in the commodity import approval process, including a general description of the following: Determination of the import status of a commodity, submission of a request by a national plant protection organization, initiation and drafting of risk assessment and risk management documents, completion of an environmental review, and publication and implementation of new requirements, as applicable.

The Web site will also provide a means for stakeholders to consult with PPQ on drafts of risk assessments. To do this, stakeholders will first need to subscribe to the APHIS stakeholder registry  2 and submit an email address, which will be used to send an alert whenever a draft risk assessment becomes available for comment. We will post the draft risk assessment on the Web site for 30 days to give stakeholders an opportunity to review the draft and provide comments via email. We will consider the comments and make changes if warranted. While we will not provide individual responses to stakeholders who have submitted comments on the draft risk assessment, we will continue to respond to comments submitted after availability of the completed risk assessment is announced in the Federal Register .

Questions concerning PPQ's Web site for the commodity import approval process for plants and plant products may be directed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Title: Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

OMB Number: 0575-0179.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: Under this program, loan guarantees are provided to participating lenders who make loans to income eligible borrowers in rural areas. The purpose of this program is to promote affordable housing for low- and moderate-income borrowers in rural America.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 49 minutes per response.

Respondents: Private sector lenders participating in the Rural Development Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,581.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 284.

Estimated Number of Responses: 1,018,735.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 821,962.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0040.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of USDA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's estimate of 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. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742-1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Background: The Travel Promotion Act (TPA) was signed into law by President Obama on March 4, 2010. The TPA established the Corporation for Travel Promotion (the Corporation), as a non-profit corporation charged with the development and execution of a plan to (A) Provide useful information to those interested in traveling to the United States; (B) identify and address perceptions regarding U.S. entry policies; (C) maximize economic and diplomatic benefits of travel to the United States through the use of various promotional tools; (D) ensure that international travel benefits all States and the District of Columbia, and (E) identify opportunities to promote tourism to rural and urban areas equally, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.

The Corporation is governed by a board of directors, consisting of 11 members with knowledge of international travel promotion and marketing, broadly representing various regions of the United States. The TPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State) to appoint the board of directors for the Corporation for Travel Promotion.

At this time, the Department will be selecting four individuals with the appropriate expertise and experience from specific sectors of the travel and tourism industry to serve on the Board as follows:

(A) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the hotel accommodations sector;

(B) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the restaurant sector;

(C) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience as an official of a state tourism office; and

(D) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience as officials of a city convention and visitors' bureau.

To be eligible for Board membership, one must have international travel and tourism marketing experience and must also be a U.S. citizen. In addition, individuals cannot be federally registered lobbyists or registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

Those selected for the Board must be able to meet the time and effort commitments of the Board. Priority may be given to individuals with experience as a Chief Executive Officer or President (or comparable level of responsibility) of an organization or entity in the travel and tourism sector in the United States.

Board members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce (who may remove any member of the Board for good cause). The terms of office of each member of the Board appointed by the Secretary shall be 3 years. Board members can serve a maximum of two consecutive full three-year terms. Board members are not considered Federal government employees by virtue of their service as a member of the Board and will receive no compensation from the Federal government for their participation in Board activities. Members participating in Board meetings and events will be paid actual travel expenses and per diem when away from their usual places of residence.

To be considered for membership, please provide the following:

1. Name, title, and personal resume of the individual requesting consideration; and

2. A brief statement of why the person should be considered for membership on the Board. This statement should also address the individual's relevant international travel and tourism marketing experience and indicate clearly the sector or sectors enumerated above in which the individual has the requisite expertise and experience. Individuals who have the requisite expertise and experience in more than one sector can be appointed from only one of those sectors. Appointments of members to the Board will be made by the Secretary of Commerce.

On January 6, 2012, the Court remanded the Final Results, and instructed the Department to reconcile its exclusion of Indian data from the labor value with certain concerns raised in Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., v. United States, 774 F.Supp. 2d 1307 (2011) ( Shandong ). 3 On remand, the Department recalculated Since Hardware's labor value using additional labor data, including labor data from the primary surrogate country, India. As a result, Since Hardware's margin changed from 67.37 percent to 66.06 percent. On June 14, 2012, the Court sustained the Department's Final Results and Remand Results. 4

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) the Department must publish a notice of a court decision not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's June 14, 2012, judgment sustaining the Final Results and Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. The cash deposit rate will remain the company-specific rate established for Since Hardware for the subsequent and most recent period during which the respondent was reviewed. 5

Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to Since Hardware's margin for the period August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. The revised weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by Since Hardware using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Remand Results.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

For the Advisory Board to discuss DIA operations and capabilities in support of current intelligence operations.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Director, DIA, has determined that the all meetings shall be closed to the public. The Director, DIA, in consultation with the DIA Office of the General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the Board's meetings be closed to the public because they include discussions of classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Board Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements at any time to the DIA Advisory Board regarding its missions and functions. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the DIA Advisory Board. The Designated Federal Official will ensure that written statements are provided to the Board for its consideration. Written statements may also be submitted in response to the stated agenda of planned board meetings. Statements submitted in response to this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after that date may not be provided or considered by the Board until its next meeting. All submissions provided before that date will be presented to the Board before the meeting that is subject of this notice. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official is listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

TMA's authority to recover overpayments is outlined in 32 CFR 199.11. The Federal Claims Collection Act, as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982 and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and Treasury regulations implementing these statutes, provides the basic authority under which claims may be asserted pursuant to § 199.11. Specific recoupment procedures are listed at 32 CFR 199.11(f)(6), including collection by transfer of debts to Treasury or a Treasury-designated debt collection center for collection through cross servicing per 32 CFR 199.11(f)(6)(vi). Pursuant to Title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 3711(g) and 31 CFR 285.12, the Director, TMA is required to transfer legally enforceable non-tax debts that have been delinquent for more than 180 days to Treasury's FMS for collection. The FMS cross-servicing program uses various means to collect debts, including offsetting federal payments, the use of private collection agencies and the garnishment of wages through administrative wage garnishment procedures. The Treasury Financial Manual, Part 4-Chapter 4000, requires agencies transferring debts to FMS to have administrative wage garnishment procedures or regulations.

Federal agencies are authorized to collect delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States from debtors' wages by means of administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11. The implementing regulations provide due process for nontax debtors. Agencies may prescribe their own conforming regulations, containing the same substantive and procedural requirements as the Treasury final rule on wage garnishment, for the conduct of administrative wage garnishment hearings. In the alternative, creditor agencies may adopt Treasury's administrative wage garnishment regulation, 31 CFR 285.11, without change by reference in order to authorize Treasury to use administrative wage garnishment as one of many debt collection remedies available to collect delinquent debts transferred to Treasury by a creditor agency.

Administrative wage garnishment is available for use against a narrow class of TMA's debtors. For a debtor's wages to be garnished, he or she must be an individual employed in the private sector or by a state or local government. TMA's debtors are primarily commercial medical providers. In addition, TMA debtors are often active duty or reserve military members or retirees whose debts are frequently satisfied by offsetting federal salary or retirement payments through the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. In January 2012, TMA had 1,821 open debt cases, 105 of which may have been subject to administrative wage garnishment. As these debts are generally much smaller than those incurred by commercial providers, they represent less than 0.3% of TMA open debt. With this notice, TMA adopts, without change, all of the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11 concerning administrative wage garnishment, including the Treasury hearing procedures described in 31 CFR 285.11(f). At least thirty (30) days prior to FMS initiating an administrative wage garnishment, FMS will send notice to the debtor, in accordance with the requirements of 31 CFR 285.11(e), informing the debtor that administrative wage garnishment will be initiated and how the debtor may request a hearing. If a debtor makes a timely hearing request, administrative wage garnishment will not begin until a hearing is held and a decision is sent to the debtor in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11(f)(4). If a debtor's hearing request is untimely, FMS may suspend collection by administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11(f)(5). All travel expenses incurred by the debtor in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the debtor. This regulation does not apply to federal salary offset, the process by which federal agencies collect debts from the salaries of federal employees. Additionally, when TMA collects debts of military members or retirees through offsetting Defense Finance and Accounting Service payments, the provisions of 32 CFR 199.11(f)(6)(vii) govern.

With implementation of the Medicare OPPS, certain hospitals were eligible to receive additional transitional outpatient payments (TOPS) if the payments they received under the OPPS were less than the payments they could have received for the same services under the payment system in effect before the OPPS. Medicare refers to these transitional payments as hold harmless TOPs and they applied to small rural hospitals with 100 or fewer beds and rural Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs) with 100 or fewer beds. TRICARE's OPPS Final Rule, published in the Federal Register (73 FR 74945) on December 10, 2008, states Agency will adopt the hold harmless TOPs for rural hospitals having 100 or fewer beds and SCHs. Medicare's hold harmless TOPs was scheduled to expire January 1, 2010. TRICARE delayed implementation of its OPPS for small rural hospitals with 100 or fewer beds and rural SCHs with 100 or fewer beds until January 1, 2010, with the expectation that the Medicare TOPs would expire, negating the need to implement the TRICARE TOPs provision. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) extended the hold harmless provision under Medicare, beyond January 1, 2010; therefore TRICARE will need to implement TOPS as of January 1, 2010. The PPACA also expanded the hold harmless provision to all SCHs.

TTOPs will be made to qualifying hospitals that have OPPS costs that are greater than their TRICARE allowed amounts using a method similar to Medicare. TRICARE will pay an amount equal to 85 percent of the difference between the estimated OPPS costs and the OPPS payment.

The process for determining the TTOPs will be outlined in a future revision to the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual. The TRICARE Reimbursement Manual is available at http://manuals.tricare.osd.mil/.

TRICARE's OPPS Final Rule that was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008, states that TMCPAs are intended to provide additional payments above the Medicare payment level for hospitals that are “deemed essential for military readiness and deployment in time of contingency operations.”

The final rule stated that the procedures to be followed when submitting a TMCPA request would be outlined in the TRICARE Reimbursement Manual (TRM). For the first three OPPS years, (May 1, 2009-April 30, 2012), TMA implemented the criteria for General TMCPA payments and reviewed applications for General TMCPA payments. The TRM states that for qualifying hospitals, the General TMCPA adjustment cannot exceed 95 percent of the amount that would have been paid prior to implementation of OPPS.

We experienced two major problems with the approach:

1. The use of the current approach allows the payments to exceed the average payment-to-cost ratios (PCRs) paid by other payers. When DoD adopted the Medicare OPPS, the intent was to align our payment structure more closely with Medicare and assist those facilities that are “deemed essential for military readiness and deployment in time of contingency operations” by giving them a reasonable adjustment. As discussed below, paying hospitals up to 95 percent of the pre-OPPS amounts for hospital outpatient department services could be equivalent to reimbursing them at very high (PCRs), resulting in DoD paying higher rates than most purchasers of care at these facilities.

2. There is also a lack of fairness in the current method of determining General TMCPA payments for the various facilities because it is tied to the level of pre-OPPS allowed amounts. For the most part, pre-OPPS payments were made on the basis of the charges billed by the facility. DoD policy at that time was to pay these “billed charge amounts.” Thus, using 95 percent of pre-OPPS allowed amounts could allow hospitals that had higher billed charges to receive higher levels of General TMCPA payments than those that had billed at lower “billed charge amounts” for the same services. This could be true even if a lower charging facility saw the same or greater number of DoD active duty and family members or if the facilities' percentage of revenue received from DoD were the same. This result is inequitable to the various facilities and inconsistent with the intent of the General TMCPA.

In an attempt to resolve these inequities, the Department looked at the rates paid by other private payers. A report published by the American Hospital Association (AHA) in December 2010 indicates that the aggregate PCRs for private payers are in the range of 1.15 to 1.35. A ratio of 1.0 means a hospital meets their costs and a ratio of greater than 1.0 means payments exceeds costs. Using an adjustment guideline to allow the Department to apply General TMCPA payments so that the total of payments to a qualifying hospital falls within these private pay norms was chosen as a method to more equitably meet DoD's objectives in making these payment adjustments. As a result, TRICARE is revising its guidelines for determining the level of payment for a General TMCPA from a maximum 95 percent of the pre-OPPS amount to a maximum PCR of 1.3 for OPPS year 4 (May 1, 2012-April 30, 2013) and subsequent years. The ratio 1.30 was selected because this is the average level of aggregate PCRs that AHA reports that hospitals have received from private payers during the 2003-2009 period. The use of a PCR as a guideline to determine the limit on the level of payment for General TMCPA payments is simple, transparent, and will provide fair and equitable payments to the qualifying hospitals and is supported by data indicating it is a reasonable approach.

The procedures that are to be followed when submitting a TMCPA request will be outlined in the TRM.

Expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice are top priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 2014, the Agency's overarching strategy for advancing environmental justice. The Plan has three objectives:

1. Protect health and the environment in overburdened communities;

2. Empower communities to take action to improve their health and environment; and

3. Establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal governments and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities.

The year 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, which directs each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities.” Plan EJ 2014 is EPA's roadmap for integrating environmental justice into its programs, policies and activities. One focus area of the Plan is “Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting.” Environmental permits play a key role in providing effective protection of public health and the environment in communities. Thus, Plan EJ 2014 calls upon EPA to: (1) Enhance the ability of overburdened communities to participate fully and meaningfully in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits; and (2) take steps to meaningfully address environmental justice issues in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits to the greatest extent practicable.

Plan EJ 2014 directs EPA to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission, and to be a leader among federal departments and agencies in addressing the impacts of federal activities on overburdened communities. EPA believes that environmental permitting presents opportunities to address environmental justice, and that the Agency has the responsibility to lead by example to address environmental justice in permits issued by EPA. Therefore, the actions described in this notice focus on EPA-issued permits. Although EPA issues few environmental permits compared to state, local and tribal governments that implement federal environmental laws as approved or delegated by EPA, EPA intends to share its experiences and ideas with these governments as well as with other federal agencies, with the goal of promoting similar efforts.

In this notice, EPA focuses on enhancing the opportunity and ability of overburdened communities to participate in the permitting process. Overburdened communities are communities that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risk as a result of cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. EPA believes that the participation of overburdened communities in the permitting process is an essential step toward the ultimate goal of achieving permits that meaningfully address environmental justice issues. Following the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) recommendation to encourage more public participation in the permitting decision-making process, EPA has identified actions that EPA and permit applicants, both for new and renewed permits, can take to reduce barriers to participation in the permitting process. In overburdened communities, these barriers can include lack of trust, lack of awareness or information, language barriers, and limited access to technical and legal resources. In EPA's view, more transparency and dialogue can lead to better permit outcomes for the community as well as permit applicants. Thus, EPA believes it is especially important to make special efforts to provide enhanced public participation opportunities to overburdened communities, particularly minority, low-income, and indigenous communities. EPA also realizes that enhanced public engagement is only one aspect of attention to environmental justice in the context of permitting.

Both EPA regional offices and permit applicants can—and in some cases already do—bring overburdened communities into the permitting process through special outreach efforts. EPA believes that permit applicants have unique opportunities in this area. Many companies are already active, contributing members of the community. In addition to their important role as a source of employment and economic stability within a community, permit applicants play other roles. Many facilities applying for permits, for example, have robust community engagement strategies that recognize the value of community outreach. Pursuant to these strategies, facilities engage actively with the community through environmental initiatives, neighborhood beautification projects, education programs and charitable giving, civic programs and the arts, youth activities, and other investments in the community. These existing ties between permit applicants and the broader communities where they are located provide a foundation for permit applicants to reach out to their immediate neighbors along the facility's fence-line—ideally, to discuss health or environmental issues associated with their plans for new or increased pollutant releases.

EPA has compiled the draft list of activities and best practices presented in this notice from many sources. EPA surveyed its regional offices, where EPA permitting activity predominantly occurs, to determine what steps are currently or could be taken to meaningfully involve overburdened communities in the permitting process. Additionally, EPA conducted numerous listening sessions, conference calls and meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including environmental justice stakeholders, members of the business community, state, local and tribal governments and communities, non-governmental organizations, and the NEJAC, to gather more input on how to enhance participation of overburdened communities in EPA's process of issuing environmental permits. One set of ideas, presented in Section II below, focuses on activities that EPA, as the permitting authority, can undertake to make it easier for communities to engage meaningfully and effectively in the permitting process. The second set of ideas, described in Section III below, presents best practices that permit applicants can use to initiate and sustain a dialogue with the communities at their fence-line when the companies seek environmental permits that may be affected by the permitting action.

EPA recognizes that some states have made significant progress in meaningfully involving overburdened communities in the permitting process. While the focus of today's notice is on EPA-issued permits, EPA believes that states with experience in this area can provide valuable information that will strengthen EPA's efforts. Therefore, EPA invites states to share their ideas for ensuring the meaningful involvement of overburdened communities in the permitting process and encouraging dialogue between permit applicants and communities.

The ideas in this notice are meant to complement all of the other tools and resources developed under Plan EJ 2014 and other EPA initiatives to aid communities and EPA permitting authorities in incorporating environmental justice into the permitting process. The tools and resources include the EJ Legal Tools, which addresses EPA's legal authority to consider environmental justice, EPA's effort to develop a nationally consistent screening tool for environmental justice, and EPA's efforts to meaningfully engage local communities and stakeholders in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency preparedness and responses and the management of hazardous substances and wastes through the Community Engagement Network, and EPA's collaboration with other federal agencies to improve our community-based actions and assistance and to strengthen the use of interagency legal tools, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. These resources supplement information disseminated by EPA regional offices about their permit processes and particular permits.

As noted above, EPA has identified a number of activities and approaches that can be used to promote greater public involvement of overburdened communities in its permitting processes, particularly for major permitting actions that may significantly impact them. Each EPA regional office will put in place a regional implementation plan to address meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in their permitting activities. This notice describes the general expectations for the regional plans and presents the framework and specific activities intended to enhance public participation.

EPA's expectation is that each regional office will use the agency-wide guidelines to develop a regional implementation plan that is appropriate for the particular circumstances within that region. The agency-wide guidelines in this notice are designed to promote consistency among regional offices and provide EPA's expectation for a basic regional plan. At the same time, EPA recognizes that each permit and community is different and that each EPA regional office has the insight and experience to develop strategies tailored to the particular communities and needs within that region. Therefore, EPA couples these agency-wide guidelines with the expectation that EPA regional offices have the flexibility in developing their implementation plans to take actions suited to the concerns of impacts on overburdened communities typically raised within their regions.

This notice does not address any obligations imposed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 7. Please refer to EPA's Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons and Title VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs. This notice does not address Executive Order 13175 or EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Tribes. It is important to note the difference between the meaningful involvement of tribal communities as it is used in the EJ context and consultation with tribes. The Agency's responsibilities under E.O. 13175 are separate from the responsibilities under E.O. 12898 and stem from federally recognized tribes' status as sovereign governments.

The activities described in this notice go beyond the standard notice-and-comment procedures required by law. EPA believes, however, that enhanced outreach can help to remove some of the barriers that can discourage overburdened communities from participating in permit processes that affect them and are appropriate in some circumstances.

The guidelines presented here provide a framework for the regional offices to identify possible actions they can take to promote the meaningful engagement of overburdened communities for priority permits. Specifically, the guidelines for EPA regional offices are designed to: (1) Help regional offices identify which permits to prioritize for greater public involvement for overburdened communities; and (2) suggest activities the regional offices can undertake to promote greater public involvement in their permitting process.

Although any permit action may be an opportunity to enhance the engagement of a community, EPA believes that it is particularly important to provide meaningful engagement opportunities in permitting actions that may have significant public health or environmental impacts, such as a new operation or a modification of an existing operation, which may affect overburdened communities. Significant public outreach and engagement require significant resources. EPA recognizes its regional offices' limited ability to enhance engagement for every EPA-issued permit as well as the limited ability of overburdened communities to engage on every permit potentially impacting them. For this reason, EPA will consider prioritizing enhanced public involvement opportunities for those EPA-issued permits with significant public health or environmental impacts on already overburdened communities, determined by regional offices' use of a screening tool or other methodology. Examples of permits that may have significant public health or environmental impacts include, but are not limited to, the following:

In further recognition of EPA's regional offices' limited ability for enhanced public engagement, a regional office may not prioritize every EPA-issued permit with significant public health or environmental impacts on already overburdened communities.

Additionally, there may be circumstances under which a regional office finds enhanced public outreach appropriate irrespective of whether the permitting action has a significant public health or environmental impacts on already overburdened communities.

Presented below is a proposed list of activities that EPA regional offices could undertake at key junctures in the permitting process to promote greater involvement of overburdened communities. The list of proposed activities is intended to identify priority areas of activity and to provide options for proposed activities in the development of regional implementation plans. Regional offices, therefore, may choose not to implement all of the proposed activities listed below. Similarly, the list of activities is not meant to be comprehensive or exhaustive. Different situations will justify different responses.

Planning & Gathering Information:

○ Identify upcoming priority permits for promoting greater public involvement. When identifying priority permits, focus on permits that the community has identified as a priority, to the extent such information is available.

○ Locate existing data and studies that are relevant to the particular community.

○ Explore ways to reach out to the affected community in coordination with relevant EPA staff, including permit writers, EJ coordinators, public affairs staff, the press office, and EPA's Conflict Prevention & Resolution Center.

○ Evaluate the appropriate length of the public comment period.

○ Consider holding information meetings for the public in addition to formal public comment sessions.

Coordinating within EPA:

○ For applicants with multiple EPA permits, inform EPA permit writers from other offices in the region that your office has received a permit application from the applicant.

Communicating with the Community:

○ Designate EPA point(s) of contact that the community can contact to discuss environmental justice concerns or questions of a technical nature about the permit application.

○ Explain the permitting process by making informational fact sheets available.

○ Use plain language when communicating with the public.

○ Use communication techniques the community values, such as direct mailings, posters, articles in local newspapers, and emails to list serves.

○ Offer translation services for communities with multi-lingual populations (including interpreters at public meetings or translations of public documents).

○ Make key documents on the proposed project readily accessible to the community, using a variety of media tools (paper copies, online, etc.), when appropriate.

○ Hold public meetings at times and places in the community best designed to afford the public a meaningful chance to attend.

○ After the permit has been issued, make available to the community a summary of EPA's comment responses and provide information on where the community can find the entire comment response document.

Communicating with the Permit Applicant:

○ Encourage the permit applicant to provide EPA with a plain-language description of its proposed project or permit application.

○ Encourage the permit applicant to consult EPA guidance on environmental justice and other resources developed under Plan EJ 2014, including the (when finalized) Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Communities at the Fence-Line. (See appendix.)

EPA expects each regional office to develop, implement and make publically available a regional implementation plan consistent with the agency-wide guidelines presented in this notice in order to support the meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting process for priority permits. EPA believes that regional offices will be better able to provide opportunities for enhanced public participation when they have planned and allocated resources for outreach in advance through the development of regional implementation plans. EPA also believes that making the regional implementation plans publically available will increase transparency and inform communities of EPA regional offices' efforts to create opportunities for overburdened communities to meaningfully engage in the permitting process.

EPA expects the regional implementation plans to address with more specificity the process that a regional office will use to prioritize permits for enhanced engagement, including the types of permits and activities the regional offices plan to implement. EPA expects the regional plans to be tailored to the region's specific needs but also to be consistent with the agency-wide guidelines direction on prioritization of permits for enhanced engagement and priority areas of outreach activities outlined in today's notice.

Consistent with the agency-wide guidelines previously discussed, the regional implementation plans will include:

I. The EPA Regional Office's process for prioritizing permits for enhanced engagement

a. Use of a screening tool or other methodology to identify already overburdened communities;

b. Types of permits with significant public health or environmental impacts.

II. Priority Enhanced Outreach Activities

a. Planning and gathering information;

b. Coordinating within EPA;

c. Communicating with the Community;

d. Communicating with the Permit Applicant.

EPA welcomes all comments on the proposed actions that Regional offices can take to promote the meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting process, but is particularly interested in comments addressing the following questions:

• Has EPA identified the appropriate agency-wide guidelines to inform the development of regional implementation plans? What other guidelines should EPA consider that provide both agency-wide consistency and regional flexibility in promoting the meaningful engagement of overburdened communities in the permitting process?

• What criteria should regional offices use to prioritize permits for enhanced outreach?

• For priority permits, has EPA identified the appropriate activities that regional offices can take to promote the greater involvement of overburdened communities in the permitting process? What other activities should EPA consider?

• Based on experiences you have had in the permitting process, what lessons have you learned that can be applied to improve the agency-wide guidelines or the regional implementation plans?

Even though EPA is the permitting authority for EPA-issued permits, both the permit applicant and the potentially affected community are also key stakeholders in the permit process. Therefore, EPA engaged in extensive outreach to these stakeholders, and in particular the business community, on how to meaningfully engage fence-line communities in the permitting process. Business leaders on environmental justice issues shared their experiences and insights with EPA. EPA learned that if a permit applicant engages a community early and maintains that conversation, a partnership can form that facilitates the exchange of information and provides the foundation for dialogue on issues that may arise during the permitting process.

Such engagement may be especially beneficial with communities that have historically been underrepresented in the permitting process and that potentially bear a real or perceived disproportionate burden of an area's pollution. EPA learned from its conversations with business stakeholders that dialogue with the community early in the permitting process promotes reasonable expectations among the public and, therefore, more predictable outcomes for the permit applicant. EPA also learned that permit applicants that invest in outreach may avoid the costs of delay, negative publicity among peers and investors, and community distrust resulting from a community objecting to a permit late in the permitting process.

EPA believes that a facility that believes in environmental stewardship in all its dimensions and that acts consistently with that belief, including accountability to the neighboring community, may achieve more environmental good than any permit can compel. Reducing treatment failures, spills or other incidents becomes a source of organizational pride when the trends—and the facility's response and prevention strategies—are publicized within the community. These practices also make good business sense because facilities save energy, devise new technologies, reduce the rate of equipment failures, and develop cleaner products, among other things. This ethic of corporate responsibility—more than any permit—can improve the environment at the fence-line and far beyond. Engaging meaningfully with the local community is another facet of responsible corporate citizenship that achieves environmental results. EPA believes that a partnership with the community can lead to more informed permits, resulting in better outcomes for the permit applicant as well as the community that has a stake in the success of the facility.

In order to maximize the benefits of community engagement, and conserve the limited resources of both the permit applicants and the communities for outreach, EPA has identified what it considers to be effective communication practices and strategies that permit applicants can employ to meaningfully involve communities in the permitting process. EPA gathered these practices and strategies from numerous conversations with environmental justice stakeholders, members of the business community, state, local and tribal governments and communities, non-governmental organizations, and the NEJAC. Based on these conversations, EPA has developed and solicits comment on the Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage Communities at the Fence-line. (See appendix.)

EPA hopes that these best practices, once finalized, will inform businesses and other participants in the permitting process of some effective techniques for meaningfully engaging overburdened communities in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits. The final document would supplement existing guidance and recommendations issued by permitting authorities, including state and local agencies.

The draft best practices presented here are designed to foster emerging leadership among permit applicants operating (or proposing to operate) facilities in overburdened communities. EPA emphasizes that no permit applicant will be required to follow these suggestions. To the contrary, EPA will continue to evaluate permit applications solely based on applicable regulations.

EPA welcomes all comments on these draft best practices for permit applicants. EPA is particularly interested in comments addressing the following questions:

• What different or additional activities could permit applicants employ in the permitting process to meaningfully involve overburdened communities?

• Based on experiences you have had in the permitting process, what lessons have you learned or successful approaches you have employed that can be used by EPA to improve the best practice recommendations for permit applicants?

• How can EPA ensure that communities are aware of the opportunity to have a two-way dialogue with permit applicants through the ideas provided here?

EPA looks forward to considering suggestions and comments received in response to this notice. EPA hopes the creation of agency-wide guidelines and the development of regional implementation plans, as well as the presentation of best practices for permit applicants, will increase the meaningful participation of overburdened communities in the permitting process for EPA-issued permits. Although meaningful involvement in the permitting process may not always lead to reduced environmental impacts, EPA believes that every time an EPA permit writer or a permit applicant acknowledges a concern that would not have been aired but for enhanced outreach, communities and the permit applicant benefit. EPA further believes that every time this enhanced outreach leads to a feasible solution to an issue of interest to the community, all stakeholders benefit.

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

This proposed consent decree would potentially resolve lawsuits consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that were filed by the following plaintiffs: American Lung Association and National Parks Conservation Association (Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00243-RLW), and the State of New York, et al. (Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00531-RLW). Plaintiffs filed the lawsuits under the Act alleging that EPA has violated a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(1), to complete a five-year review of the NAAQS for particulate matter. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA agrees that no later than December 14, 2012, EPA shall sign a notice of final rulemaking setting forth its final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(1) concerning its review of the NAAQS for particulate matter and promulgating such revisions to the NAAQS and/or promulgating such new NAAQS as may be appropriate in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7408 and 7409(b); that EPA shall seek expedited publication in the Federal Register of the notice of final rulemaking; and shall establish the effective date of the final decision such that any final rule shall become effective, barring intervening congressional or judicial action, on the earliest date that complies with the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to this decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0474) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1003.

OMB Approval Date: June 8, 2012.

Expiration Date: June 30, 2015.

Title: Communications Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS).

Form No.: Not applicable.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 6,750 respondents; 6,750 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.1-0.50 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 4,725.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 218, 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission acknowledges and agrees that is consistent with the primary objective of the DIRS to treat filings as confidential. We will work with respondents to ensure that their concerns regarding the confidentiality of DIRS filings are resolved in a manner consistent with Commission rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission submitted this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision and received a three year approval from OMB for the collection.

In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) created an Emergency Contact Information System to assist the Commission in ensuring rapid restoration of communications capabilities after disruption by a terrorist threat or attack, and to ensure that public safety, public health, and other emergency and defense personnel have effective communications services available to them in the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack within the United States. The Commission submitted, and OMB approved, a collection through which key communications providers could voluntarily provide contact information.

The Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) updated the Emergency Contact Information system with a Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) that uses electronic forms to collect Emergency Contact Information forms and through which participants may inform the Commission of damage to communications infrastructure and facilities and may request resources for restoration. The Commission updated the process by increasing the number of reporting entities to ensure inclusion of wireless, wireline, broadcast, cable and satellite communications providers.

In recent years, communications have evolved from a circuit-switched network infrastructure to broadband networks. The Commission is seeking to extend the Disaster Information Reporting System to include interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol and broadband Internet Service Providers. Increasing numbers of consumers, businesses, and government agencies rely on broadband and interconnected VoIP services for everyday and emergency communications needs, including vital 9-1-1 services. It is therefore imperative that the Disaster Information Reporting System be expanded to include these new technologies in order for the Commission the gain an accurate picture of communications landscape during disasters. Therefore, the Commission has revised its DIRS screen shots and is including a copy of the DIRS user manual for which the Commission has received OMB approval on June 8, 2012.

This is a summary of the Mobility Fund Phase I Supplemental Public Notice (Supplemental Filing Instructions Public Notice) released on June 15, 2012. The Supplemental Filing Instructions Public Notice and its associated attachment as well as related Commission documents may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 12-947. The Supplemental Filing Instructions Public Notice and related documents also are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/901/ or by using the search function for AU Docket No. 12-25 on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

1. On May 2, 2012, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureaus) announced the procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase I auction scheduled for September 27, 2012 (Auction 901). The Bureaus provide supplemental filing instructions for completing FCC Form 180, announce the availability of certain updated files, and provide additional information regarding certain details of Auction 901.

2. In the Auction 901 Procedures Public Notice, 77 FR 32092, May 31, 2012, the Bureaus provided general instructions for completing FCC Form 180 and stated that they would provide additional information about accessing, completing, and viewing the FCC Form 180 in a separate public notice. The instructions provided in Attachment A to the Supplemental Filing Instructions Public Notice supplement those contained in the Auction 901 Procedures Public Notice.

3. In the Auction 901 Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus identified census blocks eligible for the Mobility Fund Phase I support to be offered in Auction 901. The Bureaus also released files containing detailed information about these census blocks. In the Auction 901 Additional Data Formats Public Notice, (DA 12-721 released May 8, 2012) the Bureaus announced the availability of an additional file with information about the biddable geographic areas for Auction 901. In the Supplemental Filing Instructions Public Notice , the Bureaus announce the availability of updated versions of some of these files, which are available via the link for Attachment A Files at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/901/. Specifically, the Biddable Items file, the All Eligible Census Blocks file, and five of the state spreadsheets have been updated. In the Biddable Items file, the header of one of the columns has been changed from Pop10 to Population, and the header of another column has been changed from Tribal Area to Tribal Land. These changes were made to be more consistent with how the data will be presented in the FCC Auction System. Additionally some of the entries in the Tribe and Tribal Land columns have been changed. In the previous version of the file, the name of any tribe or Tribal land that should have included an apostrophe erroneously included two apostrophes. The new file fixes this.

4. The apostrophe anomaly also affected the All Eligible Census Blocks file and five of the state spreadsheets. Consequently, the All Eligible Census Blocks file and the state spreadsheets for Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Michigan, and Montana have been revised.

5. In the Auction 901 Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus described the approach they would use to determine winning bids, including procedures to ensure that at most one bid per geographic area is awarded, the use of random numbers to address tied bids, and the Bureaus procedures when remaining funds are insufficient to support the next lowest bid. The Bureaus clarify those procedures, in particular with respect to the Bureaus use of random selection numbers, so that funds may be used to support new service to as many road miles as possible within the Bureaus' $300 million budget.

6. For each submitted bid, the Bureaus will assign a random selection number, which they will use in two ways: To break any tied bids for the same area, and to establish an order in which they will assign bids with the same dollars per road mile amount for different areas when the remaining funds are insufficient to award support to all the bids in that amount. The Bureaus will also calculate a gross dollar support amount associated with the bid, equal to the gross bid amount times the number of qualifying road miles in the area. To ensure that they award support to at most one bid per geographic area, the Bureaus will first compare net bids (taking into account bidding credits where applicable) for each biddable area, and for each area, retain the lowest net bid for further consideration. If there are ties for the lowest bid for an area, the Bureaus will retain the bid with the highest selection number.

7. To select winning bids, the Bureaus will then compare the retained bids for all areas by sorting them in ascending order of net bid amount (dollars per road mile) and descending order of selection number. The Bureaus will award support to bids in this order, starting with the lowest bid/highest selection number, as long as remaining funds are sufficient to cover the gross dollar support amount of the bid. If a bid cannot be awarded because its gross dollar support would exceed the remaining funds, the Bureaus will skip the bid and consider the next lowest bid/highest selection number, awarding as much support as possible within the Bureaus' $300 million budget.

Copies of the Notice to Mediation Agencies (FMCS Form 7; OMB control number 3076-0004) are available from the Office of Arbitration Services by calling, faxing or writing to Vella M. Traynham at the address above. Please ask for the form by title and agency form number.

FMCS is seeking comments on the following Information Collection Request (ICR).

Title: Notice to Mediation Agencies; FMCS Form F-7; OMB No. 3076-0004; Expiration date: October 1, 2012.

Type of Request: Request for Renewal of a previously approved notice without changes in the collection.

Affected Entities: Parties affected by this information collection are private sector employers and labor unions involved in interstate commerce who file notices for mediation services to the FMCS.

Frequency: Parties complete this form once, which is at the time of an impending expiration of a collective bargaining agreement.

Abstract: Under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 158(d), Congress listed specific notice provisions so that no party to a collective bargaining agreement can terminate or modify a collective bargaining contract, unless the party wishing to terminate or modify the contract sends a written notice to the other party sixty days prior to the expiration date (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(1)), and offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new or modified contract (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)). The Act requires that parties notify FMCS within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a bargaining dispute (29 U.S.C. 158(d)(3)). The 1974 amendments to the National Labor Relations Act extended coverage to nonprofit health care institutions, including similar notices to FMCS. 29 U.S.C. 158(d) and (g). To facilitate handling around 14,400 notices a year, FMCS created information collection form F-7. The purpose of this information collection activity is for FMCS to comply with its statutory duty to receive these notices, to facilitate assignment of mediators to assist in labor disputes, and to assist the parties in knowing whether or not proper notice was given. The information from these notices is sent electronically to the appropriate field manager who assigns the cases to a mediator so that the mediator may contact labor and management quickly, efficiently, and offer dispute resolution services. Either party to a contract may make a request in writing for a copy of the notice filed with FMCS. Form F-7 was created to allow FMCS to gather desired information in a uniform manner. The collection of such information, including the name of the employer or employer association, address and phone number, email address, official contact, bargaining unit and establishment size, location of affected establishment and negotiations, industry, union address, phone number, email address and official contact, contract expiration date or renewal date, whether the notice is filed on behalf of the employer or the union, and whether this is a health care industry notice is critical for reporting and mediation purposes.

Burden Statement: The current annual burden estimate is approximately 14,400 respondents. The annual hour burden is estimated at 2,400 hours, approximately 10 minutes for each notice to fill out a one-page form.

FMCS solicits comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information to be collected will have practical utility.

(ii) Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.

The official record is the paper electronic record maintained at the address at the beginning of this document. FMCS will transfer all electronically received comments into printed-paper form as they are received.

The general public uses GSA Form 3453, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, to request the use of public space in Federal buildings and on Federal grounds for cultural, educational, or recreational activities. A copy, sample, or description of any material or item proposed for distribution or display must also accompany this request.

Respondents: 8,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Hours per Response: 0.05.

Total Burden Hours: 400.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0044, GSA Form 3453, Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings and Grounds, in all correspondence.

Background: The PMAB was established to provide independent advice and recommendations to the President and the President's Management Council on a wide range of issues related to the development of effective strategies for the implementation of best business practices to improve Federal Government management and operation, with a particular focus on productivity and the application of technology.

Agenda: The main purpose for this meeting is for the PMAB to discuss their work on the following: Improving Strategic Sourcing and Curbing Improper Payments. Additionally, PMAB will hear reports from federal agency executives regarding their progress implementing last year's recommendations to the President's Management Council. Those recommendations were aimed at improving Information Technology (IT) portfolio and project management, IT vendor performance management, Senior Executive Service (SES) leadership development and SES performance appraisal systems. More detailed information on the PMAB recommendations can be found on the PMAB Web site (see below).

Meeting Access: The PMAB will convene its meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to security, there will be no public admittance to the Eisenhower Building to attend the meeting. However, the meeting is open to the public; interested members of the public may view the PMAB's discussion at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live. Members of the public wishing to comment on the discussion or topics outlined in the Agenda should follow the steps detailed in Procedures for Providing Public Comments below.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: Please see the PMAB Web site ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/pmab ) for any available materials and detailed meeting minutes after the meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: In general, public statements will be posted on the PMAB Web site (see above). Non-electronic documents will be made available for public inspection and copying in PMAB offices at GSA, 1776 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect statements by telephoning (202) 501-1398. All statements, including attachments and other supporting materials, received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Any statements submitted in connection with the PMAB meeting will be made available to the public under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The public is invited to submit written statements for this meeting to the PMAB prior to the meeting until 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, by either of the following methods:

Electronic or Paper Statements: Submit written statements to Mr. Winslow, Designated Federal Officer at scott.winslow@gsa.gov; or send paper statements in triplicate to Mr. Winslow at the PMAB GSA address above.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is committed to achieving better health for populations, better health care for individuals, and lower growth in expenditures through continuous improvement for Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiaries. One potential mechanism for achieving these goals is for CMS to partner with groups of health care providers of services and suppliers that have a mechanism for shared governance and have formed an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) through which they work together to coordinate care for a specified group of patients. We will pursue such partnerships through complementary efforts, including the Medicare Shared Savings Program and initiatives undertaken by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center).

The Advance Payment Model is an Innovation Center initiative designed for participants in the Medicare Shared Savings Program in need of prepayment of expected shared savings to build their capacity to provide high quality, coordinated care and generate cost savings. The Advance Payment Model will test whether and how prepaying a portion of future shared savings could increase participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, and whether advance payments will enhance the ability of ACOs to effectively coordinate care and generate Medicare savings, as well as the speed at which they attain that goal.

In the November 2, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 68012), we published a notice entitled “Medicare Program; Advance Payment Model” that announced the testing of the Advance Payment Model for certain ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program scheduled to begin in 2012 and provided information about the Advance Payment Model and the application process. In November 30, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 74067), we published a second notice that extended the application deadline for the first performance period that began on April 1, 2012. We announced the organizations participating in the Advanced Payment Model for the first performance period (which began on April 1, 2012) on April 10, 2012. The second performance period of the Advance Payment Model will begin on July 1, 2012.

Additional information about the Advance Payment Model, including organizations currently participating in the testing of the Model, is available on the Advance Payment Model Web site at http://www.innovations.cms.gov/initiatives/ACO/Advance-Payment/.

We will be launching a third group of Advance Payment Model ACOs on January 1, 2013. We will accept applications as specified in the DATES section of this notice. We are creating this new opportunity in response to requests from stakeholders and potential partners who requested additional opportunities to partner with CMS as Advance Payment ACOs.

Organizations interested in applying to the Advance Payment Model must also complete an application for the Shared Savings Program. Information about the application process and deadlines for the Shared Savings Program is available at http://www.cms.gov/sharedsavingsprogram. Additional information about the application process for the Advance Payment Model is available on the Advance Payment Model Web site at http://www.innovations.cms.gov/initiatives/ACO/Advance-Payment/.

In the December 13, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 73623), we published a final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Application of Inherent Reasonableness Payment Policy to Medicare Part B Services (Other Than Physician Services)” that finalized a process for establishing a realistic and equitable payment amount for Medicare Part B services (other than physicians' services) when the existing payment amounts are inherently unreasonable because they are either grossly excessive or grossly deficient. In that December 2005 final rule, we define grossly excessive and deficient payment amounts and provide the criteria for using valid and reliable data in making an inherent reasonableness determination.

Sections 1842(b)(8) and (9) of the Act and our regulations at 42 CFR 405.502(g) and (h) set forth the steps that the Secretary must follow in determining whether a payment amount is grossly excessive and in setting a special payment limit. Those steps are as follows:

• Factors Considered In Determining Whether Payment Amount is Grossly Excessive or Deficient. When making a determination that a payment amount is grossly excessive, we take into account several factors. Factors that may result in grossly excessive or deficient payment amounts include, but are not limited, to the following:

++ The marketplace is not competitive.

++ Medicare and Medicaid are the sole or primary sources of payment for a category of items and services.

++ The payment amounts for a category of items and services do not reflect changing technology, increased facility with that technology, or changes in acquisition, production, or supplier costs.

++ The payment amounts for a category of items or services in a particular locality are grossly high or lower than payment amounts in other comparable localities for the category of items or services.

++ Payment amounts for a category of items and services are grossly higher or lower than acquisition or production costs for the category of items and services.

++ There have been increases in payment amounts for a category of items or services that cannot be explained by inflation or technology.

++ The payment amounts for an item or service are grossly higher or lower than the payment amounts made for the item or service by other purchasers in the same locality.

++ A new technology exists which is not reflected in the existing payment allowances.

• Factors Considered in Establishing a Payment Limit. In establishing a payment limit for a category of items or services, we consider the available information that is relevant to the category of items or services and establish a payment amount that is realistic and equitable. The factors we consider in setting a payment include, but are not limited to the following:

++ Price markup.

++ Differences in charges.

++ Costs.

++ Use.

++ Payment amounts in other localities.

• Use of Valid and Reliable Data. In determining whether a payment amount is grossly excessive or deficient and in establishing an appropriate payment amount, we use valid and reliable data. To ensure that valid and reliable data are used, we must meet the criteria set forth at 42 CFR 405.502(g)(4)(i) through (xi), to the extent applicable.

• Impact Analysis. We consider the potential impact of the payment adjustments on quality, access, beneficiary liability, assignment rates, and participation of suppliers.

• Supplier Consultation. Before making a determination that a payment amount is not inherently reasonable, we consult with representatives of the supplier industry likely to be affected by the change in payment amounts.

• Publication of Proposed Determination. We publish a proposed notice in the Federal Register that—

++ Provides the proposed payment amount or method proposed to be established with respect to the item or service;

++ Explains the factors and data considered in determining that the payment amount was grossly excessive or deficient;

++ Explains the factors and data considered in determining the payment amounts or methodology, including the economic justification for a uniform fee or payment limit if it is proposed;

++ Explains the potential impact of the payment adjustments and;

++ Allows at least 60 days for public comment.

• Publication of Final Determination. We publish a final notice in the Federal Register containing our final determination with respect to the payment amount to be established for the item or service, explaining the factors and data considered in making the final determination, and responding to public comments.

Sections 1847(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)(A) of the Act mandate the implementation of competitive bidding programs for durable medical equipment (DME) and medical supplies, including diabetic testing supplies. Under these programs, contracts are to be awarded to suppliers for furnishing DME and medical supplies throughout the United States at reduced payment amounts. Diabetic testing supplies are supplies necessary for the effective use of durable blood glucose monitors and include test strips, lancets, spring-powered lancet devices, calibration solution/chips, and replacement batteries. In 2011, annual Medicare Part B allowed charges for these items were approximately $1.6 billion, of which approximately $552 million (over one-third) was attributed to claims for non-mail order items.

Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides authority for phasing in items and services under the competitive bidding programs, starting with the highest cost and highest volume items and services or those items and services determined to have the largest savings potential. The majority of Medicare beneficiaries receive their diabetic testing supplies on a mail order basis, and the competitive bidding program was phased in first for supplies furnished via this delivery method as part of the Round One Rebid of the competitive bidding program. In 2011, Medicare-allowed payment amounts for a box of 50 mail order test strips were reduced by 55 percent on average in 9 local metropolitan areas as a result of these programs.

A national DMEPOS competitive bidding program for mail order diabetic testing supplies is scheduled to take effect in 2013. For this competition, and future competitions for diabetic testing supplies, the definitions of mail order item and non-mail order item set forth in 42 CFR 414.402 will be used to determine what items will be included in the competitions. These definitions are as follows:

• Mail Order Item—Any item shipped or delivered to the beneficiary's home, regardless of the method of delivery.

• Non-Mail Order Item—Any item that a beneficiary or caregiver picks up in person at a local pharmacy or supplier storefront.

Because annual allowed charges for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies are approximately $552 million, this category of items and services represents the highest volume category of items or services yet to be phased in under the DMEPOS competitive bidding programs. Also, based on the results of the competition for mail order diabetic testing supplies in nine Competitive Bidding Areas (CBAs) and a review of other pricing information for diabetic testing supplies in general, we believe the savings potential for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies is significant. Although we recognize that there are pricing differences between mail order and non-mail order diabetic testing supplies because of the delivery methods for these supplies, information about the prices of mail order diabetic testing supplies can inform the analysis of prices for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies because several key cost components are identical for both, such as product acquisition costs and administrative costs, including claims processing and paperwork costs. In addition to the significant program and beneficiary savings that can be generated by lowering the payment amounts for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies, adjusting the payment amounts for these items to bring them more in line with the allowed payment amounts for mail order diabetic testing supplies is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that maintaining a significant discrepancy between what Medicare pays for mail order supplies versus non-mail order supplies may encourage fraud and abuse such as billing for mail order supplies as if they were furnished on a non-mail order basis. The discrepancy also penalizes beneficiaries who choose to obtain their supplies on a non-mail order basis in the form of significantly higher coinsurance payments.

Rather than phasing in non-mail order diabetic testing supplies under the competitive bidding program at this time, we are considering an alternative for adjusting the payment amounts for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies in the short term using information obtained from the local Round One Rebid competitions for mail order supplies and other pricing information to establish special payment limits for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies. We believe that this alternative would allow beneficiaries the greatest degree of choice in deciding where to obtain their non-mail order diabetic testing supplies as suppliers would not have to be awarded contracts to continue furnishing these items to Medicare beneficiaries. It also has the potential to reduce the significant discrepancy in payment amounts between mail order and non-mail order diabetic testing supplies and generate beneficiary and program savings sooner than could be achieved through competitive bidding. National reductions to the fee schedule amounts would reduce the savings potential that could result from application of competitive bidding. This would alter the standing of non-mail order diabetic testing supplies relative to other items in terms of level of priority for phase-in under the competitive bidding program. It is also possible that use of the inherent reasonableness authority over time to establish special payment limits for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies could mean that including these items under the competitive bidding program will not be necessary as significant savings would not be achieved.

Because information generated from the local Round One Rebid competitions for mail order diabetic testing supplies and information about the cost of diabetic testing supplies is available, we believe we have the information necessary to determine whether payment amounts for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies are grossly excessive and should be adjusted using our inherent reasonableness authority. Use of the inherent reasonableness authority would delay or eliminate the need to have local pharmacies compete and win contracts in order to continue furnishing non-mail order diabetic testing supplies to Medicare beneficiaries, thereby maintaining the option of obtaining these items from any local, enrolled Medicare supplier. Again, given the high volume of expenditures for these items, competitive bidding for these items would need to be implemented in the near future if the savings potential for these items is not lowered through use of the inherent reasonableness authority.

The tentative agenda is as follows:

The following information must be provided when registering:

• Name.

• Company name and address.

• Direct-dial telephone and fax numbers.

• Email address.

• Special needs information.

A CMS staff member will confirm your registration by email.

All comments will be heard and accepted after the presentation by CMS staff is completed until the end of the public meeting. If there are comments after the meeting, we will accept written comments until the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

This public meeting is scheduled in order to fulfill the requirement of section 1842(b)(9)(A) of the Act to consult with representatives of suppliers or other individuals who furnish an item or service before making a determination under section 1842(b)(8)(B) of the Act with regard to that item or service.

Oral comments will be heard from the meeting attendees during the allotted time during the public meeting. Comments should last no longer than 10 minutes each to allow as much opportunity for comments from as many interested individuals as possible. There will be a sign up during the meeting to accommodate oral comments and speakers will be called in the order in which they sign up. We encourage anyone providing oral comments to also submit their comments in writing.

Written comments will be accepted from the general public and meeting registrants until the date specified in the DATES section. Comments must be sent to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Meeting attendees may also submit their written comments at the meeting.

The summarized comments and responses from the public meeting will be provided in the proposed notice for the adjustment of fee-schedule amounts for non-mail order diabetic testing supplies.

The meeting is held within the CMS Complex which is not open to the general public. Visitors to the complex are required to show a valid U.S. Government issued photo identification, preferably a driver's license, at the time of entry. Participants will also be subject to a vehicular search before access to the complex is granted. Participants not in possession of a valid identification or who are in possession of prohibited items will be denied access to the complex. Prohibited items on Federal Property include but are not limited to, alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, dogs or other animals except Seeing Eye dogs and other dogs trained to assist the handicapped, explosives, firearms or other dangerous weapons (including pocket knives).

Once cleared for entry to the complex participants will be directed to parking by a security officer. In order to ensure expedited entry into the building it is recommended that participants have their ID and a copy of their written meeting registration confirmation readily available and that they do not bring laptops or large/bulky items into the building. Participants are reminded that photography on the CMS complex is prohibited. CMS has also been declared a tobacco free campus and violators are subject to legal action.

In planning arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes before the convening of the meeting. Guest access to the complex is limited to the meeting area, the main lobby, and the cafeteria. If a visitor is found outside of those areas without proper escort they may be escorted out of the facility.

Also be mindful that there will be an opportunity for comment and we request that everyone waits for the appropriate time to present their opinions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and may result in removal from the meetings and escort from the complex. No visitor is allowed to attach USB cables, thumb drives or any other equipment to any CMS information technology (IT) system or hardware for any purpose at anytime. Additionally, CMS staff is prohibited from taking such actions on behalf of a visitor or utilizing any removable media provided by a visitor.

We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a comment. Special arrangements and approvals are required at least 2 weeks prior to the public meeting in order to bring pieces of equipment or medical devices. These arrangements need to be made with the public meeting coordinator. It is possible that certain requests made in advance of the public meeting could be denied because of unique safety, security or handling issues related to the equipment. A minimum of 2 weeks is required for approvals and security procedures. Any request not submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public meeting will be denied.

CMS policy requires that every foreign visitor is assigned a host. The host/hosting official is required to inform the Division of Critical Infrastructure Protection (DCIP) at least 12 business days in advance of any visit by a foreign national visitor. Foreign National visitors will be required to produce a valid passport at the time of entry. Attendees that are Foreign Nationals need to identify themselves as such, and provide the following information for security clearance to the public meeting coordinator by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice:

• Visitor's full name (as it appears on passport).

• Gender.

• Country of origin and citizenship.

• Biographical data and related information.

• Date of birth.

• Place of birth.

• Passport number.

• Passport issue date.

• Passport expiration date.

• Dates of visits.

• Company name.

• Position/Title.

Meeting participants should arrive early to allow time to clear security and sign-in. The meeting is expected to begin promptly as scheduled.

The supplement grant will support the expansion of bed capacity to meet the number of unaccompanied alien children referrals from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The funding program is mandated by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act to ensure appropriate placement of all referrals from the DHS. The program is tied to DHS apprehension strategies and sporadic number of border crossers.

The program has specific requirements for the provision of services to unaccompanied alien children. Existing grantees are the only entities with the infrastructure, licensing, experience and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the required service requirements and the urgent need for expansion of services in response to unexpected arrivals of unaccompanied children. The program expansion supplement will support such services and alleviate the buildup of children waiting in border patrol stations for placement in shelter care.

Statutory Authority: Awards announced in this notice are authorized by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 6 U.S.C. 279(b)(A)-(J) and sections 235(a)(5)(C); 235(d) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, (8 U.S.C. 1232).

I. Background

Since 1985, the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, authorized by Public Law 99-158, 42 U.S.C. 289d, and incorporated by reference at 42 CFR 52.8 and 42 CFR 52a.8, has required that institutions receiving PHS support for animal activities base their animal care and use programs on the current edition of the Guide. The 8th Edition of the Guide was published in January 2011 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. (See http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12910. ) Following a public comment period, NIH adopted the 8th Edition of the Guide in December 2011 and released 10 Position Statements to aid PHS-Assured institutions—those with an approved Animal Welfare Assurance—in their implementation of the Guide (76 FR 74803). The public was invited to submit comments on their understanding of the Position Statements until February 3, 2012 (76 FR 74804, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-042.html ). NIH received a total of 44 comments: 26 responses from those who identified themselves as individuals, 6 from PHS-Assured institutions, 2 from animal advocacy organizations, and 9 from professional organizations. The comments may be viewed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/2011positionstatement_comments/web_listing.htm .

In response to those comments, NIH has clarified the following Position Statements: (1) Cost, (2) Housing, (2a) Nonhuman Primate Housing, (2c) Rodent Housing, and (3) Non-Pharmaceutical-Grade Substances. (See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/positionstatement_guide.htm .) For a summary of the changes in the Position Statements, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/2011positionstatement_maysummary.pdf (PDF). For an archive of the original version, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/2011positionstatement_decarchive.pdf (PDF).

The 8th Edition of the Guide is available on the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare Web site at http://olaw.nih.gov.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide different interest rates applicable to overpayments: one for corporations and one for non-corporations.

The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

In Revenue Ruling 2012-16, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2012, and ending on September 30, 2012. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus one percentage point (1%) for a total of two percent (2%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012.

For the convenience of the importing public and Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

The NPS is preparing an EIS to identify a preferred site for construction of an environmentally sustainable facility for non-motorized boats on the Virginia shoreline of the Potomac River.

Scoping for the EIS will consider four possible site locations within George Washington Memorial Parkway. Two proposed sites are downstream of the Key Bridge, one proposed site is near Gravelly Point and the 14th Street Bridge, and one proposed site is on Daingerfield Island. The boathouse facility and its amenities would enhance public waterfront access in the vicinity of Arlington County for non-motorized recreational activities.

This project was initiated when, at the direction of Congress, the NPS prepared a site analysis (feasibility study) for a boathouse facility in 2002. The purpose of the study was to eliminate any sites that were not feasible due to engineering or financial constraints and to use that information for the preparation of an EIS. On May 21, 2004, an NOI to prepare that EIS was published in the Federal Register . In 2004, the NPS held a public scoping meeting and preliminary surveys which were completed.

With the participation of Arlington County as a cooperating agency, internal scoping was reinitiated in 2011, and the NPS has determined that an EIS remains the most appropriate level of environmental documentation for the proposed project. NPS is issuing this NOI so that the public has a clear understanding of the agency's intention to complete preparation of this EIS.

Public Involvement: Public involvement will be a key component in preparation of the EIS. Interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are encouraged to provide written comments or suggestions to assist the NPS in determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS, to identify significant issues related to the project, and to identify other reasonable alternatives.

The NPS will conduct a public scoping meeting at a public site in Arlington County. When the public scoping meeting has been scheduled, its location, date and time will be announced through local media and published on the NPS's PEPC Web site: http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/gwmp no later than 15 days in advance of the date of the meeting.

If you wish to submit issues or provide input on this initial phase of developing the EIS, you may submit comments by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE] through the PEPC Web site at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/gwmp, by hand-delivery or mail to: Superintendent, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey Run Park, McLean, Virginia 22101, or by providing comments to NPS staff at the scoping meeting.

We will make all submissions from organizations or business, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The contract listed below will expire by its terms on October 31, 2013. Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, the National Park Service has determined that the proposed short-term extension is necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption.

The World Heritage List is an international list of cultural and natural properties nominated by the signatories to the World Heritage Convention (1972). The United States was the prime architect of the Convention, an international treaty for preservation of natural and cultural heritage sites of global significance proposed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1971, and the U.S. was the first nation to ratify it. The United States served its fourth term on the World Heritage Committee from 2005-2009. The Committee, composed of representatives of 21 nations periodically elected as the governing body of the World Heritage Convention, makes the final decisions on which nominations to accept on the World Heritage List at its annual meeting each summer.

There are 936 sites in 153 of the 189 signatory countries. Currently there are 21 World Heritage Sites in the United States. U.S. participation and the roles of the Department and the National Park Service (NPS) are authorized by Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 73—World Heritage Convention. NPS serves as the principal technical agency for World Heritage in the Department, which has the lead role for the U.S. Government in the implementation of the Convention and manages all or parts of 17 of the 21 U.S. World Heritage Sites, including Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, and the Statue of Liberty.

A tentative list is a national list of natural and cultural properties appearing to meet the World Heritage Committee eligibility criteria for nomination to the World Heritage List. A country cannot nominate a property unless it has been on its tentative list for a minimum of a year. Countries are limited to nominating no more than two sites in any given year. If two sites are nominated, at least one must be a natural site or a cultural landscape.

Neither inclusion in the tentative list nor inscription as a World Heritage Site imposes legal restrictions on owners or neighbors of sites, nor does it give the United Nations any management authority or ownership rights in U.S. World Heritage Sites, which continue to be subject only to U.S. law. Inclusion in the tentative list merely indicates that the property may be further examined for possible World Heritage nomination in the future.

The World Heritage Committee's Operational Guidelines ask participating nations to provide tentative lists, which aid in evaluating properties for the World Heritage List on a comparative international basis and help the Committee to schedule its work over the long term. The Guidelines recommend that a nation review its tentative list at least once every decade.

NPS regulations at 36 CFR part 73 establish the process for making nominations to the World Heritage List. This process ensures that the Congress, property owners, and the public are notified of and can comment on proposed nominations. Under the process, the Department notifies the public as follows:

• The Department publishes a first notice in the Federal Register containing the tentative list and asks for recommendations regarding which properties on it should be nominated.

• The Department reviews comments received as a result of the notice, consults with the Federal Interagency Panel on World Heritage and decides which properties should be nominated next.

• The Department publishes a second notice containing the list of proposed nominations.

This is the second notice as required by 36 CFR 73.7(f) on the proposed nomination of the San Antonio Franciscan Missions.

NPS prepared and submitted (through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State) to the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO on January 24, 2008, an updated tentative list. The tentative list was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2008. The process for developing the U.S. tentative list is detailed on the NPS Office of International Affairs Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/worldheritage.htm.

On March 5, 2012, the Department requested public comment on which property or properties on the U.S. World Heritage tentative list should be nominated next by the United States to the World Heritage List. This was the First Notice in the Federal Register , as required by 36 CFR 73.7(c). The tentative list consists of properties that appear to qualify for World Heritage status and that may be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. The current tentative list was transmitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on January 24, 2008.

In the notice published on March 5, 2012, the Department requested comment on which properties on the U.S. World Heritage tentative list should be nominated to the World Heritage List. After reviewing public comments and consulting with the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage, the Department has selected the San Antonio Franciscan Missions as a proposed nomination to the World Heritage List. With the assistance of the Department, the owners of this group of sites are encouraged to prepare a complete nomination document in accordance with 36 CFR Part 73 and the nomination format required by the World Heritage Committee.

Two other properties, “Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings” and “Poverty Point State Historic Site and National Monument,” were selected to prepare nominations in 2011, and these documents are currently being drafted.

The Panel also considered comments on possible additions to the tentative list. The Department, on advice of the Panel, will work with the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to develop a process to revise the tentative list by 2016.

A discussion of the decisions, the nomination process and schedule, a summary of the comments received, and a description of the properties comprising the Missions group follows.

The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage assists the Department in implementing the Convention by making recommendations on U.S. World Heritage policy, procedures, and nominations. The Panel is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and includes representatives from various Federal Departments and agencies with Federal land management and policy-making responsibilities. The Panel made its recommendations to the Department on the next U.S. World Heritage nomination at a meeting on May 1, 2012.

The Panel agreed by consensus to support the preparation of a nomination at this time for the San Antonio Franciscan Missions. The Panel reviewed the progress of the two nominations already under preparation and the public suggestions for nominations for other properties at this time from the U.S. World Heritage tentative list. They did not recommend the preparation of nominations for any additional or alternate properties, although they acknowledged the substantial effort underway to prepare for a nomination of the “Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks” in Ohio. Panel members emphasized the considerable work and cost involved in developing nomination documents, and wanted to ensure that the number of nominations under development will not exceed the Department's capacity to ensure the high quality that will give them the best possible chance of success when considered by the World Heritage Committee.

The Department considered all comments received during the comment period as well as the advice of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage in making the decisions to request drafts for a new U.S. World Heritage nomination.

A brief description is provided for this potential nomination along with a summary of the comments that were received and considered as part of this process. The Department will decide whether to nominate this group of sites to the World Heritage List based on a complete draft World Heritage nomination, when it is available. A draft World Heritage nomination is requested of the owners for the following sites:

San Antonio Franciscan Missions:

The modern city of San Antonio, Texas, has grown up around this group of five Spanish Roman Catholic mission complexes that were built in stages from 1724 to 1782 as open villages within walled compounds. This unusual grouping of missions is a uniquely complete illustration of the experience of the Franciscan missionaries and their interaction with the indigenous peoples on the northern frontier of the Spanish American empire in the 18th century. The religious, economic, and technological systems of the missionaries created settled communities that became the basis of the U.S. Southwest's distinctive ethnic mixture. The churches in the mission complexes, except for Mission San Antonio, are still in active use.

The Department received a large number of comments on this proposal, including over 15,000 expressions of support in response to an appeal by the National Parks Conservation Association. Specific comments by organizations and individuals involved in the nomination effort cited a broad range of civic support, including funding and other resources from both governmental and private sources. One comment recommended that the group should be considered as an extension to the Mexican missions of the Sierra Gorda already on the World Heritage List, and another said that the justification for World Heritage listing needs to address the context of Spanish missions in the Americas, and that it will be important to define the boundary carefully to support the group's integrity; also that the system of acequias may merit nomination on their own. The Panel also discussed concerns and questions about the nature and appropriateness of reconstruction work that was done at the missions in the 1930s.

The Department notes that a recent meeting of experts in the topic in San Antonio, including Mexican World Heritage officials, concluded that the justification for the San Antonio missions would be sufficiently different from that of the Mexican listing that they should be nominated separately. Regarding the justification and other related issues, the Department is committed to working closely with those preparing the nomination to ensure that these issues, as well as the questions regarding the 1930s reconstruction work, will be appropriately addressed.

Over the past two years, both during official public comment periods and otherwise, approximately 100 suggestions for potential additions to the tentative list have been made to the Department. A number of suggestions have also been made regarding the methodology of selecting properties for the tentative list. The Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Committee recommend that countries update their tentative lists approximately once every 10 years. The current U.S. tentative list was established in 2008.

The Department, on advice of the Panel, will initiate a process in cooperation with the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, a commission of the U.S. Department of State, to develop an appropriate method to update the U.S. tentative list with a target of completing the update in 2016, the year of the centennial of the National Park Service.

A draft World Heritage nomination for the “San Antonio Franciscan Missions” may now be prepared. If it is submitted in substantially complete draft form to the NPS by May 1, 2013, a nomination may potentially be submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre by the United States by February 1, 2014, if the Department deems the nomination ready. The World Heritage nomination format may be found at the World Heritage Centre Web site at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines. NPS will coordinate the review and evaluation of the draft nomination. Preliminary drafts should be submitted to the NPS for review prior to the complete draft referred to above.

Following NPS review of the draft, the Department may submit complete draft nominations to the World Heritage Centre for technical review by September 30 of any year. The Centre will then provide comments by November 15 of that year. The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage will review draft nominations following receipt of the Centre's comments. The Interagency Panel will evaluate the adequacy of the nominations, the significance of the properties and whether the nominations should be forwarded to the World Heritage Centre for formal consideration for listing. Final submittal to the World Heritage Centre by the Department through the Department of State is required by February 1 of any year in order for the properties to be considered in the next cycle of nominations to the World Heritage List. Submittal of final nominations must be made no later than that date for the World Heritage Committee to be able to consider them at its annual meeting in the summer of the following year.

Protective measures must be in place before a property may be nominated as provided for in 36 CFR 73.13. If a nomination cannot be completed in accordance with this timeline, work may continue into the following year(s) for subsequent submission to UNESCO.

In the notice published on March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13147-13149), the Department requested comments on which of the sites on the tentative list should be nominated next by the United States. Comments were accepted through March 19, 2012, fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register . Respondents were asked to address the qualifications of the tentative list properties for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List.

A summary of the comments received appears below organized by site, along with the Department's responses as appropriate. Comments on the site that is now authorized to prepare a nomination appear in the discussion of the decision above. The Department received 37 comments in addition to over 15,000 responses to an appeal from the National Parks Conservation Association to support the San Antonio Franciscan Missions. The comments were also available to the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage and to the Department of the Interior officials who have selected the properties that are asked to prepare nominations. The full texts of all the comments are available upon request.

Comments were also sought on potential additions to the tentative list. These comments are on file to be considered by the Federal Interagency Panel and the Department in due course.

Civil Rights Movement Sites, Alabama. Dexter Ave. King Memorial Baptist Church, Montgomery; Bethel Baptist Church, Birmingham; 16th St. Baptist Church, Birmingham:

The Department received two comments. Both recommended that a variety of additional sites be added to the grouping to more comprehensively represent the topic, and one of them recommended that the Department undertake this work and nominate the sites in 2013.

The Department agrees that additional sites will need to be added before this proposal could be considered for nomination, and plans to explore such an effort with the assistance of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO. The Panel also noted that it would be necessary to justify another World Heritage criterion in addition to the tentatively identified criterion (vi), for association with ideas and events, which the World Heritage Committee no longer accepts as a sole criterion.

Dayton Aviation Sites, Ohio: Wright Cycle Company and Wright & Wright Printing; Huffman Prairie Flying Field; Wright Hall; Hawthorn Hill. The Department received three comments: one expressed general support. The others recommended that the Wright Brothers National Memorial at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina be added. One also suggested inclusion of the original Wright Flyer also be included and that Hawthorne Hill's inclusion should be reconsidered; the other suggested consideration of a transnational serial nomination with other countries of early flight resources.

The Department acknowledges that some of the components of this proposal may have difficulties in meeting the technical requirements of the World Heritage Committee, and that such issues would have to be resolved before a nomination could be made. The Wright Brothers National Memorial was nominated unsuccessfully in 1981 by the United States, and the Department believes that the issues raised at that time may still affect a potential nomination.

Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, Ohio: Fort Ancient State Memorial; Hopewell Culture National Historical Park; Newark Earthworks State Memorial. The Department received 10 comments: three expressed general support, and five, including from the organizations that own the sites, provided more specific information on the ability of the sites to satisfy the World Heritage criteria and of the proponents to prepare a nomination. These include a workshop held at the sites in November 2011, which discussed how to address the criteria and issues of integrity and authenticity, and concluded that they would not attempt to include Serpent Mound in the proposal.

Follow-up actions from the workshop have included establishment of a “Friends of the Ohio Earthworks” organization, which is raising funds and hiring a consultant to work on the nomination. Tribal government support was also cited. The other two comments recommended that this type of site is adequately represented already, and should not be nominated at this time, or should be proposed as an extension to Cahokia Mounds, along with Serpent Mound and Poverty Point.

The Department acknowledges the substantial work being done by the committee in Ohio, and believes that this group of sites has good prospects for nomination. Regarding the other comments, the Department notes that Poverty Point has already been authorized to prepare a separate nomination, and has determined that the archeological sites in Louisiana, Illinois and Ohio are sufficiently culturally distinct to merit separate World Heritage listing.

Thomas Jefferson Buildings, Virginia: Poplar Forest, Bedford County; State Capitol, Richmond: The Department received two comments. One stated that this would be the most straightforward nomination from the properties now on the tentative list, and would complete the Jefferson theme. The other recommended against the extension of a property already listed as a priority for nomination, and noted that Poplar Forest may not add greatly to the listing. The Department acknowledges that the issue raised in the latter comment will need to be considered.

Mount Vernon, Virginia. The Department received two comments with various suggestions for how this site, which was unsuccessfully nominated in 2009, might be reformulated for possible nomination again in the future.

Serpent Mound State Memorial, Ohio. The Department received three comments: one expressed general support. The other two recommended that this type of site is adequately represented already, and should not be nominated at this time, or should be proposed as an extension to Cahokia Mounds, along with Hopewell Ceremonial Culture and Poverty Point. The Department notes that Poverty Point has already been authorized to prepare a separate nomination; and has determined that the archeological sites in Louisiana, Illinois and Ohio are sufficiently culturally distinct to merit separate World Heritage listing.

No comments were received on these four sites:

Background. —On June 4, 2012, the Commission found that both the domestic and respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution were adequate and determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

Participation in the review and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 28, 2012, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on December 18, 2012, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before December 10, 2012. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on December 12, 2012, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is December 7, 2012. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is January 4, 2013; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before January 4, 2013. On January 31, 2013, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before February 4, 2013, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing have been amended. The amendments took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76 Fed. Reg. 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

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