Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand United States exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities will affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry's competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.

Topics to be considered: The agenda for the August 28, 2012 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

1. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

1. International Trade Administration's Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative Update.

2. Civil Nuclear Trade Promotion Activities Discussion.

3. Public comment period.

The open session will be disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. David Kincaid at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 24, 2012 in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Kincaid and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 24, 2012. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 20 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 24, 2012. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 22, 2012, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. (10)(d)), (1) that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3); and (2) that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters requiring disclosure of trade secrets and commercial or financial information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) (1-5), the Department of the Air Force (AF) announces the appointment of members to the AF's Senior Executive Service (SES) Pay Pool and Performance Review Board (PRB). Appointments are made by the authorizing official. Each board member shall review and evaluate performance scores provided by the SES' immediate supervisor. Performance standards must be applied consistently across the AF. The board will make final recommendations to the authorizing official relative to the performance of the executive.

The members of the 2012 Performance Review Board for the U.S. Air Force are:

1. Board President—Gen. Rice, Commander, Air Education and Training Command.

2. Lt. Gen. Hesterman, Military Deputy for Readiness, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Personnel & Readiness.

3. Lt. Gen. Davis, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions.

4. Mr. Corsi, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services.

5. Mrs. Westgate, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Program.

6. Dr. Butler, Executive Director, Air Force Materiel Command.

7. Ms. Young, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations & Mission Support.

8. Mr. Exley, Auditor General, Army Audit Agency.

9. Ms. McKay, Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

10. Mr. Williams, Principle Deputy Director for Air Force Studies & Analyses, Assessments & Lessons Learned.

11. Dr. Meink, Director, Signals Intelligence Systems, National Reconnaissance Office.

12. Mr. Murphy, Director, Intelligence Development, Intelligence Systems Support Office.

13. Mr. Cluck, Director for Acquisitions, U.S. Special Operations Command.

Geographic Area. The study area will encompass the six mainstem reservoirs and river proper from the headwaters of Fort Peck Reservoir, Ft. Peck, MT to St. Louis, MO.

Project Scope. The demand for M&I water has increased in recent years and the Corps has received numerous requests for intakes and permission to withdraw water as a result of this demand. The Corps of Engineers is pursuing this study to evaluate the long- term Missouri River main stem water storage reallocation need in order to respond to the current and future water supply needs.

The 1944 Flood Control Act, as amended, directed the USACE to allocate the river's resources among the authorized Missouri River project purposes; which are: fish and wildlife, flood control, irrigation, navigation, hydropower, recreation, water quality, and water supply. Although water supply is one of the several purposes of the Missouri River main stem projects, no specific allocation of storage has been made for M&I. The Water Supply Act of 1958 provides the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA[CW]) the discretion to make a change in the use of storage in an existing reservoir project from its present use to M&I water supply (reallocation) and allows the secretary to enter into agreements for long term or permanent storage at Corps reservoir projects.

While water rights are conveyed by the state, the rights to water supply storage in a Corps reservoir may be acquired by non-federal entities on a long-term or permanent basis via a water supply contract with the Corps of Engineers. The cost of acquiring the right to storage would be based on the ASA (CW)'s determination of appropriate costs to be borne by the non-federal entities, as would be spelled out in the Decision Document that would result from the study.

The Reallocation Study will take a comprehensive, systems approach to evaluate present and future M&I storage needs along the Missouri River from the headwaters of Ft. Peck, MT to St. Louis, MO. In contemplating an allocation of storage to M&I to meet needs in the basin, the Reallocation Report/EIS will discuss and evaluate the following: (1) Identify current and future water demand and potential need for reallocated storage to support demand; (2) evaluate the impacts on the project purposes and existing users and whether or not compensation would be required; (3) determine environmental effects of any proposed action and whether or not mitigation would be required; (4) determine the price to be charged the purchasers of reallocated storage; and (5) determine appropriate compensation, if any, to existing users/beneficiaries. In addition to reallocation alternatives, other alternative sources of water supply will also be evaluated and compared to the use of Missouri River storage.

Scoping and agency meetings. Public concerns on issues, studies needed, alternatives to be examined, procedures and other related matters will be addressed during scoping. This process will be the key to preparing a concise EIS and clarifying the significant issues to be analyzed in depth. Public meetings are scheduled as follows:

August 20, 2012—Nebraska City, NE: Lied Lodge and Conference Center, 2700 Sylvan Road.

August 21, 2012—St. Joseph, MO: Stoney Creek Inn and Conference Center, 1201 North Woodbine Road.

August 22, 2012—St. Louis, MO: Marriott West, 660 Maryville Centre Drive.

August 23, 2012—Sioux City, IA: Holiday Inn, 701 Gordon Drive.

August 27, 2012—Pierre, SD: Best Western Ramkota, 920 W. Sioux Avenue.

August 28, 2012—Bismarck, ND: Best Western Doublewood Inn and Conference Center, 1400 E Interchange Avenue.

August 29, 2012—Glasgow, MT: Fort Peck Visitor Center, Highway 24 South 17 miles to Fort Peck.

The Corps will prepare a DEIS to reduce avian predation on juvenile salmonids through management of cormorants in the CRE.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responsibilities for cormorant management are identified under Public Law 106-53, Section 582c “(1) NESTING AVIAN PREDATORS—In conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary [of the Army] shall carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.”

The Corps is currently preparing a draft management plan that will include effective alternatives to reduce salmonid consumption by cormorants at ESI. The management plan is necessary to implement avian predation management actions provided for in the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) (NOAA Fisheries 2008), the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative included in the 2008 BiOp and the 2010 FCRPS Supplemental BiOp (NOAA Fisheries 2010) to facilitate achievement of adult escapement goals identified for ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia Basin.

The increase in consumption of juvenile salmonids by cormorants is the result of an unprecedented increase of cormorants on ESI where the number of breeding pairs increased by 1,400 percent between 1989 and 2007. Reducing cormorant predation in the CRE, in combination with other initiatives that aim to improve juvenile salmonid survival, is anticipated to increase population growth rates of ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia River basin.

The Corps will evaluate alternatives for their ability to reduce cormorant predation on ESA-listed Columbia River salmonids in the CRE. The preliminary range of alternatives will include, but are not limited to reducing the ESI colony by 25 percent, by 50 percent and by 75 percent by a variety of methods. Some of these methods may include dissuasion techniques, habitat alterations and lethal removal. Also, per the National Environmental Policy Act regulations the Corps will also analyze a No Action alternative (status quo). Preliminary analyses of the benefits of reducing bird numbers with the preliminary action alternatives indicate increases in population growth rates for three of the thirteen ESA-listed salmonids by 0.5 to 1.5 percent. Any additional alternatives will be developed through public involvement and best available scientific information.

Scoping Process: a. The Corps invites affected Federal, State, local agencies, Native American tribes and other interested organizations and individuals to participate in the development of the DEIS. The Corps anticipates conducting public scoping meetings for the DEIS in late summer of 2012 although the exact date, time and location of these meeting have not been determined yet. Once meeting arrangements have been made, the Corps will publicize this information. The Corps will provide notice to the public of additional opportunities for public input on the EIS during review periods for the draft and final EIS.

b. Significant issues to be analyzed in the DEIS include, but are not limited to: avian predation of juvenile salmonids, management of the largest double-crested cormorant colony in the Western Region, potential impacts to fisheries outside the CRE, potential impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries and potential impacts to tribal fisheries.

c. The Corps will serve as the lead Federal agency in preparation of the DEIS. A decision will be made during the scoping process whether other agencies and/or tribes will serve in an official role as cooperating agencies.

The applicant has submitted an application for a Department of Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to construct and operate a 399-Megawatt AC (MWAC) solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generating facility known as the Panoche Valley Solar Farm (the Project). The Project would be located on private lands in San Benito County, CA. The 4,885-acre (7.6-square-mile) project site is approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the intersection of Panoche Road and Little Panoche Road, approximately 30 miles south of Los Banos and 60 miles west of Fresno. The project site is bordered by rangeland to the north and south, by the Gabilan Range to the west, and by the Panoche Hills to the east. The site elevation ranges from approximately 1,250 feet above mean sea level near the southeast end of the project to approximately 1,400 feet above mean sea level near the west end. Panoche Creek and Las Aguilas Creek flow through the project site. In addition, there are several stock ponds and stream segments in the northern portion of the project site. During the past forty years the project site has been used for grazing. Previously, crop production occurred over much of the project site.

The proposed project would be constructed in five phases and would include a substation, on-site access roads, and buried electrical collection conduit. The construction of three of the road crossings would result in 427 cubic yards of fill into Panoche Creek and Las Aguilas Creek, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Electricity generated from the project would be transmitted on-site to the state's electrical grid through two existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission lines.

Approximately 2,203 acres would be permanently disturbed by on-site facilities, and an additional 100 acres would be temporarily disturbed during construction. The proposed project would include development of the following components: Installation of approximately 3 million to 4 million photovoltaic panels; photovoltaic module steel support structures; electrical inverters and transformers; an electrical substation with switchyard; buried electrical collection conduit; an operations and maintenance (O&M) building; a septic system and leach field; a wastewater treatment facility and demineralization pond; on-site access roads; security fencing; and transmission support towers and line(s) to interconnect with the PG&E transmission lines that pass through the project site.

The EIS will include an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives. Currently, the following alternatives are expected to be analyzed in detail: The no action alternative (no permit issued), and the Applicant's proposed project (proposed action). In addition to the proposed action, the Corps may consider additional alternatives for potential detailed analysis.

Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS include, but are not limited to, impacts on biological resources (including threatened and endangered species), water resources (including wetlands), cultural resources, traffic and transportation, and air quality.

Other environmental review and consultation requirements for the proposed action include water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act; and Section 106 consultation pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

Scoping and Public Comment: All interested members of the public, including native communities and federally recognized Native American Tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups; and interested individuals, are invited to participate in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS. Written comments identifying environmental issues, concerns, and opportunities to be analyzed in the EIS will be accepted for 30 days following publication of this Notice of Intent in the Federal Register .

The Corps will hold two public scoping meetings for the EIS. Notice of these meetings will be provided in local news media and on the project Web site ( http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/regulatory/actionsofinterest.html ) at least 15 days prior to the date of the meeting. Members of the public and representatives of organizations and Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies are invited to attend. Interested parties may provide oral and written comments at the meetings.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Application for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) College Savings Account Research Demonstration Project.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0821.

Type of Review: Revision.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 571.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 30,590.

Abstract: Current State GEAR UP grantees that received new awards in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 or FY 2012, that select participating students beginning not later than seventh grade using the cohort approach and that have their cohort of students entering the ninth grade in the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 academic year are eligible to apply for funding. The purpose of this revision is to introduce the GEAR UP college savings account research demonstration project. The burden increase associated with the collection results from a program change to run this one-time college savings account demonstration project. This collection will results in a change of 26 respondents and an increase of 130 burden hours.

This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under Section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In addition, Congress expanded the Advisory Committee's mission in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 to include several important areas: access, Title IV modernization, early information and needs assessment and review and analysis of regulations. Specifically, the Advisory Committee is to review, monitor and evaluate the Department of Education's progress in these areas and report recommended improvements to Congress and the Secretary.

The Advisory Committee has scheduled this teleconference for the sole purpose of electing officers to serve a one-year term beginning October 1, 2012.

Space for the teleconference meeting is limited and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend. You may register by sending an email to the following email address: tracy.deanna.jones@ed.gov . Please include your name, title, affiliation, complete address (including internet and email, if available), and telephone and fax numbers. If you are unable to register electronically, you may fax your registration information to the Advisory Committee staff office at (202) 219-3032. You may also contact the Advisory Committee staff directly at (202) 219-2099. The registration deadline is Thursday, August 2, 2012.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the teleconference meeting (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, and/or materials in alternative format) should notify the Advisory Committee no later than Wednesday, August 1, 2012 by contacting Ms. Tracy Jones at (202) 219-2099 or via email at tracy.deanna.jones@ed.gov . We will attempt to meet requests after this date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accommodation. The teleconference site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

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

Records are kept for Advisory Committee proceedings, and are available for inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Information regarding the Advisory Committee is available on the Committee's Web site, www.ed.gov/ACSFA.

Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.

This appointee will join the current Board members which include:

Background: Section 10(a) of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal, State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions, community based environmental groups, and international organizations.

The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the Foundation are—

(A) Subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the environmental education and training activities and services of the United States Environmental Protection Agency;

(B) To conduct such other environmental education activities as will further the development of an environmentally conscious and responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;

(C) To participate with foreign entities and individuals in the conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities for environmental education and training to address environmental issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.

The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and projects to educate and train educational and environmental professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of environmental education and training programs and studies.

The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13 directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to environmental education and training. Members of the Board are appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register . The directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The term may be renewed once for an additional four years, pending successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee. The Administrator shall appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2 consecutive terms as a director.

Ms. Wonya Y. Lucas has been Chief Executive Officer and President of TV One, LLC since August 08, 2011. Ms. Lucas was most recently Executive Vice President of Discovery Channel, Chief Operating Officer of Discovery Channel, Executive Vice President of Science Channel and Chief Operating Officer of Science Channel at Discovery Communications Holding, LLC since June 2010. She served as Chief Marketing Officer of Discovery Communications Holding, LLC from March 24, 2008 to June 2010.

Prior to joining Discovery Communications in 2008, Lucas served as General Manager and Executive Vice President of The Weather Channel Networks, where she was responsible for corporate strategy and development, strategic marketing for The Weather Channel and weather.com, and operations and programming for The Weather Channel, The Weather Channel HD, Weatherscan, The Weather Channel Radio Network, and newspaper syndication.

Before joining The Weather Channel in 2002 as Executive Vice President of Marketing, Lucas held several positions at Turner Broadcasting System, including Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing for CNN Networks and Vice President of Business Operations and Network Development for TBS, TNT, Turner Classic Movies and Turner South. Her other experience includes brand management for The Coca-Cola Company and The Clorox Company.

In 2010, Lucas was named among the “75 Most Powerful Women in Business” by Black Enterprise magazine. Previous honors include listing among the 2009 “Leading Women in Business” and “Leading Minorities in Business” by Cablefax Daily, recognition as a “Woman To Watch” by Women in Cable Telecommunications, a Brand Builders Award at the 2006 Promax & BDA Conference, recognition as a “Women To Watch” in the 2005 Wonder Women of Cable TV Awards, and the Inspiration Award for “Woman of the Year” in the WICT-Atlanta's 2007 Red Letter Awards. Lucas serves on the Board of Directors of the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing and she was the co-chairperson for the 2007 CTAM Summit. She also has served as a board member for WICT, Inc. and is a graduate of the Betsy Magness Leadership Institute.

Ms. Lucas earned a master's degree in business administration from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business and a bachelor's degree in Industrial Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology.

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

Petitioners submitted a petition regarding KSG (received by EPA on October 27, 2010), requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V operating permit (#V-09-001). Petitioners alleged that the permit was not consistent with the CAA because: (1) KDAQ failed to provide an opportunity for meaningful public participation; (2) KDAQ failed to consider and respond to comments on alternatives; (3) KDAQ's decision to permit the KSG facility and the Thoroughbred Mine separately was arbitrary and capricious; (4) the best available control technology (BACT) analyses omitted consideration of clean fuels and processes; (5) emissions estimates from the flare and BACT for the flare were in error; (6) the permit failed to meet certain requirements for hazardous air pollutants; (7) KDAQ failed to accurately account for all emissions of volatile organic compounds in the potential-to-emit calculation; (8) the permit's monitoring requirements for a variety of different units and pollutants were inadequate; (9) KSG failed to accurately estimate, sufficiently control and adequately model particulate matter; (10) KDAQ failed to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to violations of the ozone national ambient air quality standard; and (11) the permit lacked the necessary PM 2.5 limit.

On June 22, 2012, the Administrator issued an Order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The Order explains EPA's rationale for partially granting and partially denying the petition.

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

Petitioners submitted a petition regarding Cash Creek (received by EPA on June 18, 2010), requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V operating permit (#V-09-006). Petitioners alleged that the permit was not consistent with the CAA because: (1) KDAQ failed to provide an opportunity for meaningful public participation; (2) KDAQ's calculation of the proposed facility's potential to emit volatile organic compounds (VOC), hydrogen sulfide and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) failed to account for full emissions from active flaring; (3) the permit's source-wide VOC emission limit was not enforceable as a practical matter; (4) the best available control technology (BACT) limits applicable to the flare during startup and steady-state operations were not supported by a proper BACT analysis; (5) the BACT limits applicable to the flare did not cover shutdown and malfunction periods; (6) the applicant incorrectly estimated fugitive emissions from equipment leaks; (7) KDAQ omitted numerous control options and relied on a faulty cost-effectiveness analysis in selecting BACT for equipment leaks; (8) KDAQ improperly determined that the source was minor for HAPs; (9) Cash Creek's calculation of particulate matter emissions from material handling assumed an unreasonably high control efficiency for wet suppression control methods and used an unreasonably low silt loading factor; (10) permit terms and conditions governing material handling were unenforceably vague and did not equate to the assumed control efficiencies; and (11) Cash Creek failed to perform an adequate ozone impacts analysis.

On June 22, 2012, the Administrator issued an Order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The Order explains EPA's rationale for partially granting and partially denying the petition.

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

This proposed consent decree would potentially resolve a law suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Environmental Defense Fund EDF). EDF alleges that EPA failed to perform its obligations under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), as they relate to the new source performance standards (“NSPS”) for municipal solid waste landfills (“MSW Landfills”), 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750—60.759). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires EPA to review, and if appropriate, revise NSPS not later than 8 years after their promulgation unless EPA determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of the standard. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA agrees that: (1) By May 1, 2013, EPA shall: (i) Perform an appropriate review and sign for publication one or a combination of the following: (A) a proposed rule containing revisions to NSPS Subpart WWW; or (B) a proposed determination not to revise NSPS Subpart WWW; or (ii) sign for publication a determination that review is not appropriate; and, (2) if EPA signs a proposed rule or a proposed determination, then no later than May 1, 2014, sign one or a combination of the following: (i) A final rule containing revisions to NSPS Subpart WWW, based on appropriate review; or, (ii) a final determination not to revise Subpart WWW, based on an appropriate review.

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 proposed consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed and the consent decree will be submitted for entry by the court.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0490) 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.

Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS based on the revised air quality criteria.

Air quality criteria and NAAQS have been established for O 3 to provide protection of public health and welfare from O 3 and other photochemical oxidants. Presently, the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for O 3 . The EPA's overall plan and schedule for this review is presented in the Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 1 A draft of the integrated review plan was released for public review and comment in September 2009 and was the subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 54562; October 22, 2009). 2 Comments received from that consultation and from the public were considered in finalizing the plan and in beginning the review of the air quality criteria.

As part of the EPA's review of the primary and secondary O 3 NAAQS, 3 the Agency is conducting quantitative assessments characterizing the: (1) Health risks associated with exposure to ambient O 3 ; (2) welfare risks associated with exposure to ambient O 3 ; and, (3) associated ambient air quality analyses. On or about July 16, 2012, the EPA is making available for public comment two draft assessment documents titled, Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, First External Review Draft and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, First External Review Draft. These draft assessments may be accessed online through the EPA's TTN Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html .

The EPA's plans for conducting these assessments, including the proposed scope and methods of the analyses, were presented in two planning documents titled, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment (henceforth, Scope and Methods Plans). 4 These documents were released for public comment in April 2011, and were the subject of a consultation with the CASAC on May 19-20, 2011 (76 FR 23809; April 28, 2011). In May 2012, a memo titled, Updates to information presented in the Scope and Methods Plans for the Ozone NAAQS Health and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessments, was made available that described changes to elements of the scope and methods plans and provided a brief explanation of each change and the reason for it.

The draft assessment documents announced today convey the approaches taken to assess exposures to ambient O 3 and to characterize associated health and welfare risks, as well as present the initial key results, observations, and related uncertainties associated with the quantitative analyses performed.

In addition, on or about August 13, 2012, the EPA will make available the first draft document titled Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, First External Review Draft. This document will serve to “bridge the gap” between the scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards. The Policy Assessment will build upon information presented in the Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Third draft)  5 and the two draft assessment documents described above. At the same time, the EPA will make available appendices and additional technical materials that support the first draft Policy Assessment and first draft Risk and Exposure Assessments. The first draft Policy Assessment, appendices, and additional technical materials may be accessed online through EPA's TTN Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.

The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of these three draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC that will be held in September 2012. Information about these public meetings, including the dates and locations, will be published as a separate notice in the Federal Register . Following the CASAC meeting, the EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing revisions to these documents.

The draft documents briefly described above do not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the documents.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0600.

Title: Application to Participate in a FCC Auction.

Form Number: FCC Form 175.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 500 respondents; 500 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i) and 309(j)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the FCC. If the applicants wish to submit information which they believe is confidential, they may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from OMB. There is no change to the reporting requirement.

The information collected will be used by the Commission to determine if the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in a FCC auction. In addition, if the applicant applies for status as a particular type of auction participant pursuant to the Commission's rules, the Commission will use the information to determine if the applicant is eligible for the status requested.

The Commission's auction rules and requirements are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is limited to serious qualified applicants; to deter possible abuse of the bidding and licensing processes; and to enhance the use of competitive bidding to assign Commission licenses in furtherance of the public interest. The Commission uses additional information collected from applicants claiming eligibility for small business benefits to ensure that only legitimate small businesses reap the benefits of the Commission's designated entity program. Over the last decade, the Commission has engaged in numerous rulemakings and adjudicatory investigations to prevent companies from circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility rules. The Commission uses this form for all upcoming auctions.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0484.

Title: Sections 4.1 and 4.2, Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications (NORS).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 118 respondents; 15,444 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours to 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(k), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 615a, 621(b)(3), 621(d) and 1302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and section 1704 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. 3504.

Total Annual Burden: 29,647 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Outage reports filed pursuant to Part 4 of the Commission's rules are presumed confidential. The information in the filings may be shared with the Department of Homeland Security only under appropriate confidential disclosure provisions. Other persons seeking disclosure must follow the procedures delineated in 47 CFR 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules for requests for and disclosure of information.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this revised information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during this comment period to obtain the full, three year clearance from them. The Commission is reporting a 9,909 hour program change increase to the Commission's previous burden estimates. The increase in the burden is due to adoption of FCC 12-22, Report and Order, extending the Part 4 outage reporting requirements to interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) which are new respondents subject to the requirements of this information collection.

Specifically, the Commission extended mandatory outage reporting rules to facilities-based and non-facilities based interconnected VoIP service providers and applied the current Part 4 definition of “outage” to outages of interconnected VoIP service, covering the complete loss of service and/or connectivity to customers at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of interconnected VoIP services and results in complete loss of service; or potentially affects any special offices and facilities such as a 911 facility.

Collecting data on significant outages of interconnected VoIP services will help the Commission to monitor compliance with the statutory 911 obligations of interconnected VoIP service providers, as well as help ensure the Nation's current and future 911 systems are as reliable and resilient as possible both on a day-to-day basis and in times of a major emergency. The Commission recognizes that consumers are increasingly relying on Internet Protocol (IP)-based technologies as substitutes for communications services provided by older communications technologies, and increasingly use interconnected VoIP services in lieu of traditional telephone service. As of December 31, 2010, 31 percent of the more than 87 million residential telephone subscriptions in the United States were users of interconnected VoIP providers—an increase of 21 percent (from 22.4 million to 27.1 million) from the end of 2009. Additionally, the Commission estimates that approximately 31 percent of residential wireline 911 calls are made using VoIP service.

The information collected is administered by the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) which maintains an Internet Web site portal for the electronic submission of he required outage reports. In addition, provision is made for the submission of required data by other than electronic means in cases where electronic submission is not feasible. In cases where specified offices and facilities (other than 911 offices and facilities) are submitted with 120 minutes of an outage to the Commission's duty officer (a post staffed 24 hours a day) in the FCC's Communications and Crisis Management Center in Washington, DC.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0931.

Title: Section 80.103, Digital Selective Calling (DSC) Operating Procedures—Maritime Mobile Identity (MMSI).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit entities and Federal Government.

Number of Respondents: 40,000 respondents; 40,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is in 47 U.S.C. sections 154, 303, 307(e), 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The reporting requirement is contained in international agreements and ITU-R M.541.9.

Total Annual Burden: 10,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. The FCC maintains a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records” that covers the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that marine VHF radio licensees maintain under 47 CFR 80.103.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is a need for confidentiality with respect to all owners of Marine VHF radios with Digital Selective Calling (DSC) capability in this collection. The licensee records will be publicly available and routinely used in accordance with subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974. FRN numbers and material which is afforded confidential treatment pursuant to a request made under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules will not be available for public inspection. Any personally identifiable information (PII) that individual applicants provide is covered by a system of records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”, and these and all other records may be disclosed pursuant to the Routine Uses as stated in the SORN.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during this comment period to obtain the full, three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting an extension (no change in the reporting and/or third party disclosure requirements. There is no change in the Commission's previous burden estimates of 2009.

The information collected is necessary to require owners of marine VHF radios with Digital Selective Calling (DSC) capability to register information such as the name, address, type of vessel with a private entity issuing marine mobile service identities (MMSI). The information would be used by search and rescue personnel to identify vessels in distress and to select the proper rescue units and search methods. The requirement to collect this information is contained in international agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard and private sector entities that issue MMSI's.

The information is used by private entities to maintain a database used to provide information about the vessel owner in distress using marine VHF radios with DSC capability. If the data were not collected, the U.S. Coast Guard would not have access to this information which would increase the time and effort needed to complete a search and rescue operation.

On January 31, 2012, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Examination of Online Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Promotion” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0714. The approval expires on July 31, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

This information collection approval request is for FDA guidance on the process for formally resolving scientific and procedural disputes in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that cannot be resolved at the division level. The guidance describes procedures for formally appealing such disputes to the office or center level and for submitting information to assist center officials in resolving the issue(s) presented. The guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply provisions of the existing regulations regarding internal Agency review of decisions (§ 10.75 (21 CFR 10.75)) and dispute resolution during the investigational new drug (IND) process (§ 312.48 (21 CFR 312.48)) and the new drug application/abbreviated new drug application (NDA/ANDA) process (§ 314.103 (21 CFR 314.103)). In addition, the guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply the specific Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goals for major dispute resolution associated with the development and review of PDUFA products.

Existing regulations, which appear primarily in 21 CFR parts 10, 312, and 314, establish procedures for the resolution of scientific and procedural disputes between interested persons and the Agency, CDER, and CBER. All Agency decisions on such matters are based on information in the administrative file (§ 10.75(d)). In general, the information in an administrative file is collected under existing regulations in part 312 (OMB control number 0910-0014), part 314 (OMB control number 0910-0001), and part 601 (21 CFR part 601) (OMB control number 0910-0338), which specify the information that manufacturers must submit so that FDA may properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products. This information is usually submitted as part of an IND, NDA, or biologics license application (BLA), or as a supplement to an approved application. While FDA already possesses in the administrative file the information that would form the basis of a decision on a matter in dispute resolution, the submission of particular information regarding the request itself and the data and information relied on by the requestor in the appeal would facilitate timely resolution of the dispute. The guidance describes the following collection of information not expressly specified under existing regulations: The submission of the request for dispute resolution as an amendment to the application for the underlying product, including the submission of supporting information with the request for dispute resolution.

Agency regulations (§§ 312.23(11)(d), 314.50, 314.94, and 601.2) state that information provided to the Agency as part of an IND, NDA, ANDA, or BLA is to be submitted in triplicate and with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany submissions under INDs and Form FDA 356h must accompany submissions under NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs. Both forms have valid OMB control numbers as follows: FDA Form 1571—OMB control number 0910-0014, and FDA Form 356h—OMB control number 0910-0338.

In the guidance document, CDER and CBER ask that a request for formal dispute resolution be submitted as an amendment to the application for the underlying product and that it be submitted to the Agency in triplicate with the appropriate form attached, either Form FDA 1571 or Form FDA 356h. The Agency recommends that a request be submitted as an amendment in this manner for two reasons: To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire underlying application and to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the Agency's tracking databases enables the appropriate Agency official to monitor progress on the resolution of the dispute and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.

CDER and CBER have determined and the guidance recommends that the following information should be submitted to the appropriate center with each request for dispute resolution so that the Center may quickly and efficiently respond to the request: (1) A brief but comprehensive statement of each issue to be resolved, including a description of the issue, the nature of the issue (i.e., scientific, procedural, or both), possible solutions based on information in the administrative file, whether informal dispute resolution was sought prior to the formal appeal, whether advisory committee review is sought, and the expected outcome; (2) a statement identifying the review division/office that issued the original decision on the matter and, if applicable, the last Agency official that attempted to formally resolve the matter; (3) a list of documents in the administrative file, or additional copies of such documents, that are deemed necessary for resolution of the issue(s); and (4) a statement that the previous supervisory level has already had the opportunity to review all of the material relied on for dispute resolution. The information that the Agency suggests submitting with a formal request for dispute resolution consists of: (1) Statements describing the issue from the perspective of the person with a dispute, (2) brief statements describing the history of the matter, and (3) the documents previously submitted to FDA under an OMB approved collection of information.

Based on FDA's experience with dispute resolution, the Agency expects that most persons seeking formal dispute resolution will have gathered the materials listed previously when identifying the existence of a dispute with the Agency. Consequently, FDA anticipates that the collection of information attributed solely to the guidance will be minimal.

Description of respondents: A sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer of a drug or biological product regulated by the Agency under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) (Pub. L. 99-660) who requests formal resolution of a scientific or procedural dispute.

Burden Estimate: Provided in this document is an estimate of the annual reporting burden for requests for dispute resolution. Based on data collected from review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately nine sponsors and applicants (respondents) submit requests for formal dispute resolution to CDER annually and approximately one respondent submits requests for formal dispute resolution to CBER annually. The total annual responses are the total number of requests submitted to CDER and CBER in 1 year, including requests for dispute resolution that a single respondent submits more than one time. FDA estimates that CDER receives approximately 18 requests annually and CBER receives approximately 1 request annually. The hours per response is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information to be submitted with a request for formal dispute resolution in accordance with this guidance, including the time it takes to gather and copy brief statements describing the issue from the perspective of the person with the dispute, brief statements describing the history of the matter, and supporting information that has already been submitted to the Agency. Based on experience, FDA estimates that approximately 8 hours on average would be needed per response. Therefore, FDA estimates that 152 hours will be spent per year by respondents requesting formal dispute resolution under the guidance.

In the Federal Register of March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16237), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received no comments on the information collection.

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

On March 8, 2012, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled Survey of “Health Care Providers' Responses to Medical Device Labeling” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0715. The approval expires on July 31, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

This technology is based on the discovery of differentially expressed thyroid (DET) genes and their encoded proteins whose expression levels can be correlated to benign or malignant states in a thyroid cell. Specifically, this data arose from a microarray analysis of genes expressed in the eight subtypes of thyroid tumors that are typically difficult to diagnose by cytology of fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies. Analysis of the (DET) genes led to the development of 6 gene and 10 gene models that distinguish benign vs. malignant papillary thyroid tumors. Subsequently, a 72 gene model has been developed for diagnosing less common forms of thyroid cancer such as follicular carcinoma. These results provide a molecular classification system for thyroid tumors and this in turn provides a more accurate diagnostic tool for the clinician managing patients with suspicious thyroid lesions. In addition to diagnostics, this invention can be used in the staging of thyroid malignancies by measuring changes in DET gene and protein expression relative to reference cells. Finally, this invention can also be used in the discovery of therapeutic agents through the detection in changes of DET gene and protein levels prior to and after treatment.

The prospective exclusive license and any further license applications received as objections to this Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License, will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Any additional applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Notice of Application for Designatin As a Single Family Foreclosure Commissioner (SF Mortgage Foreclosure Act of 1994).

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2510-0012.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Under the Single Family Mortgage Foreclsoure Act of 1994, HUD may exercise a nonjudicial Power of Sale of single family HUD-held mortgages and may appoint Foreclsoure Commissioners to do this. HUD needs the Notice and resulting appliations for compliance with the Act's requirements that commissioners be qualified. Most respondents will be attorneys, but anyone may apply.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Members of affected public: Business or Other For-Profit and Individuals or Households.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement of collection.

Newmont Mining Corporation (Newmont) proposes to construct and operate an open-pit gold mining operation, which would include one open pit, a heap leach pad, one waste rock dump, a tailings storage facility, and other ancillary facilities. The mine would be located on the eastern side of the Pequop Mountain Range, about 30 miles east of Wells, Nevada, and 32 miles west of West Wendover, Nevada, and 5 miles south of Interstate 80. Currently, Fronteer Development, a subsidiary of Newmont, is authorized to disturb up to 115 acres for exploration purposes. The associated disturbance for the proposed operations would increase to 1,631 acres of public land, including 480 acres of split estate lands of Federal surface and private subsurface. The projected life of the mine is 8 to 14 years, including construction, operations, and closure and post-closure monitoring. An estimated annual workforce for operations would be approximately 300 to 500 people during the life of the mine.

Fronteer is currently conducting exploration activities in this area that were analyzed in two environmental assessments (EA), the NewWest Gold USA Inc. Long Canyon Exploration Project (July 2008, EA No. BLM/EK/PL-2008/011) and Fronteer Development (USA) Inc. Expanded Long Canyon Exploration Project (June 2011, DOI-BLM-NV-N030-2011-00001-EA). The Long Canyon Mine is in conformance with the Wells Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the proposal is in conformance with the approved decisions of the RMP.

The issues identified during scoping will be used to develop a range of alternatives, including a no-action alternative. Mitigation measures will be considered to minimize environmental impacts and to ensure the proposed action does not result in unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues:

(a) Potential effects to archaeological resources in the area;

(b) Potential effects to greater sage-grouse posed by the proximity to an active sage-grouse lek;

(c) Potential effects to viewshed in and around areas of Visual Resources Management Classes I through IV;

(d) Potential impacts to the water supply of Wendover, Utah, and West Wendover, Nevada; and

(e) Potential effects to the Area 7 mule deer herd and the mule deer migration corridor associated with the herd. The proposed project area is located in a mule deer migration corridor.

The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to help fulfill the public involvement process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy, and tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.

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

These surveys were executed to meet the administrative needs of various federal agencies; the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs or Bureau of Reclamation. The lands surveyed are:

The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Montana. At these meetings, topics will include: Miles City and Billings Field Office manager updates, subcommittee briefings, work sessions, and other issues that the council may raise. All meetings are open to the public and the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation, or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as provided above.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the New York University College of Dentistry. The human remains were removed from Rincon, in Santa Cruz County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the New York University College of Dentistry professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in Rincon, in Santa Cruz County, CA by an unknown individual. At an unknown date, the remains were catalogued into the Department of Physical Anthropology, Museum of the American Indian. In 1956, the remains were transferred to Dr. Theodore Kazamiroff, New York University College of Dentistry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the New York University College of Dentistry have determined that:

• Based on catalog information and forensic examination, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the southern Yokut and western Mono, who are represented today by The Tribes.

• The unratified treaty of 1851 indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the southern Yokut and western Mono, who are represented today by The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Louis Terracio, New York University College of Dentistry, 345 East 24th St, New York, NY 10010, telephone (212) 998-9917, before August 20, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The New York University College of Dentistry is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the New York University College of Dentistry. The human remains were removed from San Joaquin County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the New York University College of Dentistry professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Rhoads Mound in San Joaquin County, CA. At an unknown date, they became part of the collection of H.K. Deisher, which was sold in 1905. In 1916, the remains were catalogued into the collection of the Department of Physical Anthropology, Museum of the American Indian. In 1956, the remains were transferred to Dr. Theodore Kazamiroff, New York University College of Dentistry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Rhoads Mound is a protohistoric site (A.D. 1500-1770) located on Roberts Island in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta. The island lies at the southern edge of aboriginal territory of the Eastern (Bay and Plains) Miwok and the northern edge of aboriginal territory of the Northern Valley Yokut.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Walkers Slough Mound in San Joaquin County, CA. At an unknown date, they became part of the collection of H.K. Deisher, which was sold in 1905. In 1916, the remains were catalogued into the collection of the Department of Physical Anthropology, Museum of the American Indian. In 1956, the remains were transferred to Dr. Theodore Kazamiroff, New York University College of Dentistry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The Walkers Slough Mound is a historic site (A.D. 1770-1850) located near Stockton, in the area of the San Joaquin River Valley. The mound lies at the southern edge of aboriginal territory of the Eastern (Bay and Plains) Miwok and the northern edge of aboriginal territory of the Northern Valley Yokut.

The territorial divisions within the aboriginal lands of the Eastern (Bay and Plains) Miwok and the Northern Valley Yokut was diffuse and shifted through time. During consultation, tribal representatives stated that the early anthropological studies of the Yokuts and Miwok incorrectly divided these groups into discrete tribelets and overemphasized linguistic differences. Tribal representatives explained that although different dialects were spoken, the Miwok spoke a mutually intelligible language. The Yokuts also spoke a mutually intelligible language with regional dialects. Tribal representatives indicated that high population mobility and frequent intermarriage between groups during the historic period has resulting in a relationship of shared group identity for all Miwok tribes. Similarly, tribal representatives indicated that the Yokuts are all interrelated due to high population mobility and frequent intermarriage between groups.

Tribal representatives identified the descendants of the Eastern Miwok among the members of the Federally-recognized Miwok communities, including the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California. Tribal representatives identified the descendants of the Northern Valley Yokut among the Federally recognized Yokut tribes, including the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

Officials of the New York University College of Dentistry have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Louis Terracio, New York University College of Dentistry, 345 East 24th St, New York, NY 10010, telephone (212) 998-9917, before August 20, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The New York University College of Dentistry is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the collections of the University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Human remains of three individuals and associated funerary objects were removed from locations along the west shore of Flathead Lake in Lake County, MT. Human remains of one individual were removed from within the city limits of Missoula, MT.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the institution that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Montana professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana.

In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the west shore of Flathead Lake, north of the Flathead Reservation, in Lake County, MT. This pre-contact burial was disturbed by excavation equipment and then turned over to the University of Montana, Department of Anthropology. The remains were discovered in the University's collection in 2011. Of the two individuals present, one is the nearly complete skeleton of an older female, at least 50 years of age at death. The second individual, represented only by several vertebrae, was also elderly, but exact age and sex cannot be determined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a primary, flexed burial in a rock outcropping on the west shore of Flathead Lake, in Lake County, MT, during real estate development. The site is within the boundaries of the Flathead Reservation but on private land near the town of Dayton, MT. Local amateur archaeologist, Thain White, contacted Carling Malouf of the University of Montana, Department of Anthropology, and the remains and associated funerary objects were removed to the University of Montana in Missoula. The human remains and associated funerary objects were discovered in the University's collection in 2011. The mostly complete skeleton is of a male, aged 35 to 50 years at death. No known individual was identified. The eight associated funerary objects are 1 large (6 cm) turtle-backed stone scraper, 1 chalcedony flake, 2 shell beads, 3 antler pieces, and 1 lot of faunal remains.

In 1950, during excavations for a business establishment human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed by a bulldozer from an historical Indian burial in the city of Missoula, MT. This burial site location is within the aboriginal territory of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The nearly complete skeletal remains of a child, aged 7 to 8 years at death, and associated funerary objects were transferred by the County Coroner to the University of Montana, Department of Anthropology, for analysis by Carling Malouf. In 2011, the human remains and associated funerary objects were discovered to be associated with documentation of an Indian burial. No known individual was identified. The six associated funerary objects are 1 commercially-manufactured purse, 1 pink glass bead, 1 Kootenai style leather moccasin tongue insert, 1 rawhide pouch, and 2 rawhide fragments.

Officials of the University of Montana have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 14 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Sally Thompson, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, telephone (406) 243-5525 before August 20, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The University of Montana is responsible for notifying the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO. One set of remains was discovered in Rio Blanco County, CO. The exact locations from which the three additional sets of human remains were recovered are unknown.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

In 2012, a detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by History Colorado professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (formerly the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (formerly Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (formerly the Pueblo of San Juan); Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, Colorado; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah, were invited to consult but did not respond.

In November 2011, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were inadvertently discovered by a utility crew excavating a flow line within an active oil field owned by Chevron Oil Company in Rio Blanco County, CO. The Office of the State Archaeologist was notified and conferred with the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah, and the landowner. Because the unmarked burial was threatened, the remains were disinterred and transferred to History Colorado. They are identified as Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Case Number 282. Osteological analysis determined the remains are of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects are 1 round hammerstone, 2 bone pendants, 1 grayware pottery sherd, and 1 bone awl. The estimated antiquity is unknown.

At an unknown date, a schoolteacher obtained human remains representing, at minimum, one individual. In 2011, after the teacher retired, his successor discovered the remains in the classroom and turned them over to Jefferson County law enforcement, who notified the Office of the State Archaeologist. The remains were transferred to History Colorado in December 2011. They are identified as OAHP Case Number 283. The location from which the remains were removed is not known. Osteological analysis determined that the remains are of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The estimated antiquity is unknown.

Sometime in 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Park County, CO, although the exact location is unknown. In 1988, the human remains were transferred to Dr. Michael Charney, a former professor at Colorado State University. Dr. Charney's analysis determined that they were not of forensic interest and that the remains are of Native American ancestry. He reported this to the Park County Coroner and retained the remains. In 1998, the remains were claimed as private property by the widow of Dr. Charney after his death. The human remains were subsequently taken into custody by the Larimer County Sheriff's Office. Following litigation in 2006, the remains were inadvertently returned to Park County because the box they were in stated they were of forensic interest. In December 2011, the Park County Coroner discovered the error and transferred the remains to History Colorado, who had previously received a court order to repatriate all Native American human remains formerly in the possession of Dr. Charney, in accordance with Colorado State burial law and NAGPRA. They are identified as OAHP Case Number 284. Additional osteological analysis by History Colorado confirmed that the remains are of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The estimated antiquity is unknown.

In August 2011, a private citizen reported a discovery of human remains representing, at minimum, one individual to the Clear Creek County coroner. They are identified as OAHP Case Number 285. They were found near the site of a house that had burned down in October 2010. The exact location of removal is unknown. The Office of the State Archaeologist was notified and the remains were transferred to History Colorado in December 2011. Osteological analysis determined that the remains are of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The estimated antiquity is unknown.

Officials at History Colorado have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains described above and any present-day Indian tribe.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the five objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near the individual human remains at the time of death or later as a part of the death rite ceremony.

History Colorado has determined that the human remains are “culturally unidentifiable” under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.9 (e)(6). In 2006, History Colorado, in partnership with the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah, conducted consultations with the tribes that have ancestral ties to the state of Colorado to develop the process for disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains and associated funerary objects originating from inadvertent discoveries on Colorado state and private lands. As a result of the consultation, a process was developed, titled Process for Consultation, Transfer, and Reburial of Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects Originating From Inadvertent Discoveries on Colorado State and Private Lands, (2008), (unpublished, on file with the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation).

OAHP 282 was recovered from Rio Blanco County, which is located in the Basin and Plateau Consultation Region, as established by the Process. Tribes with known aboriginal ties to this region and those who have asked to be notified of discoveries in the Basin and Plateau Consultation Region were invited to consult for OAHP 282. All tribes with ancestral ties to Colorado were invited to consult regarding OAHP 283-285, due to their vague provenience information.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) is responsible for recommending specific actions for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. On November 3-4, 2006, the Process was presented to the Review Committee for consideration. A January 8, 2007, letter on behalf of the Review Committee from the Designated Federal Officer transmitted the provisional authorization to proceed with the Process upon receipt of formal responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, subject to forthcoming conditions imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. On May 15-16, 2008, the responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma were submitted to the Review Committee. On September 23, 2008, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, as the designee for the Secretary of the Interior, transmitted the authorization for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains according to the Process and NAGPRA, pending publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register . This notice fulfills that requirement.

43 CFR 10.11 was promulgated March 15, 2010, providing a process for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains recovered from tribal or aboriginal lands as established by the final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or U.S. Court of Claims, a treaty, Act of Congress, or Executive Order, or other authoritative governmental sources. There is no evidence indicating that the human remains reported in this notice originated from tribal or aboriginal lands, making them eligible for disposition under the Process.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, before August 20, 2012. Transfer of control of the human remains to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

History Colorado is responsible for notifying the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (formerly Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (formerly the Pueblo of San Juan); Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the New York University College of Dentistry. The human remains were removed from Fresno County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the New York University College of Dentistry professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in the city of Fresno, in Fresno County, CA. In 1923, the remains were catalogued into the collection of the Department of Physical Anthropology, Museum of the American Indian. In 1956, the remains were transferred to Dr. Theodore Kazamiroff, New York University College of Dentistry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the New York University College of Dentistry have determined that:

• Based on catalog information and forensic examination, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Yokuts and southern Miwok, who are represented today by The Tribes.

• The unratified treaty of 1851 indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Yokuts and southern Miwok, who are represented today by The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Louis Terracio, New York University College of Dentistry, 345 East 24th St, New York, NY 10010, telephone (212) 998-9917, before August 20, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The New York University College of Dentistry is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

On June 1, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit application received. The permit was issued on July 13, 2012 to: Gerald Kooyman, Permit No. 2013-006.

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Parcel Select Contract 3 to the competitive product list. 1 The Postal Service asserts that Parcel Select Contract 3 is a competitive product “not of general applicability” within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). Request at 1. The Request has been assigned Docket No. MC2012-32.

The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B. The instant contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2012-40.

Request. To support its Request, the Postal Service filed six attachments as follows:

• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;

• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;

• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;

• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;

• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and

• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.

In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Karen F. Key, Manager, Shipping Products, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Id. Attachment D at 1. Ms. Key contends that there will be no issue of market dominant products subsidizing competitive products as a result of this contract. Id.

Related contract. The Postal Service included a redacted version of the related contract with the Request. Id. Attachment B. The contract is scheduled to become effective on the later of the following dates: (1) The day after the Commission issues all necessary regulatory approval; or (2) August 1, 2012. Id. at 7. The contract will expire July 31, 2015, unless, among other things, either party terminates the agreement upon 3 months' written notice to the other party. Id. The Postal Service represents that the contract is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). Id. Attachment D.

The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal. Id. Attachment F. It maintains that the redacted portions of the contract, customer-identifying information, and related financial information, should remain confidential. Id. at 3. This information includes the price structure, underlying costs and assumptions, pricing formulas, information relevant to the customer's mailing profile, and cost coverage projections. Id. The Postal Service asks the Commission to protect customer-identifying information from public disclosure indefinitely. Id. at 7.

The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-32 and CP2012-40 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Parcel Select Contract 3 product and the related contract, respectively.

Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 23, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site ( http://www.prc.gov ).

The Commission appoints Natalie Rea Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-32 and CP2012-40 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie Rea Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.

3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than July 23, 2012.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register .

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

1. The Companies are open-end management investment companies registered under the Act and organized as either a Massachusetts business trust or a Maryland corporation. Each Company or Company's separate series pursues distinct investment objectives and strategies. The Adviser, a New York corporation, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and serves as investment adviser to the Companies. 1 The Distributor is a New York corporation and is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The Distributor serves as the distributor for the Companies.

2. Applicants request an exemption to permit registered management investment companies and unit investments trusts that operate as a “fund of funds” and that are not part of the same “group of investment companies,” within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act, as the Companies (“Unrelated Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Companies or separate series of the Companies that do not operate as “funds of funds” (“Underlying Funds”)  2 in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, and to permit the Underlying Funds, the Distributor (or any principal underwriter for an Underlying Fund), and any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act (“Broker”) to sell shares of an Underlying Fund to an Unrelated Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. Applicants request that the relief apply to: (1) Each registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that currently or subsequently is part of the same “group of investment companies,” within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act, as the Companies, and that is advised or sponsored by the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser (such registered open-end management investment companies or their series are included in the term “Underlying Funds”); (2) each Unrelated Fund of Funds that enters into a Participation Agreement (as defined below) with an Underlying Fund to purchase shares of the Underlying Fund; and (3) any principal underwriter to an Underlying Fund or Broker selling shares of an Underlying Fund. 3

3. Each Unrelated Fund of Funds will be advised by or, in the case of a unit investment company, sponsored by, an investment adviser, within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act, that is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act (an “Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, respectively”). An Unrelated Fund of Funds or its Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor may contract with an investment adviser, including the Adviser or its affiliates, that meets the definition of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (an “Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser”). Applicants state that Unrelated Funds of Funds will be interested in using the Underlying Funds as part of their overall investment strategy.

4. Applicants also request an exemption to the extent necessary to permit any existing or future funds that operate as “funds of funds” and that are part of the same “group of investment companies,” within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act, as the Companies (“Related Funds of Funds”) and which invest in other Underlying Funds in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act, and which are also eligible to invest in securities (as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act) in reliance on rule 12d1-2 under the Act, also to invest, consistent with their investment objective, policies, strategies and limitations, in financial instruments that may not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (“Other Investments”). 4

5. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each Related Fund of Fund's board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged by the Related Fund of Fund's investment adviser to ensure that they are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company in which the Related Fund of Funds may invest.

1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, and any broker or dealer from selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.

2. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants is seeking an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act to permit Unrelated Funds of Funds to acquire shares of the Underlying Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), and an Underlying Fund, any principal underwriter for an Underlying Fund, and any Broker to sell shares of an Underlying Fund to an Unrelated Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.

3. Applicants state that the terms and conditions of the application appropriately address the concerns underlying sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees, and overly complex fund structures. Accordingly, applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

4. Applicants believe that neither an Unrelated Fund of Funds nor an Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate would be able to exert undue influence over the Underlying Funds. 5 To limit the control that a Unrelated Fund of Funds may have over an Underlying Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or sponsored by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund for Funds Sponsor (the “Unrelated Fund of Funds Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) an Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser, any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser (the “Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisory Group”). Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Underlying Funds, including that no Unrelated Fund of Funds or Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an open-end fund) will cause an Underlying Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of any underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser, subadviser, sponsor, or employee of the Unrelated Fund of Funds, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser, subadviser, sponsor, or employee is an affiliated person. An Underwriting Affiliate does not include any person whose relationship to an Underlying Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act.

5. Applicants do not believe that the proposed fund of funds arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of each Unrelated Fund of Funds, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” (within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act) (“Independent Board Members”), will find that the advisory fees charged under such advisory contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Underlying Fund in which the Unrelated Fund of Funds may invest. In addition, an Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Underlying Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from an Underlying Fund by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor or affiliated person of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, by an Underlying Fund, in connection with the investment by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in the Underlying Fund. Applicants also state that with respect to registered separate accounts that invest in an Unrelated Fund of Funds, no sales load will be charged at the Unrelated Fund of Funds level or at the Underlying Fund level. 6 Other sales charges and service fees, as defined in Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the NASD (“NASD Conduct Rules”), if any, will only be charged at the Unrelated Fund of Funds level or at the Underlying Fund level, not both. With respect to other investments in an Unrelated Fund of Funds, any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of the Unrelated Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in Rule 2830 of the NASD Conduct Rules.

6. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except in certain circumstances identified in condition 12 below. Applicants also represent that to ensure that Unrelated Funds of Funds comply with the terms and conditions of the requested exemption from section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, an Unrelated Fund of Funds must enter into a participation agreement between a Company, on behalf of the relevant Underlying Fund, and the Unrelated Funds of Funds (“Participation Agreement”) before investing in an Underlying Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A). The Participation Agreement will require the Unrelated Fund of Funds to adhere to the terms and conditions of the requested order. The Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgment from the Unrelated Fund of Funds that it may rely on the requested order only to invest in the Underlying Funds and not in any other registered investment company or series thereof.

1. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits sales or purchases of securities between a registered investment company and any affiliated person of the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the other person.

2. Applicants seek relief from section 17(a) to permit an Underlying Fund that is an affiliated person of an Unrelated Fund of Funds because the Unrelated Fund of Funds holds 5% or more of the Underlying Fund's shares to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from an Unrelated Fund of Funds. Applicants state that any proposed transactions directly between an Underlying Fund and an Unrelated Fund of Funds will be consistent with the policies of each Underlying Fund and Unrelated Fund of Funds. The Participation Agreement will require any Unrelated Fund of Funds that purchases shares from an Underlying Fund to represent that the purchase of shares from the Underlying Fund by a Unrelated Fund of Funds will be accomplished in compliance with the investment restrictions of the Unrelated Fund of Funds and will be consistent with the investment policies set forth in the Unrelated Fund of Funds' registration statement.

3. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (i) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (iii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

4. Applicants submit that the proposed transactions satisfy the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. 7 Applicants state that the terms of the transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching. Applicants note that any consideration paid for the purchase or redemption of shares directly from an Underlying Fund will be based on the net asset value of the Underlying Fund. Applicants state that the proposed transactions will be consistent with the policies of each Underlying Fund and Unrelated Fund of Funds and with the general purposes of the Act.

1. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquiring company and acquired company are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end management investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.

2. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities issued by another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (1) Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (2) securities (other than securities issued by an investment company); and (3) securities issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2, “securities” means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act.

3. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would comply with the provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Related Funds of Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Related Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Related Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. The members of an Unrelated Fund of Funds Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of an Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of an Underlying Fund, the Unrelated Fund of Funds Advisory Group or the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of an Underlying Fund, it (except for any member of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Advisory Group or Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisory Group that is a separate account funding variable insurance contract) will vote its shares of the Underlying Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Underlying Fund's shares. This condition does not apply to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisory Group with respect to an Underlying Fund for which the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act. A registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts will seek voting instructions from its contract holders and will vote its shares in accordance with the instructions received and will vote those shares for which no instructions were received in the same proportion as the shares for which instructions were received. An unregistered separate account funding variable insurance contracts will either (i) vote its shares of the Underlying Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Underlying Fund's shares; or (ii) seek voting instructions from its contract holders and vote its shares in accordance with the instructions received and vote those shares for which no instructions were received in the same proportion as the shares for which instructions were received.

2. No Unrelated Fund of Funds or Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in shares of an Underlying Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Unrelated Fund of Funds or an Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Underlying Fund or an Underlying Fund Affiliate.

3. The board of directors or trustees of an Unrelated Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to assure that the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund Funds Sponsor and any Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadviser(s) are conducting the investment program of the Unrelated Fund of Funds without taking into account any consideration received by the Unrelated Fund of Funds or an Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate from an Underlying Fund or an Underlying Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.

4. Once an investment by an Unrelated Fund of Funds in the securities of an Underlying Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of the Underlying Fund (the “Board”), including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will determine that any consideration paid by the Underlying Fund to an Unrelated Fund of Funds or an Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (a) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Underlying Fund; (b) is within the range of consideration that the Underlying Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (c) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between an Underlying Fund and its investment adviser(s) or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such investment adviser(s).

5. No Unrelated Fund of Funds or Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an Underlying Fund) will cause an Underlying Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.

6. The Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Underlying Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by an Unrelated Fund of Funds in the securities of the Underlying Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in the Underlying Fund. The Board shall consider, among other things, (i) whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Underlying Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Underlying Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board shall take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to assure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interests of shareholders.

7. Each Underlying Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Unrelated Fund of Funds in the securities of an Underlying Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.

8. Before investing in shares of an Underlying Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), the Unrelated Fund of Funds and Underlying Fund will execute a Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that their boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers and/or sponsors understand the terms and conditions of the order and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in shares of an Underlying Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Unrelated Fund of Funds will notify the Underlying Fund of the investment. At such time, the Unrelated Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Underlying Fund a list of the names of each Unrelated Fund of Funds Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Unrelated Fund of Funds will notify the Underlying Fund of any changes to the list of the names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Underlying Fund and the Unrelated Fund of Funds will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.

9. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Unrelated Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will find that the advisory fees charged under such advisory contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Underlying Fund in which the Unrelated Fund of Funds may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Unrelated Fund of Funds.

10. An Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Underlying Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from an Underlying Fund by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor or affiliated persons of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Adviser or Unrelated Fund of Funds Sponsor by the Underlying Fund, in connection with the investment by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in the Underlying Fund. Any Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers will waive fees otherwise payable to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers, directly or indirectly, by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from any Underlying Fund by the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers, or an affiliated person of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers, other than any advisory fees paid to the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers or its affiliated person by the Underlying Fund, in connection with the investment by the Unrelated Fund of Funds in the Underlying Fund made at the direction of the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers. In the event that the Unrelated Fund of Funds Subadvisers waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Unrelated Fund of Funds.

11. With respect to registered separate accounts that invest in an Unrelated Fund of Funds, no sales load will be charged at the Unrelated Fund of Funds level or at the Underlying Fund level. Other sales charges and service fees, as defined in Rule 2830 of the NASD Conduct Rules, if any, will only be charged at the Unrelated Fund of Funds level or at the Underlying Fund level, not both. With respect to other investments in an Unrelated Fund of Funds, any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of the Unrelated Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in Rule 2830 of the NASD Conduct Rules.

12. No Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent that the Underlying Fund: (a) acquires such securities in compliance with section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act; (b) receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act); or (c) acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Underlying Fund to engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions; or (d) acquires securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.

13. The Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, except for paragraph (a)(2), to the extent that it restricts any Related Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the application.