Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

The CCPFV is responsible for: Elaborating worldwide standards and related texts for all types of processed fruits and vegetables including but not limited to canned, dried and frozen products as well as fruit and vegetable juices and nectars.

The Committee is hosted by the United States.

The following items on the agenda for the 26th session of the CCPFV will be discussed during the public meeting:

• Matters Referred to the CCPFV by Codex and Other Codex Committees

• Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Table Olives (Revision of Codex Standard 66-1981) (Step 4)

• Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Certain Canned Fruits (Revision of Remaining Individual Standards for Canned Fruits) (Step 4)

• Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Certain Quick Frozen Vegetables (Revision of Individual Standards for Quick Frozen Vegetables) (Step 4)

• Proposed Draft Sampling Plans Including Metrological Provisions for Controlling Minimum Drained Weight of Canned Fruits and Vegetables in Packing Media (Step 4)

• Food Additive Provisions for Processed Fruits and Vegetables: Additional Provisions for Inclusion in Selected Adopted and Under Development Standards

• Matters Related to Selected Codex Standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables

• Discussion Paper on the Possible Extension of the Territorial Application of the Codex Regional Standard for Ginseng Products

• Discussion Paper on the Development of a Codex Standard for Chemically Flavored Water-Based Drinks

• Status of Work on the Revision of Codex Standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables

Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES ).

At the September 17, 2012, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 26th session of the CCPFV, Dorian LaFond (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 26th session of the CCPFV.

FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp .

FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/ .

Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, or audiotape) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The following business will be conducted: Allegheny Resource Advisory Committee members will solicit and consider project proposals for recommendation for funding. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 7, 2012, to be scheduled on the September 12, 2012, agenda, and by September 21, 2012, to be scheduled on the September 26, 2012, agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to 4 Farm Colony Drive, Warren, Pennsylvania 16365, or by email to kmohney@fs.fed.us or via facsimile to 814-726-1462. A summary of the meeting will be posted at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf/RAC/F9B9F96FDB72CAE28825754A005A4689?OpenDocument within 21 days of the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you require sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation please request this in advance of the meeting by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The following business will be conducted: review and recommend projects for approval. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Friday, September 8, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, 2014 N. Main, Spearfish, SD 57783, or by email to rlobyrne@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 605-642-4156. A summary of the meeting will be posted at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf/RAC/Lawrence?OpenDocument within 21 days of the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you require sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the meeting please request this in advance by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 12, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

• Approval of the draft July 11, 2012 meeting minutes (vote)

• Planning and Evaluation Committee Report

• Technical Programs Committee Report

• Budget Committee Report

• Ad Hoc Committee Reports

• Executive Director's Report

• Public Comment, Open Topics

All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

Background

In accordance with Public Law 99-574, the National Bureau of Standards Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved a demonstration project plan, “Alternative Personnel Management System (APMS) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),” and published the plan in the Federal Register on October 2, 1987 (52 FR 37082). The project plan has been modified twice, on May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21331) and Sept. 25, 1990 (55 FR 39220), to clarify certain NIST authorities. The project plan and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the final APMS plan, which became permanent on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54604). NIST first amended the plan on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 23996), to strengthen the link between pay and performance, to simplify the pay-for-performance system, and to broaden the link between performance and retention service credit for reduction in force, which became effective upon the date of publication. NIST amended the plan again on July 15, 2008 (73 FR 40500), to improve flexibility in rewarding new and mid-level employees and to broaden the ability to make performance distinctions, and that amendment became permanent on October 1, 2008.

On December 3, 2010, the Department of Commerce approved NIST's request to pilot direct-hire under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) for a period of one year for all positions within the Scientific and Engineering (ZP) career path at the Pay Band III and above, for Nuclear Reactor Operator positions in the Scientific and Engineering Technician (ZT) career path at Pay Band III and above, and for all occupations for which there is a special rate under the General Schedule (GS) pay system. On January 5, 2011, NIST published a Federal Register notice (76 FR 539) announcing that the agency would be implementing the direct-hire pilot for a period of one year. During the pilot, information was gathered on the impact of direct-hire authority on preference eligibles, as well as information supporting the finding of a severe shortage of candidates for the positions covered under the direct-hire authority.

On December 20, 2011, NIST published a Federal Register notice (76 FR 78889) extending the direct-hire pilot for an additional six (6) months. During this extended pilot period, NIST submitted a request to the Department of Commerce to implement direct-hire authority under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) on a permanent basis for Nuclear Reactor Operator positions in NIST's Scientific and Engineering Technician (ZT) career path at the Pay Band III and above, and for all positions in NIST's Scientific and Engineering (ZP) career path at the Pay Band III and above except for the Information Technology Management, 2210 series; the General Engineering, 801 series; and the General Physical Science, 1301 series. The request included a statistical analysis determining the impact of direct-hire authority on preference eligibles as well as a justification supporting the finding of a severe shortage of candidates in the covered positions.

On April 20, 2012, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, approved NIST's request to implement direct-hire authority on a permanent basis for the above occupations. The Department of Commerce also granted NIST approval to pilot direct-hire authority under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) for all positions in the General Engineering, 801 series and the General Physical Science, 1301 series.

The APMS plan provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice formally announces the modification to the APMS plan to implement direct-hire procedures under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) on a pilot basis for twelve (12) months. During this pilot period, NIST will gather data on the impact of direct-hire authority on preference eligibles. NIST will also include data from the previous pilot's expiration date of June 5, 2012. If additional time is required to complete review of the data, the pilot may be extended for an additional six (6) months.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Alternative Personnel Management System (APMS) is designed to (1) improve hiring and allow NIST to compete more effectively for high-quality researchers through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruiting allowances; (2) motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention allowances; (3) strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and (4) increase the efficiency of personnel systems through installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation.

Since implementing the APMS in 1987, according to findings in the Office of Personnel Management's “Summative Evaluation Report National Institute of Standards and Technology Demonstration Project: 1988-1995,” NIST has accomplished the following: NIST is more competitive for talent; NIST retained more top performers than a comparison group; and NIST managers reported significantly more authority to make decisions concerning employee pay. This modification builds on this success by piloting direct-hire authority for the General Engineering, 801 series and General Physical Science, 1301 series under 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) for a period of twelve (12) months.

This amendment modifies the October 21, 1997 Federal Register notice. Specifically, it enables NIST to hire, after public notice is given, any qualified applicant without regard to 5 U.S.C. 3309-3318, 5 CFR part 211, or 5 CFR part 337, subpart A for a period of twelve (12) months. During this pilot period, NIST will gather data on the impact of direct-hire authority on preference eligibles. NIST will also include data from the previous pilot's expiration date of June 5, 2012. If additional time is required to complete a review of the data, the pilot may be extended for an additional six (6) months.

NIST will continually monitor the effectiveness of this amendment.

Section 3304(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, provides agencies with the authority to appoint candidates directly to jobs for which OPM determines that there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need.

OPM's direct-hire authority enables agencies to hire, after public notice is given, any qualified application without regard to 5 U.S.C. 3309-3318, 5 CFR part 211, or 5 CFR part 337, subpart A. NIST's APMS allows the NIST Director to modify procedures if no new waiver from law or regulation is added. Given this modification is in accordance with existing law and regulation, the NIST Director is authorized to make the changes described in this notice. The modification to our final Federal Register notice, dated October 21, 1997, with respect to our Staffing authorities is provided below.

In 1987, with the approval of the NIST APMS (52 FR 37082), and in 1997, when the APMS plan was modified (62 FR 54604), OPM concurred that all occupations in the ZP career path at the Pay Band III and above constitute a shortage category; Nuclear Reactor Operator positions in the ZT Career Path at the Pay Band III and above constitute a shortage category; and all occupations for which there is a special rate under the General Schedule pay system constitute a shortage category.

The APMS at NIST, published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54604) is amended as follows.

1. The information under the subsection titled: “Direct Hire: Critical Shortage Occupations” is replaced with:

NIST intends to publish a consolidated plan that reflects all amendments to the APMS in FY13.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Section 104(c)(6) provides for photography for educational or commercial purposes involving non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals in the wild.

Mr. Pilley requests a five-year photography permit to film bottlenose dolphin strand-feeding events in the estuaries and creeks of Bull Creek and around Hilton Head, South Carolina, and mud-plume feeding events in the waters of the Florida Keys. Filmmakers plan to use three filming platforms: a static, remotely-operated camera placed on the mudflats, a radio-controlled camera helicopter, and a radio-controlled camera boat. For both locations combined, up to 196 dolphins annually may be approached and filmed. Filming would occur over 14 days in each location. Footage would be used in two wildlife education documentaries: “Earthflight 3D”, and “Dolphins-Spy in the Pod”, both for the British Broadcasting Corporation and Discovery Channel.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

This notice is relevant to federally threatened California Central Valley (CCV) steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), threatened Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ), endangered Sacramento River (SR) winter-run Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ), and threatened southern distinct population segment of North American (sDPS) green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on the application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on the application(s) would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The University of California, Davis is requesting a 4-year scientific research and enhancement permit to take adult and juvenile CCV steelhead, SR winter-run Chinook salmon, CV spring-run Chinook salmon, and sDPS green sturgeon associated with research activities in the Cache Slough Complex, Sherman Lake, and Suisun Marsh in the San Francisco estuary, California. In the studies described below, researchers do not expect to kill any listed fish but a small number, up to 20 percent (equivalent to one fish), may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is dominated by deep-water aquatic habitats that tend to support invasive fishes such as largemouth bass and not native species. Relatively little shallow water and marsh (SWM) habitat remains, although it dominated the Delta before the 1850s. In other estuaries, such areas are critical for fish reproduction, fish rearing, and fish foraging. However, in the San Francisco Estuary (SFE), there are limited data on fish usage of such habitat, in part because of the difficulty in effectively sampling SWM regions. The purpose of this project is to develop better understanding of how physical habitat, flow and other factors interact to maintain assemblages of native and non-native aquatic species in the upper SFE.

The project will span three distinct regions across the SFE: (1) The Cache-Lindsay Slough complex, (2) the Sherman Lake complex and (3) Suisun Marsh. The survey methods will be the same for each of these regions, and will include otter trawling, beach seining and electrofishing. Water quality and habitat data will be collected concurrently.

The project specifically targets splittail and other native minnow populations. Some incidental take of ESA listed salmonids and sDPS green sturgeon may be expected. All sampled fish will be placed in a bucket of aerated, ambient water, examined for responsiveness and returned to the water as soon as possible with minimal handling that will include species identification and length estimates.

On Wednesday, September 12, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will review Scallop Plan Development Team projections and develop acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for fishing years 2013 and 2014. In addition, they will provide input to the Terms of Reference for a review of scallop survey methods to be conducted by the NOAA/NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

On Thursday, September 13, the SSC will continue to review groundfish stock assessments and develop ABC recommendations for fishing years 2013 through 2015 for Gulf of Maine haddock, Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder, Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, plaice, and Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine white hake.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Agenda: Principal business is to recommend proposed groundfish catch specifications for 2013/14. The teams also will review status reports on various management actions, review the draft Ecosystems Considerations Chapter, and proposed changes to Bering Sea/Aleutian Island and Gulf of Alaska groundfish stock assessment models.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version is posted at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/meetings/GPTagenda912 .

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

Additions

On 5/25/2012 (77 FR 31335-31336) and 6/29/2012 (77 FR 38775-38776), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, created the Offices of Inspectors General as independent and objective units to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to Federal programs and operations. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, established the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the Offices of Inspectors General. The CIGIE is an interagency council whose executive chair is the Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, and is comprised principally of the 73 Inspectors General (IGs).

Under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1)-(5), and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, each agency is required to establish one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The purpose of these boards is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. The current members of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Performance Review Board, as of October 1, 2012, are as follows:

The JCPA requested a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including a Section 404(b)(1) analysis to help ensure compliance. The Corps is the lead Federal agency for the preparation of this FEIS in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the President's Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard are cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EIS.

The DoN, as lead agency, has prepared and filed the Draft EIS for the Proposed Modernization and Expansion of TBR, GA in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Regulations parts 1500-1508). The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of acquiring additional property and constructing the necessary infrastructure to allow the use of inert precision-guided munitions (PGMs) at TBR, GA.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide an air-to-ground training range capable of providing a wider variety of air-to-ground operations, including the use of PGMs, to meet current training requirements. The Proposed Action is needed to more efficiently meet current training requirements for the United States Marine Corps aviation assets by significantly increasing air-to-ground training capabilities in the Beaufort, South Carolina Region. The Draft EIS has identified and considered four action alternatives and a No Action alternative.

More information of the Draft EIS can be found in the previously published NOA and NOPM (see Federal Register on Friday, July 13, 2012 ( Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 135, Pages 41385-41387 (NOPMs) and Page 41403 (NOA)). Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested parties and individuals, are invited and encouraged to review and comment on the Draft EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS can be submitted via the project email address ( townsendbombingrangeeise@ene.com ), project Web site or submitted in writing to: Townsend Bombing Range EIS Project Manager, Post Office Box 180458, Tallahassee, Florida, 32318. All comments must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before September 27, 2012 to be sure they become part of the public record.

The Draft EIS has been distributed to various Federal, State, local agencies, and Native American Tribes, as well as other interested parties and individuals. In addition, copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following public libraries: Ida Hilton Public Library, 1105 North Way, Darien, GA, 31305; Long County Public Library, 28 S. Main Street, Ludowici, GA, 31316; and Hog Hammock Public Library, 1023 Hillery Lane, Sapelo Island, GA, 31327.

An electronic copy of the Draft EIS is also available for public viewing at http://www.townsendbombingrangeeis.com.

To be considered, all comments on the Draft EIS must be received by September 27, 2012. The DoN will consider and respond to all comments received on the Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS. The DoN expects to issue the Final EIS in spring 2013, at which time a NOA will be published in the Federal Register and local print media. A Record of Decision is expected in summer 2013.

A Notice of Intent to prepare the NSWCDD Outdoor RDT&E Activities Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 33456-33457). Five public scoping meetings were held on the following dates and locations:

1. July 23, 2007, Shiloh Baptist Church, 13457 Kings Highway, King George, VA 22485;

2. July 24, 2007, Christ Episcopal Church, 37497 Zach Fowler Road, Chaptico, MD 20621;

3. July 25, 2007, La Plata Volunteer Fire Department, 911 Washington Avenue, La Plata, MD 20646;

4. July 30, 2007, Saint Mary's Episcopal Church, 203 Dennison Street, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; and

5. July 31, 2007, Callao Rescue Squad Hall, 1348 Northumberland Highway, Callao, VA 22435.

The proposed action is to expand NSWCDD's RDT&E capabilities within the PRTR Complex, the EEA Range Complex, Mission Area, and SUA. These RDT&E activities include outdoor operations that require the use of ordnance, high-power electromagnetic (EM) energy, high-energy (HE) lasers, and chemical and biological simulants (non-toxic substances used to mimic dangerous agents). Under the proposed action, the average number of events that could take place annually (with the exception of large-caliber gun firing events) would increase above current baseline levels. To ensure that equipment and materials work effectively, even in less-than-ideal conditions, some activities would take place under conditions in which activities are now rarely/never conducted, such as at dusk, dawn, and night and in adverse weather.

The purpose of the proposed action is to enable NSWCDD to meet current and future mission-related warfare and force-protection requirements by providing RDT&E of surface ship combat systems, ordnance, HE lasers and directed-energy systems, force-level warfare, and homeland and force protection.

The need for the proposed action is to enable the DoN and other stakeholders to successfully meet current and future national and global defense challenges required under 10 U.S.C. 5062 (2006) by developing a robust capability to carry out assigned RDT&E activities within the PRTR and EEA Range Complexes, the Mission Area, and the SUA at NSF Dahlgren.

NSWCDD evaluated a range of alternatives that would meet action objectives, and applied screening criteria to identify those alternatives that were “reasonable” (i.e., practical and feasible). Reasonable alternatives were carried through the Draft EIS analysis. Screening criteria included:

1. Criterion 1—accommodate historical and current, baseline RDT&E mission requirements for activities that have the potential to affect human health and/or the environment; namely, those involving ordnance, the use of high-power EM energy, HE lasers, chemical simulants, and the use of the PRTR;

2. Criterion 2—accommodate known future requirements, which include the use of biological simulants alone;

3. Criterion 3—accommodate optimal potential future requirements by incorporating a margin of growth for the most actively evolving programs for which it is difficult to accurately forecast future needs, and include mixtures of biological and chemical simulants; and

4. Criterion 4—minimize impacts to commercial and recreational use of the Potomac River.

Reasonable alternatives were carried through the Draft EIS analysis. The Draft EIS considers three alternatives as summarized below:

1. No Action Alternative—maintains current operations and provides a baseline against which to measure the impacts of the other two alternatives.

2. Alternative 1—includes No Action Alternative plus growth above No Action Alternative levels necessary to meet RDT&E mission requirements in the near future.

3. Alternative 2—Provides for roughly 15% growth in activity levels above that of Alternative 1 to provide a margin of growth for the most actively evolving programs. It addresses current baseline requirements, known future requirements, and projected increases in the foreseeable future based on current trends. This alternative is the Preferred Alternative.

Alternatives 1 and 2 constitute increases in current activities of small-arms firing, detonations, high-power EM energy events, HE laser events, chemical and biological simulant (defense) events, and PRTR hours of use.

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) satisfies current baseline requirements, includes the growth necessary to meet known RDT&E mission requirements for the near future and includes a margin of growth for the most actively evolving programs, namely those for which the numbers of future annual test events, firings, and hours of use are harder to predict because of the uncertainties inherent in carrying out RDT&E.

The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with NSWCDD's outdoor RDT&E activities. Alternatives were evaluated within resource areas including land use and plans, coastal zone resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice communities, protection of children, utilities, air quality, noise levels, cultural resources, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and safety, geology, topography, soils and sediments, water resources, and aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. The analysis includes an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Methods to reduce or minimize impacts to affected resources are addressed.

The DoN has made a preliminary finding that for all three alternatives there would be no significant impact to land use and plans, coastal zone resources, socioeconomics, low-income and minority populations, children, utilities, air quality, noise levels, cultural resources, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and safety, geology, topography, soils and sediments, water resources, and aquatic and terrestrial biological resources, and we are awaiting concurrence from the respective agencies.

All alternatives have the potential to affect fish and sea turtles species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the DoN consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for potential impacts to federally-listed species. NMFS concurred with the DoN's finding that the alternatives are not likely to adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic sturgeon, or ESA-listed sea turtles. No terrestrial animals or plants protected under the ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act would be affected. Based on the DoN's analysis, the proposed action would not result in the incidental harassment of marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The DoN is also consulting with NMFS regarding potential effects on essential fish habitat under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act with the release of this Draft EIS. The DoN has made a preliminary finding that there would be no adverse impacts on essential fish habitat under any of the alternatives, and we are awaiting concurrence from NMFS.

Federal Coastal Consistency Determinations will be forwarded to Virginia and Maryland with the Draft EIS. Based on analysis, the DoN has made a preliminary finding that there would be no to minimal impact on coastal resources, and the Proposed Action is consistent to the maximum extent practical with Virginia and Maryland policies. We are awaiting concurrence from the Virginia and Maryland Coastal Management Programs.

The DoN consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in Maryland and Virginia. Both SHPOs concluded there would be no adverse effect on National Register-listed or eligible resources in the areas of potential effect under all the alternatives.

NSWCDD will continue to adhere to general safety and environmental protective measures for all RDT&E activities and to implement specific protective measures for RDT&E activities using chemical and biological stimulants. No specific mitigation measures are required.

The Draft EIS was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations. The public comment period will end on October 1, 2012. The Draft EIS is available for review or download at: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/EIS/index.aspx.

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

1. Lewis Egerton Smoot Memorial Library, 8562 Dahlgren Road, King George, VA 22485;

2. Cooper Memorial Library, 20 Washington Avenue, Colonial Beach, VA 22443;

3. Northumberland Public Library, 7204 Northumberland Highway, Heathsville, VA 22473;

4. Charles County Public Library, La Plata Branch, 2 Garrett Avenue, La Plata, MD 20646; and

5. St. Mary's County Library, Leonardtown Branch, 23250 Hollywood Road, Leonardtown, MD 20650.

Federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, and interested individuals and organizations are invited to be present or represented at the public hearings where oral and written comments on the Draft EIS will be received. Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record on the Draft EIS and will be responded to in the Final EIS. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements. In the interest of available time, and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to two (2) minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing with the full text submitted either in writing at the hearing, or mailed, faxed, or emailed to Commander, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, 6149 Welsh Road, Suite 203, Dahlgren, VA 22448-5130, Attn: Code C6 (NSWCDD PAO), Fax: 1-540-653-4679, or Email: DLGR_NSWC_EIS@navy.mil during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked or received by October 01, 2012 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No. 1910-5144.

(2) Information Collection Request Title: records, and secures approval of all foreign travel conducted by DOE federal employees and contractors. The system allows DOE to have full accountability of all travel and in cases of emergency DOE is able to quickly retrieve information as to who is traveling, where the individual is traveling, and the dates of travel. Information gathered is listed under three categories: (1) Traveler Information which requests traveler's name, passport information, site, position, and contact information, (2) General Trip Information which consists of estimated travel costs, and (3) Trip Itinerary Information which consists of destination, dates of travel, and purpose.

(3) Type of Respondents: DOE Federal employees and contractors traveling on behalf of DOE.

(4) Estimated Annual Number of Respondents 8,313.

(5) Estimated Annual Number of Burden Hours: 4,228.

(6) Estimated Annual Cost Burden: None.

Starting October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA. While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's electronic reporting site— https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp .

Revision to FR Notice Published 07/20/2012; Extending Comment Period from 08/31/2012 to 09/28/2012.

Revision to FR Notice Published 7/13/2012; Extending Review Period from 8/27/12 to 09/27/2012.

Revision to FR Notice Published 7/27/2012; Extending Review Period from 08/27/2012 to 09/06/2012.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any Non Government Organization.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003, is available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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 OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets .

1. State Lead Agency (SLA) label improvement activities/efforts;

2. Next steps as the result of the label improvement workshop. Do we need a workshop focusing on structural labels?

3. Identifying/negotiating regional commitments in cooperative agreements;

4. Reconciling SLA referrals to EPA for enforcement vs. SLA efforts to fix violative labels in a timely manner;

5. Risk mitigation on seed bag tags;

6. Persistent herbicides in compost (sources);

7. Methomyl issue paper;

8. Non-crop issue paper;

9. SLA availability to answer EPA/Registration Division questions. What process can be effective?

10. Update on Insect Repellency Mark Initiative.

This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.

If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five days prior to the meeting.

General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can be found on its Web site at www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb .

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at (202) 564-2130 or email at joyce.mark@epa.gov . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collection of information:

1. Title: Notice Regarding Unauthorized Access to Customer Information.

OMB Number: 3064-0145.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks.

Number of FDIC regulated banks that will notify customers: 93.

Estimated Time per Response: 29 hours.

Annual Burden: 2,697 hours.

General Description of Collection: This collection reflects the FDIC's expectations regarding a response program that financial institutions should develop to address unauthorized access to or use of customer information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. The information collections require financial institutions to: (1) Develop notices to customers; and (2) in certain circumstances, determine which customers should receive the notices and send the notices to customers.

2. Title: Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act).

OMB No.: 3064-0152.

Affected Public: Individuals; businesses or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,546.

Estimated Time per Response: 16 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 72,736 hours.

General Description of the Collection: 12 CFR 334.82, 334.90, 334.91 and Appendix J to Part 334 implement sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), Public Law 108-159 (2003). Section 114 amended section 615 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to require the OCC, FRB, FDIC, OTS, NCUA, and FTC (Agencies) to issue jointly (i) Guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft with respect to their account holders and customers; (ii) regulations requiring each financial institution and creditor to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines to identify possible risks to account holders or customers or to the safety and soundness of the institution or creditor; and (iii) regulations generally requiring credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of change of address requests under certain circumstances. Section 315 amended section 605 of the FCRA to require the Agencies to issue regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports must employ when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency (CRA). The information collections in Sec. 334.90 require each financial institution and creditor that offers or maintains one or more covered accounts to develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program (Program). In developing the Program, financial institutions and creditors are required to consider the guidelines in Appendix J to Part 334 and include those that are appropriate. The initial Program must be approved by the board of directors or an appropriate committee thereof and the board, an appropriate committee thereof or a designated employee at the level of senior management must be involved in the oversight of the Program. In addition, staff must be trained to carry out the Program. Pursuant to Sec. 334.91, each credit and debit card issuer is required to establish and implement policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request under certain circumstances. Before issuing an additional or replacement card, the card issuer must notify the cardholder or use another means to assess the validity of the change of address. The information collections in Sec. 41.82 require each user of consumer reports to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it requested the report when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. A user of consumer reports must also develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for furnishing an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably confirmed to be accurate to the CRA from which it receives a notice of address discrepancy when: (1) The user can form a reasonable belief that the consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the user has requested the report; (2) the user establishes a continuing relationship with the consumer; and (3) the user regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the CRA from which it received the notice of address discrepancy.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Health Breach Notification Rule.

OMB Control Number: 3084-0150.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Health Breach Notification Rule (“Rule”), 16 CFR Part 318, requires vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities  1 to provide: (1) Notice to consumers whose unsecured personally identifiable health information has been breached; and (2) notice to the Commission. The Rule only applies to electronic health records and does not include recordkeeping requirements. The Rule requires third party service providers (i.e., those companies that provide services such as billing or data storage) to vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide notification to such vendors and PHR related entities following the discovery of a breach. To notify the FTC of a breach, the Commission developed a form, which is posted at www.ftc.gov/healthbreach, for entities subject to the rule to complete and return to the agency.

On May 29, 2012, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 77 FR 31612. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule. For more details about the Rule requirements and the basis for the calculations summarized below, see 77 FR 31612.

Estimated Annual Burden: 100 hours per breach (to determine what information has been breached, identify the affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and make the required report to the Commission) + 192 hours to process an estimated 500 calls in the event of a data breach.

Estimated Frequency: 2 breach incidents.

Total Annual Labor Cost: $13,379.

Total Annual Capital or Other Non-Labor Cost: $7,918.

Request For Comment:

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 24, 2012. Write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA Comments, P-125402” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is * * * privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c). 2 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/healthbreachnotificationPRA2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA comments, P-125402” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 24, 2012. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

Comments on the disclosure and reporting requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.

Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.

Among the topics to be discussed at the NVAC meeting are: Implementation of the National Vaccine Plan, pertussis, immunizations and health information technology, Healthy People 2020, immunization goals, and vaccine hesitancy. The meeting agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac prior to the meeting.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods on the agenda. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should email or fax their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office at least five business days prior to the meeting.

Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-7f) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Biodefense Science Board. The Board shall provide expert advice and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Board may also provide advice and guidance to the Secretary and/or the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) on other matters related to public health emergency preparedness and response.

Background: The NBSB continues to review and evaluate the 2012 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy and Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, the Board's deliberations on the PHEMCE SIP task are being conducted in closed sessions in accordance with provisions set forth under exemption 9(B) of the Government in Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c), and with approval by the ASPR. For a full description for the basis for closing this session, please see the previous meeting notice published at 77 FR 13129 (2012).

Availability of Materials: The meeting agenda and materials will be posted on the NBSB Web site at www.PHE.GOV/NBSB .

Procedures for Providing Public Input: All written comments should be sent by email to NBSB@HHS.GOV with “NBSB Public Comment” as the subject line.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a hospital provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospital. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at part 488. The regulations at part 482 specify the conditions that a hospital must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for hospitals.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospital must first be certified by a state survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 482. Thereafter, the hospital is subject to regular surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. However, there is an alternative to surveys by state agencies. Certification by a nationally recognized accreditation program can substitute for ongoing state review.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to have met the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide us with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.4 and § 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by us.

Det Norske Veritas Healthcare's current term of approval for their hospital accreditation program expires September 26, 2012.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS-approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The statute provides CMS 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the request, and provides no less than a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register approving or denying the application.

In the March 23, 2012 Federal Register (77 FR 17070), we published a proposed notice in the announcing DNVHC's request for approval of its hospital accreditation program. In the March 23, 2012 proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.4 and § 488.8, we conducted a review of DNVHC's application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• An onsite administrative review of DNVHC's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

• The comparison of DNVHC's accreditation to our current Medicare hospital conditions of participation.

• A documentation review of DNVHC's survey process to determine the following:

+ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and DNVHC's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

+ Compare DNVHC's processes to those of state survey agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

+ Evaluate DNVHC's procedures for monitoring hospitals out of compliance with DNVHC's program requirements. The monitoring procedures are used only when DNVHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).

+ Assess DNVHC's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

+ Establish DNVHC's ability to provide us with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

+ Determine the adequacy of staff and other resources.

+ Confirm DNVHC's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

+ Confirm DNVHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced.

+ Obtain DNVHC's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the March 23, 2012 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether DNVHC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions of participation for hospitals. We received two comments in response to our proposed notice. The commenters expressed continued support for DNVHC's hospital accreditation program. In addition, the commenters stated DNVHC's standards are closely aligned with the hospital conditions of participation, thus allowing hospitals to be in compliance with the Medicare requirements.

We compared DNVHC's hospital requirements and survey process with the Medicare conditions of participation and survey process as outlined in the State Operations Manual (SOM). Our review and evaluation of DNVHC's hospital application, which were conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, yielded the following:

• To meet the requirements at § 482.13(a), DNVHC revised its standards to include language to address the hospital's responsibility to protect and promote each patient's rights.

• To meet the requirements at § 482.13(a)(2), DNVHC revised its standards to require prompt resolution of patient grievances.

• To meet the requirements at § 482.13(b)(3), DNVHC revised its standards to include the requirements at § 489.100, § 489.102, § 489.104 regarding advanced directive.

• To meet the requirements at § 482.52(b), DNVHC revised its standards to ensure anesthesia services are consistent with the needs and resources of the hospital.

• To meet the requirements at § 489.13, DNVHC modified its policies related to the accreditation effective date.

• To meet the survey process requirements in Appendix A of the SOM, DNVHC revised its policy outlining the minimum number of inpatient records required for review during an accreditation survey.

• To meet the requirements at § 488.4, DNVHC revised its policies to require a copy of the surveyor's annual evaluation be included in the surveyor's file.

• DNVHC revised its complaint policies to ensure all complaint investigations are conducted in accordance with the requirements at SOM chapter five.

• DNVHC revised its policies and procedures to clarify that they do not have authority to advise facilities regarding certification issues. Instead, DNVHC must contact the CMS Regional Office on facility specific certification issues for consultation and direction.

Based on our review and observations described in section III. of this final notice, we have determined that DNVHC's requirements for hospitals meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve DVNHC as a national accreditation organization for hospitals that request participation in the Medicare program, effective September 26, 2012, through September 26, 2018.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are not-for-profit organizations that are responsible for the procurement, preservation, and transport of organs to transplant centers throughout the country. Qualified OPOs are designated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to recover or procure organs in CMS-defined exclusive geographic service areas, pursuant to section 371(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273(b)(1)) and our regulations at 42 CFR 486.306. Once an OPO has been designated for an area, hospitals in that area that participate in Medicare and Medicaid are required to work with that OPO in providing organs for transplant, pursuant to section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and our regulations at 42 CFR 482.45.

Section 1138(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act provides that a hospital must notify the designated OPO (for the service area in which it is located) of potential organ donors. Under section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Act, every participating hospital must have an agreement only with its designated OPO to identify potential donors.

However, section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a hospital may obtain a waiver of the above requirements from the Secretary under certain specified conditions. A waiver allows the hospital to have an agreement with an OPO other than the one initially designated by CMS, if the hospital meets certain conditions specified in section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Secretary may review additional criteria described in section 1138(a)(2)(B) of the Act to evaluate the hospital's request for a waiver.

Section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that in granting a waiver, the Secretary must determine that the waiver—(1) is expected to increase organ donations; and (2) will ensure equitable treatment of patients referred for transplants within the service area served by the designated OPO and within the service area served by the OPO with which the hospital seeks to enter into an agreement under the waiver. In making a waiver determination, section 1138(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Secretary may consider, among other factors: (1) Cost-effectiveness; (2) improvements in quality; (3) whether there has been any change in a hospital's designated OPO due to the changes made in definitions for metropolitan statistical areas; and (4) the length and continuity of a hospital's relationship with an OPO other than the hospital's designated OPO. Under section 1138(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Secretary is required to publish a notice of any waiver application received from a hospital within 30 days of receiving the application, and to offer interested parties an opportunity to submit comments during the 60-day comment period beginning on the publication date in the Federal Register .

The criteria that the Secretary uses to evaluate the waiver in these cases are the same as those described above under sections 1138(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act and have been incorporated into the regulations at § 486.308(e) and (f).

On October 1995, we issued a Program Memorandum (Transmittal No. A-95-11) detailing the waiver process and discussing the information hospitals must provide in requesting a waiver. We indicated that upon receipt of a waiver request, we would publish a Federal Register notice to solicit public comments, as required by section 1138(a)(2)(D) of the Act.

According to these requirements, we will review the comments received. During the review process, we may consult on an as-needed basis with the Health Resources and Services Administration's Division of Transplantation, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and our regional offices. If necessary, we may request additional clarifying information from the applying hospital or others. We will then make a final determination on the waiver request and notify the hospital and the designated and requested OPOs.

As permitted by 42 CFR 486.308(e), the following hospital has requested a waiver in order to enter into an agreement with a designated OPO other than the OPO designated for the service area in which the hospital is located:

Tri-Lakes Medical Center in Batesville, Mississippi, is requesting a waiver to work with: Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, 12 River Bend Pl., Flowood, MS 39232.

The Hospital's Designated OPO is: Mid-South Transplant Foundation, Inc., 8001 Centerview Parkway, Suite 302, Memphis, TN 38018.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services through a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization that contracts with CMS. The regulations specifying the Medicare requirements that must be met for a Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) to enter into a contract with CMS are located at 42 CFR part 422. These regulations implement Part C of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act), which specifies the services that an MAO must provide and the requirements that the organization must meet to be an MA contractor. Other relevant sections of the Act are Parts A and B of Title XVIII and Part A of Title XI pertaining to the provision of services by Medicare-certified providers and suppliers. Generally, for an entity to be an MA organization, the organization must be licensed by the State as a risk-bearing organization as set forth in part 422.

As a method of assuring compliance with certain Medicare requirements, an MA organization may choose to become accredited by a CMS-approved accrediting organization (AO). Once accredited by such a CMS-approved AO, we deem the MA organization to be compliant in one or more of six requirements set forth in section 1852(e)(4)(B) of the Act. For an AO to be able to “deem” an MA plan compliant with these MA requirements, the AO must prove to CMS that its standards are at least as stringent as Medicare requirements. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs) accredited by an approved AO may receive, at their request, “deemed” status for CMS requirements with respect to the following six MA criteria: Quality Improvement; Antidiscrimination; Access to Services; Confidentiality and Accuracy of Enrollee Records; Information on Advanced Directives; and Provider Participation Rules. ( See 42 CFR 422.156(b)). At this time, recognition of accreditation does not include the Part D areas of review set out at § 423.165(b). AOs that apply for MA deeming authority are generally recognized by the health care industry as entities that accredit HMOs and PPOs. As we specify at § 422.157(b)(2)(ii), the term for which an AO may be approved by CMS may not exceed 6 years. For continuing approval, the AO must apply to CMS to renew its “deeming authority” for a subsequent approval period.

The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, Inc. (AAAHC) was approved by CMS as an accreditation organization for MA HMOs and PPOs on July 12, 2006, and that term will expire on July 11, 2012. On December 14, 2011, AAAHC submitted an application to renew its deeming authority. On that same date, AAAHC submitted materials requested from CMS which included updates and/or changes to items set out in Federal regulations at § 422.158(a) that are prerequisites for receiving approval of its accreditation program from CMS, and which were furnished to CMS by AAAHC as a part of their renewal applications for HMOs and PPOs.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of deeming applications is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us with 210 calendar days after the date of receipt of an application to complete our survey activities and application review process. Within 60 days of receiving a completed application, we must publish a notice in the Federal Register that identifies the national accreditation body making the request, describes the request, and provides no less than a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish an approval or denial of the application.

In the March 30, 2012, Federal Register (76 FR 19290), we published a proposed notice announcing AAAHC's request for continued CMS approval of its deeming authority for MA HMOs and PPOs. In the proposed notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1852(e)(4) of the Act and our regulations at § 422.158 (Federal review of accrediting organizations), we conducted a review of AAAHC's application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• The types of MA plans that it would review as part of its accreditation process.

• A detailed comparison of the organization's accreditation requirements and standards with the Medicare requirements (for example, a crosswalk).

• Detailed information about the organization's survey process, including the following—

++ Frequency of surveys and whether surveys are announced or unannounced.

++ Copies of survey forms, and guidelines and instructions to surveyors.

++ Descriptions of—

• Detailed information about the individuals who perform surveys for the accreditation organization, including the following—

++ The size and composition of accreditation survey teams for each type of plan reviewed as part of the accreditation process;

++ The education and experience requirements surveyors must meet;

++ The content and frequency of the in-service training provided to survey personnel;

++ The evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of individual surveyors and survey teams; and

++ The organization's policies and practice with respect to the participation, in surveys or in the accreditation decision process by an individual who is professionally or financially affiliated with the entity being surveyed.

• A description of the organization's data management and analysis system with respect to its surveys and accreditation decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays generated by that system.

• A description of the organization's procedures for responding to and investigating complaints against accredited organizations, including policies and procedures regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate licensing bodies and ombudsmen programs.

• A description of the organization's policies and procedures with respect to the withholding or removal of accreditation for failure to meet the accreditation organization's standards or requirements, and other actions the organization takes in response to noncompliance with its standards and requirements.

• A description of all types (for example, full, partial) and categories (for example, provisional, conditional, temporary) of accreditation offered by the organization, the duration of each type and category of accreditation and a statement identifying the types and categories that would serve as a basis for accreditation if CMS approves the accreditation organization.

• A list of all currently accredited MA organizations and the type, category, and expiration date of the accreditation held by each of them.

• A list of all full and partial accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the accreditation organization as requested by CMS.

• The name and address of each person with an ownership or control interest in the accreditation organization.

• CMS also considers AAAHC's past performance in the deeming program and results of recent deeming validation reviews, or look-behind audits conducted as part of continuing Federal oversight of the deeming program under § 422.157(d).

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the March 30, 2012 proposed notice (76 FR 19290) also solicited public comments regarding whether AAAHC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions of participation as an accrediting organization for MA HMOs and PPOs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.

We compared the standards and survey process contained in AAAHC's application with the Medicare conditions for accreditation. Our review and evaluation of AAAHC's application for continued CMS-approval were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, and yielded the following:

• To meet the requirements at § 488.10(b), AAAHC modified its policies to include “person(s) receiving hospice benefits prior to completing an enrollment request for an MSA plan” as an exception where an MAO may deny enrollment based on medical status.

• AAAHC amended its crosswalk to ensure current AAAHC standards are clearly crosswalked to the following regulatory requirements: §§ 422.112(a)(7); 422.118(d); 422.202(d)(1); and 422.204(b)(2).

• To meet the amendments made at § 422.156 by the final rule published in the April 15, 2011 Federal Register (76 CFR 21498), AAAHC removed Quality Improvement Projects and Chronic Care Improvement Programs from its deeming process.

Based on the review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have determined that AAAHC's accreditation program requirements meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve AAAHC as a national accreditation organization with deeming authority for MA HMOs and PPOs, effective July 11, 2012 through July 10, 2018.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

The Secretary is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel regarding the clinical integrity of the APC groups and relative payment weights that are components of the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), and the appropriate supervision level for hospital outpatient services. The panel may use data collected or developed by entities and organizations (other than DHHS) in conducting the review. The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Public Law 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.

The Charter requires that the Panel meet up to three times annually. CMS considers the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the following calendar year.

The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 19 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers that are subject to the OPPS. (For purposes of the Panel, consultants or independent contractors are not considered to be full-time employees in these organizations.)

The current Panel members are as follows: ( Note: The asterisk [*] indicates the Panel members whose terms end on September 30, 2012.)

Panel members serve without compensation, according to an advance written agreement; however, for the meetings, CMS reimburses travel, meals, lodging, and related expenses in accordance with standard Government travel regulations. CMS has a special interest in ensuring, while taking into account the nominee pool, that the Panel is diverse in all respects of the following: geography; rural or urban practice; race, ethnicity, sex, and disability; medical or technical specialty; and type of hospital, hospital health system, or other Medicare provider subject to the OPPS.

Based upon either self-nominations or nominations submitted by providers or interested organizations, the Secretary, or her designee, appoints new members to the Panel from among those candidates determined to have the required expertise. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership under the FACA guidelines.

The Panel must be fairly balanced in its membership in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed. Each Panel member must be employed full-time by a hospital, hospital system, or other Medicare provider subject to payment under the OPPS. All members must have technical expertise to enable them to participate fully in the Panel's work. Such expertise encompasses hospital payment systems; hospital medical care delivery systems; provider billing systems; APC groups; Current Procedural Terminology codes; and alpha-numeric Health Care Common Procedure Coding System codes; and the use of, and payment for, drugs, medical devices, and other services in the outpatient setting, as well as other forms of relevant expertise. For supervision deliberations, the Panel shall have members that represent the interests of Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), who advise CMS only regarding the level of supervision for hospital outpatient services.

It is not necessary for a nominee to possess expertise in all of the areas listed, but each must have a minimum of 5 years experience and currently have full-time employment in his or her area of expertise. Generally, members of the Panel serve overlapping terms up to 4 years, based on the needs of the Panel and contingent upon the rechartering of the Panel. A member may serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor has been sworn in.

Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals. Self-nominations will also be accepted. Each nomination must include the following:

• Letter of Nomination stating the reasons why the nominee should be considered.

• Curriculum Vitae or resume of the nominee.

• Written and signed statement from the nominee that the nominee is willing to serve on the Panel under the conditions described in this notice and further specified in the Charter.

• The hospital or hospital system name and address, or CAH name and address, as well as all Medicare hospital and or Medicare CAH billing numbers of the facility where the nominee is employee.

To obtain a copy of the Panel's Charter, we refer readers to our Web site at the following: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 28, 2012.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses AIR FORCE: Mr. Robert Moore, Air Force Real Property Agency, 143 Billy Mitchell Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78226, (210) 925-3047; ENERGY: Mr. Mark Price, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, MA-50, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585: (202) 586-5422; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; INTERIOR: Mr. Michael Wright, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 1801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006: 202-254-5522; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426 (These are not toll-free numbers).

I. Abstract

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)).

On November 14, 2005, the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce published regulations at 7 CFR part 1, 43 CFR part 45, and 50 CFR part 221, to implement section 241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Public Law 109-58, which the President signed into law on August 8, 2005. Section 241 of the EPAct added section 33 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 823d, that allowed the license applicant or any other party to the license proceeding to propose an alternative to a condition or prescription that one or more of the Departments develop for inclusion in a hydropower license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the FPA. This provision required that the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce to collect the information covered by 1094-0001.

Under FPA section 33, the Secretary of the Department involved must accept the proposed alternative if the Secretary determines, based on substantial evidence provided by a party to the license proceeding or otherwise available to the Secretary, (a) that the alternative condition provides for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation, or that the alternative prescription will be no less protective than the fishway initially proposed by the Secretary, and (b) that the alternative will either cost significantly less to implement or result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production.

In order to make this determination, the regulations require that all of the following information be collected: (1) A description of the alternative, in an equivalent level of detail to the Department's preliminary condition or prescription; (2) an explanation of how the alternative: (i) If a condition, will provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation; or (ii) if a prescription, will be no less protective than the fishway prescribed by the bureau; (3) an explanation of how the alternative, as compared to the preliminary condition or prescription, will: (i) Cost significantly less to implement; or (ii) result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production; (4) an explanation of how the alternative or revised alternative will affect: (i) Energy supply, distribution, cost, and use; (ii) flood control; (iii) navigation; (iv) water supply; (v) air quality; and (vi) other aspects of environmental quality; and (5) specific citations to any scientific studies, literature, and other documented information relied on to support the proposal.

This notice of proposed renewal of an existing information collection is being published by the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, on behalf of all three Departments, and the data provided below covers anticipated responses (alternative conditions/prescriptions and associated information) for all three Departments.

(1) Title: 7 CFR Part 1; 43 CFR Part 45; 50 CFR Part 221; the Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing.

OMB Control Number: 1094-0001.

Current Expiration Date: September 30, 2012.

Type of Review: Information Collection Renewal.

Affected Entities: Business or for-profit entities.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

Frequency of responses: Once per alternative proposed.

(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:

Total annual reporting per response: 500 hours.

Total number of estimated responses: 5.

Total annual reporting: 2,500 hours.

(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The purpose of this information collection is to provide an opportunity for license parties to propose an alternative condition or prescription to that imposed by the Federal Government in the hydropower licensing process.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on the collection of information was published on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30308). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the proposed information collection activity.

The Departments invite comments on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information techniques.

“Burden” means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance by calling (202) 208-3891. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.

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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

With this notice, we continue the process for developing a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Great Lakes Islands National Wildlife Refuges. We began this process by publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register (73 FR 76677) on December 17, 2008. For more about the initial process and the history of this refuge, see that notice.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

The draft CCP/EA may be found at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/GreatLakesIslands/index.html . That document incorporates an EA, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The draft CCP/EA includes detailed information about the planning process, refuge, issues, and management alternatives considered and proposed. The EA includes discussions of three alternative refuge management options. The Service's preferred alternative is reflected in the draft CCP.

The alternatives analyzed in detail include:

• Alternative A: Current Direction To Maintain Natural Integrity—The current management direction of the Great Lakes Islands NWRs would be maintained under this alternative. For NEPA purposes, this is referred to as the “No Action” alternative.

• Alternative B: Minimal Management To Preserve Wilderness Qualities—Management actions would be focused to retain the wilderness character of each island to the extent practical. Public access and visitor services would be kept to a minimal level in order to reduce visual and habitat impacts.

• Alternative C (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Management To Promote Natural Integrity and Public Stewardship—This option would provide for the growth of the island refuges and more opportunities for compatible recreational use.

We will give the public an opportunity to provide input at a public meeting. You can obtain the schedule from the address or web site listed in this notice (see ADDRESSES ). You may also submit comments anytime during the comment period.

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.

We received an application from Beech Ridge Energy for an ITP for the operation, and maintenance of 67 existing turbines in the project area; the construction, operation and maintenance of up to 33 additional turbines and associated infrastructure in the project area; the implementation of the HCP during the life of the permit; and the decomissioning of the entire 100-turbine project and associated infrastructure at the end of its operational life. If approved, the permit would be for a 25-year period and would authorize incidental take of the endangered Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and Virginia big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus ) (covered species). A conservation program to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the incidental take would be implemented by Beech Ridge Energy as described in the proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project HCP. To comply with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we prepared a draft EIS that describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and analyzes the effects of alternatives on the human environment.

The proposed HCP and draft EIS are available on the West Virginia Field Office's Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/westvirginiafieldoffice/beech_ridge_wind_power.html or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R5-ES-2012-0059. Copies of the proposed HCP and draft EIS will also be available for public review during regular business hours at the West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241.

Paper copies of the proposed HCP and draft EIS may also be viewed at the following public libraries: (1) Greenbrier County Public Library, 152 Robert W. McCormick Drive, Lewisburg, WV; (2) Kanawha County Public Library, 123 Capitol Street, Charleston, WV; and (3) Rupert Public Library, 602 Nicholas Street, Rupert, WV. Those who do not have access to the Internet or cannot visit our office or local libraries can request CD-ROM copies of the documents by telephone at 304-636-6586 or by letter to the West Virginia Field Office (see the address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.22; 50 CFR 17.32).

Beech Ridge Energy has been working with staff from the West Virginia Field Office since a January 2010 consent decree was signed, following a court order ruling that construction and operation of the project would violate section 9 of the ESA “unless and until [Beech Ridge Energy] obtains an ITP” for the Indiana bat. Beech Ridge Energy is now seeking a permit for the incidental take of the Covered Species for a term of 25 years. Incidental take of these bat species may occur due to injury and mortality from collision with turbine blades and towers and from barotrauma (sudden changes in air pressure near the tips of spinning blades that cause decompression of the bats' lungs). Adverse effects to suitable Indiana bat habitat may occur from forest clearing and fragmentation.

The proposed HCP was developed to address operation of 67 existing turbines, construction and operation of an additional 33 turbines, and decommissioning of all 100 turbines by the end of the permit term (covered activities). The 6,860-acre (2,744- hectare) project planning area in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, is located on private land managed primarily for timber production.

The HCP's proposed conservation strategy is designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of covered activities on the covered species. The biological goals and objectives are to (1) significantly minimize mortality of all bat species consistent with the best available scientific information; (2) avoid and minimize take of covered species by implementing turbine operational protocols learned through a research and adaptive management strategy; and (3) mitigate unavoidable impacts to covered species by implementing habitat protection or restoration measures in key habitats for both species.

The HCP that Beech Ridge Energy included with its application for an ITP includes a series of conservation measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the effects of project construction and operation on the covered species. These measures include: (1) Constructing fewer turbines; (2) relocating turbines greater distances from bat hibernacula; (3) reducing risk to bats when they are active at low wind speeds by raising turbine cut-in speeds (the wind speed at which turbines begin generating electricity) during bat fall migration; (4) further reducing risk to bats by fully feathering turbine blades so that they barely move at wind speeds below the cut-in speed; (5) implementing turbine feathering and cut-in speed research to determine effectiveness of the changes in operational protocols; (6) monitoring bat mortality for the life of the project to ensure that biological goals are being met and that take limits are not exceeded; and (7) implementing off-site conservation projects designed to benefit the covered species by protecting and managing key habitats in perpetuity.

The proposed action consists of the issuance of an ITP and implementation of the proposed HCP. Beech Ridge Energy considered four alternatives to the proposed action in its HCP: No action (no ITP); alternate project locations; alternate technologies (such as coal and natural gas) to generate electricity; and reduced conservation measures.

Beech Ridge Energy has developed an implementation agreement (IA) that ensures proper implementation of each of the terms and conditions of the HCP and describes the applicable remedies and recourse should any party fail to perform its obligations, responsibilities, and tasks, as set forth in the agreement. The IA is being included as an appendix to the proposed HCP for public review.

We formally initiated an environmental review of the project through publication of a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on July 22, 2010 (75 FR 42767). That notice also announced a public scoping period, during which we invited interested parties to provide written comments expressing their issues or concerns related to the proposal and to attend a public scoping meeting held in Rupert, West Virginia.

Based on public scoping comments, we have prepared a draft EIS for the proposed action and have made it available for public inspection (see ADDRESSES ). NEPA requires that a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action be described. The draft EIS analyzes four alternatives, which were derived in response to scoping comments on alternatives and from discussions with Beech Ridge Energy during the development of the HCP. The alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1: No action; do not issue a permit; status quo;

Alternative 2: The proposed Federal action of issuance of the associated ITP and implementation of the proposed HCP for 100 turbines and two covered species;

Alternative 3: Issuance of an ITP and implementation of an HCP for 100 turbines and 5 covered species; and

Alternative 4: Issuance of an ITP and implementation of an HCP for 67 turbines and 2 covered species.

We are seeking public input on the draft EIS to determine whether we reviewed an appropriate list of reasonable alternatives, whether there are additional alternatives that we should consider, there is additional information that could better inform the EIS, and whether we appropriately anticipated the environmental effects of the various alternatives.

We will consider all requests for public meetings. To accommodate scheduling of meetings and allow sufficient time to publicize them, all requests for meetings must be received within 21 days after publication of this notice (see DATES , ADDRESSES , and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Please indicate the reasons why a meeting is desired (desired outcomes), desired format of the meeting, who is requesting the meeting (an individual, group, or groups) and desired meeting location(s).

We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and public comments in reaching a final decision on whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The HCP and EIS may change in response to public comments. We will prepare responses to public comments and publish a notice of availability of the final HCP and final EIS. We also will evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue a permit. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit to the applicant. We will issue a record of decision and issue or deny the permit no sooner than 30 days after publication of the notice of availability of the final EIS.

The Service invites the public to comment on the proposed HCP and draft EIS during a 60-day public comment period (see DATES ). You may submit comments by one of the methods shown under ADDRESSES .

We will post all public comments and information received electronically or via hardcopy on http://regulations.gov . All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available to the public. 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—will be publicly available. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

With this notice, we announce the availability of the Refuge's final CCP/EIS. We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 27003; May 12, 2008). We released the draft CCP/EIS to the public, announcing and requesting public comments in a notice of availability in the Federal Register (76 FR 55937; September 9, 2011).

The Refuge encompasses approximately 575,000 acres, located primarily in northwestern Nevada, with a small area in south-central Oregon. The Refuge was established to protect the American pronghorn; it also provides important habitat for greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, American pika, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, Sheldon tui chub, various raptors, and numerous passerines and invertebrates. Habitat types found on the Refuge are primarily shrub-steppe uplands, and springs and spring brooks, basalt cliffs and canyons, and emergent marshes; juniper, mountain mahogany, and aspen woodlands; and desert greasewood flats.

We announce the availability of the final CCP/EIS in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 40 CFR 1506.6(b), requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment in the final CCP/EIS.

The CCP will guide us in managing and administering the Refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative 2, as we described in the Final CCP/EIS, is our preferred alternative.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

We evaluated three alternatives for managing the Refuge for the next 15 years in the Final CCP/EIS. Based on our analysis, we identified Alternative 2 as our preferred alternative; it was modified in the Final CCP/EIS to address the comments we received on the Draft CCP/EIS. We summarized the comments and our responses in Appendix N of the Final CCP/EIS. Summaries of our alternatives follow.

Alternative 1 reflects current management of the Refuge and serves as the baseline for comparing the other management alternatives. Under Alternative 1 our management focus would be on maintaining habitats throughout the Refuge in their current conditions and preventing further degradation. We would continue to roundup and adopt out feral horses and burros, to maintain a population of approximately 800 horses and 80 burros. Wildland fire suppression, and mechanical cutting and thinning of encroaching juniper, would continue, to maintain sagebrush habitats in the late stages of succession, and avoid potential widespread growth of invasive annual grasses. We would continue to use prescribed fire to maintain wet meadow and grassland habitats in their early-to-mid-stages of succession. Public uses such as wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and fishing would continue on existing ponds, reservoirs, fishing docks, primary roads, and various primitive, semi-primitive, and developed campgrounds. Fish stocking in Refuge reservoirs would continue, as would the limited collection of rocks and minerals. The existing wilderness proposal would not change.

Under Alternative 2, our preferred alternative, we would focus on improving habitat for fish and wildlife, with an emphasis on supporting healthy populations of sagebrush-obligate wildlife species such as American pronghorn and greater sage-grouse. Actions to improve the Refuge's habitats would include removing all feral horses and burros from the Refuge within 5 years, relocating campgrounds away from sensitive riparian habitats, reducing western juniper encroachment, and, where feasible, increasing the frequency of fire to restore more natural habitat conditions, diversity, and plant community succession. Removing abandoned livestock developments and reducing invasive plants along roads would be emphasized. Opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation would be maintained or improved. Limited rock and mineral collecting would continue, with improved visitor information. Nevada's fish stocking program would continue, using fish species naturally occurring within the local area. Our wilderness recommendation would differ from the existing proposal by including some but not all of the lands identified in the existing proposal, and recommending areas not previously identified. Contingent upon approval of the wilderness recommendation, we would propose reopening some primitive routes for motorized vehicle use. Several segments of existing and recommended routes would be realigned to reduce erosion and impacts to riparian habitats. Alternative 2 would result in the greatest improvements to native habitat conditions throughout the Refuge, would best meet the policy and directives of the Service, is compatible with the Refuge's purposes, and would maintain balance among the Refuge's varied management needs and programs.

Under Alternative 3, we would restore natural processes, to maintain, enhance, and where possible, increase the Refuge's native fish, wildlife, and plant diversity, representative of historical conditions in the Great Basin. Emphasis would be placed on improving shrub-steppe habitats, and restoring modified and/or degraded habitats to more natural conditions, while using less intensive management actions where appropriate. Habitat management actions would include removing all feral horses and burros from the Refuge within 10 years, and creating conditions where natural processes, such as fire, could be allowed, with less dependence on intensive management actions. Opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and fishing would continue at most current sites, except that fish stocking at Big Spring Reservoir would not occur. Campgrounds would be consolidated into fewer but larger developed campgrounds, with better amenities. We would recommend a smaller number of acres for wilderness designation under Alternative 3. As part of our wilderness proposal, we would recommend reopening some primitive routes for motorized vehicle use, which would not require intensive restoration or management to minimize adverse impacts.