The provisions of paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in the HTS authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the in-quota TRQ amounts (expressed in terms of raw value) for imports of raw cane sugar and certain sugars, syrups, and molasses that may be entered under the subheadings of the HTS subject to the lower tier of duties of the TRQs for entry during each fiscal year. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the allocation of these quantities among supplying countries and areas.

Section 359(k) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, requires that at the beginning of the quota year the Secretary of Agriculture establish the TRQs for raw cane sugar and refined sugars at the minimum levels necessary to comply with obligations under international trade agreements, with the exception of specialty sugar.

Notice is hereby given that I have determined, in accordance with paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in the HTS and section 359(k) of the 1938 Act, that an aggregate quantity of up to 1,117,195 MTRV of raw cane sugar may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during FY 2013. This is the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements. I have further determined that an aggregate quantity of 117,254 MTRV of sugars, syrups, and molasses may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during FY 2013. Of this quantity of 117,254 MTRV, the quantity of 96,910 MTRV is reserved for the importation of specialty sugars as defined by the USTR. The total of 117,254 MTRV includes the 22,000 MTRV minimum level necessary to comply with U.S. WTO Uruguay Round commitments, of which 1,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugar. Because the specialty sugar TRQ is first-come, first-served, tranches are needed to allow for orderly marketing throughout the year. The FY 2013 specialty sugar TRQ will be opened in five tranches. The first tranche, totaling 1,656 MTRV, will open October 12, 2012. All specialty sugars are eligible for entry under this tranche. The second tranche will open on October 26, 2012, and be equal to 35,245 MTRV. The remaining tranches will each be equal to 20,003 MTRV, with the third opening on January 11, 2013; the fourth, on April 11, 2013; and the fifth, on July 11, 2013. The second, third, fourth, and fifth tranches will be reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced commercially in the United States or reasonably available from domestic sources.

Section 359c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, requires that the OAQ be established at not less than 85 percent of the estimated quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for the crop year, and that fixed percentages of the OAQ be assigned to the beet sector and cane sector. The OAQ for FY 2013 is being established at the minimum quantity of 9,711,250 STRV. Based on the required beet sector and cane sector percentages of 54.35 and 46.65 respectively, the sugar beet sector is allotted 5,278,064 STRV and cane sector is allotted 4,433,186 STRV for FY 2013.

The cane sector allotment is allocated to the sugarcane States according to provisions in the sugar program, as follows: Hawaii—245,499 STRV; Florida—2,250,786 STRV; Louisiana—1,741,236 and Texas—195,665 STRV. Company allocations will be announced in a press release before September 30, 2012.

* Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons.

Title: USDA Patent License Application for Government Invention.

OMB Number: 0518-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 28, 2013.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The USDA patent licensing program grants patent licenses to qualified businesses and individuals who wish to commercialize inventions arising from federally supported research. The objective of the program is to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from such research. The licensing of federally owned inventions must be done in accordance with the terms, conditions and procedures prescribed under 37 CFR part 404. Application for a license must be addressed to the Federal agency having custody of the invention. Licenses may be granted only if the license applicant has supplied the Federal agency with a satisfactory plan for the development and marketing of the invention and with information about the applicant's capability to fulfill the plan. 37 CFR 404.8 sets forth the information which must be provided by a license applicant. For the convenience of the applicant, USDA has itemized the information needed on Form AD-761, and instructions for completing the form are provided to the applicant. The information submitted is used to determine whether the applicant has both a complete and sufficient plan for developing and marketing the invention and the necessary manufacturing, marketing, technical, and financial resources to carry out the submitted plan.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response.

Description of Respondents: Businesses or other for profit individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Frequency of Responses: One time per invention.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 225 hours.

This data will be collected under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer by calling 301-504-5989.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

Comments may be sent to USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The following business will be conducted: review and status updates on Title II projects, review the status of funds to be allocated, discuss acquisition management instruments for implementation of projects, review monitoring report, review and approve administrative costs, provide opportunity for proponents to present proposals (5 minutes each), provide LC-IS RAC members an opportunity to ask questions about proposals (3 minutes each), review the proposal recommendation process, review and rank project proposals by Category Groups, provide recommendations for funding to the Designated Federal Official and provide for public comment. Further information can be found at http://goo.gl/tnSEV. 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 19, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Shane King, RAC Coordinator, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801, or by email to shaneking@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to (907) 586-8808. A summary of the meeting will be posted at http://goo.gl/tnSEV 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: (1) Review of project proposals for recommendation to Forest Supervisor. 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 10, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801, or by email to mmarshall01@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to (907) 586-8808. A summary of the meeting will be posted at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf/RAC/Juneau?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 authorized under title II of the Act. An agenda will be posted at http://www.fs.fed.us/srs at least one week prior to the meeting. 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. A summary of the meeting will be posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/srs within 21 days of the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring resonable accomodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accomodation for access to the facility or procedings by contacting the person listed under 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 authorized under title II of the Act. An agenda will be posted at http://www.fs.fed.us/srs at least one week prior to the meeting. 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. A summary of the meeting will be posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/srs within 21 days of the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring resonable accomodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accomodation for access to the facility or procedings by contacting the person listed under For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

On June 6, 2012, the Department published the preliminary results of this review in the Federal Register . See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. As stated above, Noksel submitted comments on July 6, 2012, but withdrew them on July 9, 2012. No party requested a hearing.

The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope.

The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP's customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

As noted above, the Department has no comments concerning the Preliminary Results on the record of this segment of the proceeding. As there are no changes from, or comments upon, the Preliminary Results on the record, there is no decision memorandum accompanying this Federal Register notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, is as follows:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the companies subject to this review to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.

Noksel reported that it was the importer of record for all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.

To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates based on reported and estimated entered values (when no entered value was reported). Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. 2 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 27.04 percent ad valorem, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. 3 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

The objectives of the proposed research are to obtain information on population status and distribution, stock structure, age distribution, mortality rates, productivity, feeding habits, and health status of twenty-six species of pinnipeds (excluding walrus) and cetaceans found in Alaskan waters; such data would be used for conservation and management purposes. The applicant is requesting authorization to collect, receive, import, and export marine mammal parts from legal foreign (Russia and Canada) and domestic subsistence-hunts; scientists in academic, federal, and state institutions involved in legally authorized marine mammal research; dead beach-cast species; and incidental commercial fisheries bycatch. Import/export activities would occur world-wide. No live animal takes are being requested under this permit. The requested duration of the permit is five years.

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 activities proposed are 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 a copy of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Limuli Laboratories submitted an application for an EFP on June 19, 2012, to collect up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs for biomedical and data collection purposes from the Reserve. The applicant has applied for, and received, a similar EFP every year from 2001-2011. The current EFP application specifies that: (1) The same methods would be used in 2012 that were used in years 2001-2011, (2) at least 15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs would be tagged, and (3) there had not been any sighting or capture of marine mammals or endangered species in the trawling nets of fishing vessels engaged in the collection of horseshoe crabs since 1993. The project submitted by Limuli Laboratories would provide morphological data on horseshoe crab catch, would tag a portion of the caught horseshoe crabs, and would use the blood from the caught horseshoe crabs to manufacture Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL), an important health and safety product used for the detection of endotoxins. The LAL assay is used by medical professionals, drug companies, and pharmacies to detect endotoxins in intravenous pharmaceuticals and medical devices that come into contact with human blood or spinal fluid.

During the 2011 season, a total of 3,500 horseshoe crabs were gathered over a period of seven days, from the Carl N. Schuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve (Reserve) for the manufacture of LAL. After transportation to the laboratory, the horseshoe crabs were inspected for size, injuries, and responsiveness. The injured horseshoe crabs numbered 310, or 8.86% of the total, while 71, or 2.03%, were noted as slow moving. An additional 16, or 4.06% were deemed mortal. In addition, six horseshoe crabs were rejected due to small size. Overall, 3,097 horseshoe crabs were used (bled) in the manufacture of a LAL.

Two hundred of the bled horseshoe crabs were randomly selected for activity, morphometric and aging studies. The activity level for all 200 animals was categorized as “active”. Morphometric studies noted that average inter-ocular distances, prosoma widths and weights of these 200 horseshoe crabs were comparable to previous years (2001-2010). Of the 200 horseshoe crabs examined in 2011, a little more than half (52%) were categorized as medium aged followed by young (31%). Older animals were greater in number (17%) than most of the other years with the exception of the 2004 year (19%) and the 2010 year (26%).

The 200 studied horseshoe crabs and 325 additional bled horseshoe crabs were tagged and released into the Delaware Bay. To date, the tagging of 4,938 horseshoe crabs during 2001-2011 have resulted in 104 live recaptures. The observed horseshoe crabs were found 1 to 8 years after release, primarily along the Delaware Bay shores during their spawning season.

Limuli Laboratories proposes to conduct an exempted fishery operation using the same means, methods, and seasons proposed/utilized during the EFPs in 2001-2011. Limuli proposes to continue to tag at least 15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs as they did in 2011. NMFS would require that the following terms and conditions be met for issuance and continuation of the EFP for 2012:

1. Limiting the number of horseshoe crabs collected in the Reserve to no more than 500 crabs per day and to a total of no more than 10,000 crabs per year;

2. Requiring collections to take place over a total of approximately 20 days during the months of July, August, September, October, and November. (Horseshoe crabs are readily available in harvestable concentrations nearshore earlier in the year, and offshore in the Reserve from July through November.);

3. Requiring that a 5 1/2 inch (14.0 cm) flounder net be used by the vessel to collect the horseshoe crabs. This condition would allow for continuation of traditional harvest gear and adds to the consistency in the way horseshoe crabs are harvested for data collection;

4. Limiting trawl tow times to 30 minutes as a conservation measure to protect sea turtles, which are expected to be migrating through the area during the collection period, and are vulnerable to bottom trawling;

5. Requiring that the collected horseshoe crabs be picked up from the fishing vessels at docks in the Cape May Area and transported to local laboratories, bled for LAL, and released alive the following morning into the Lower Delaware Bay; and

6. Requiring that any turtle take be reported to NMFS, Northeast Region, Assistant Regional Administrator of Protected Resources Division, within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the incidental take occurred.

As part of the terms and conditions of the EFP, for all horseshoe crabs bled for LAL, NMFS would require that the EFP holder provide data on sex ratio and daily harvest. Also, the EFP holder would be required to examine at least 200 horseshoe crabs for morphometric data. Terms and conditions may be added or amended prior to the issuance of the EFP.

The proposed EFP would exempt two commercial vessels from regulations at 50 CFR 697.7(e) and 697.23(f), which prohibit the harvest and possession of horseshoe crabs from the Reserve on a vessel with a trawl or dredge gear aboard.

Background

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) contains provisions allowing interested persons to petition the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to add a species to or remove a species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and to designate critical habitat for any endangered or threatened species. The Secretary has delegated the authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

On July 3, 2012, we received a petition from the Siskiyou County Water Users Association and Dr. Richard Gierak (the petitioners) requesting that we delist the SONCC ESU of coho salmon under the ESA. The petitioners previously submitted four petitions requesting that we delist coho salmon. We analyzed those petitions and found that they did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. One negative 90-day finding notice for three of these petitions was published on October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62375) and a second negative 90-day finding for the fourth petition was published on January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1668). The new petition largely reiterates the petitioners' previous arguments, including that the species is not native to northern California watersheds, including the Klamath River, the species abundance has increased since the early 1960s and is in good condition overall, and that non-man-made factors (e.g., ocean conditions, floods, fires, and drought) rather than man-made factors are responsible for the decline in coho salmon abundance. These arguments were addressed in our responses to the previous petitions and therefore not repeated here.

In the current petition, the petitioners have specified their request to delist the SONCC coho salmon ESU, reiterated many of their previous arguments, and presented some additional information regarding coho and Chinook salmon fishing seasons in Oregon streams, Yukon River salmon run predictions, changes in salmon landings over the past 1-2 decades, and increases in Pacific Ocean water temperature. We carefully analyzed this additional information and found that it is: Not relevant to the petitioned action (e.g., the Oregon and Yukon fisheries are different ESUs from the petitioned species); not supported by literature citations or other references in the petition (e.g., historical landings and ocean temperature information), and therefore constitutes unsupported assertions; or it simply does not support the petitioned action (e.g., information about coho and Chinook salmon fishing seasons in Oregon streams that are not within the range of this ESU). As a result of these deficiencies, the petition does not present any additional substantial scientific or commercial information that indicates the petitioned action may be warranted. Moreover, none of this additional information modifies the underlying scientific basis for our original determination to list the SONCC coho salmon ESU or causes us to re-evaluate our analysis of delisting petitions that were previously submitted by the petitioners.

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” as the “amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information to list or delist a species, we take into account information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, followed by prompt publication in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA implementing regulations state that a species may be delisted only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: The species is extinct; the species is recovered; or subsequent investigations show the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).

As discussed above, this subject petition does not present any additional substantial scientific or commercial information related to whether the SONCC ESU of coho salmon is recovered, extinct, or that the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

A complete list of the references used in this finding is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is published in the Federal Register to provide public notice and initiate a 30-day comment period.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by Level B harassment as defined below. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. If authorized, the IHA may be effective for a period of one year.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines `harassment' as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

On May 18, 2012, we received an application from the DNR for an IHA for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ) incidental to activities conducted in association with an ongoing habitat restoration project within the Woodard Bay NRCA, Washington. DNR was first issued an IHA that was valid from November 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011 (75 FR 67951), and was subsequently issued a second IHA that was valid from November 1, 2011, through February 28, 2012 (76 FR 67419). Restoration activity planned for 2012-13 includes removal of fill and associated materials in Woodard Bay and Chapman Bay and removal of creosote pilings and structure in Chapman Bay. Pilings will be removed by vibratory hammer extraction methods or by direct pull with cables. The superstructure materials will be removed by excavator and/or cables suspended from a barge-mounted crane. The specified activities will occur only between November 1 through March 15 (2012-13), and are expected to require a maximum total of approximately 70 days.

In accordance with regulations implementing the MMPA, we published notice of the proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44583). A complete description of the action was included in that notice and will not be reproduced here.

The restoration activities planned under the IHA include all or part of the following:

Fill removal from Woodard and Chapman Bays will be accomplished from the uplands by heavy equipment and haul trucks. The creosoted pilings in the fill will be removed from the uplands by a crane-mounted vibratory hammer. This portion of the project is estimated to take approximately 12-14 weeks to complete. The majority of fill removal work is located in Woodard Bay, which is separated from the harbor seal haul-out areas (located in Chapman Bay) by land. This work will likely result in less disturbance of harbor seals than will the work located in Chapman Bay. In addition, the material to be removed will be hauled offsite by the contractor via Whitham Road, which is the main road into the NRCA and which leads away from the haul-out area (see Figure 4 of DNR's application). Fill removal will largely occur above the Ordinary High Water Mark. Fill removal activities may occur between November 1 and March 15. Chapman Bay fill removal is roughly 250 m from the south haul-out and 975 m from the north haul-out.

Piling and structure removal work will be accomplished by barge and skiffs. The pilings will be removed by vibratory hammer or by direct pull with cables; both methods are suspended from a barge-mounted crane. The vibratory hammer is a large steel device lowered on top of the pile, which then grips and vibrates the pile until it is loosened from the sediment. The pile is then pulled up by the hammer and placed on a barge. For direct pull, a cable is set around the piling to grip and lift the pile from the sediment. The superstructure materials will be removed by excavator and/or cables suspended from a barge-mounted crane.

Approximately 500 12- to 24-in diameter pilings, along with associated pier superstructure, will be removed near but not directly adjacent to haul-outs. After vibration, a choker is used to lift the pile out of the water where it is placed on the barge for transport to an approved disposal site. Pilings that cannot be removed by hammer or cable, or that break during extraction, will be recorded via GPS for divers to relocate at the final phase of project activities. The divers will then cut the pilings at or below the mudline using underwater chainsaws. Operations will begin on the pilings and structures that are furthest from the seal haul-out so that there is an opportunity for the seals to adjust to the presence of the contractors and their equipment. Vibratory extraction operations may occur between November 1 and January 15 and are expected to occur for approximately 20 days over the course of this work window. Other work days will be spent removing pier superstructure, which does not involve vibratory extraction, but has the potential to result in behavioral harassment due to the proximity to working crew. The portion of the Chapman Bay Pier that will be removed is approximately 100 m from the south haul-out area and 250 m from the north haul out.

On July 30, 2012, we published a notice of proposed IHA (77 FR 44583) in response to DNR's request to take marine mammals incidental to restoration activities and requested comments and information concerning that request. During the 30-day public comment period, we received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) on the proposed IHA. No other comments were received from the public.

The Commission provided two recommendations that it has provided for each of the past two IHAs issued to DNR for substantially similar work. The Commission recommends that we (1) require the DNR to monitor for the presence of and to characterize behavior of marine mammals during all proposed in-water activities; and (2) that we require monitoring before, during, and after all soft starts of pile removal activities to gather the data needed to determine the effectiveness of this technique as a mitigation measure. We disagree with these recommendations, and the Commission has not provided any information that would lead us to offer different responses from those offered in the past. Therefore, those responses, which may be found in past Federal Register notices (75 FR 67951, 76 FR 67419), are not repeated here.

The only marine mammal species that may be harassed incidental to DNR's restoration activities is the harbor seal. Harbor seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. We presented a more detailed discussion of the status of the Washington inland waters stock of harbor seals and its occurrence in the action area in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012).

Potential effects of DNR's activities are likely to be limited to behavioral disturbance of seals at the two log boom haul-outs located in the action area. Other potential disturbance could result from the introduction of sound into the environment as a result of pile removal activities; however, this is unlikely to cause an appreciably greater amount of harassment in either numbers or degree, in part because it is anticipated that most seals will be disturbed initially by physical presence of crews and vessels or by sound from vessels.

There is a general paucity of data on sound levels produced by vibratory extraction of timber piles; however, it is reasonable to assume that extraction will not result in higher sound pressure levels (SPLs) than vibratory installation of piles. As such, we assume that source levels from the specified activity will not be as high as average source levels for vibratory installation of 12-24 in steel piles (155-165 dB; Caltrans, 2009). Our general in-water harassment thresholds for pinnipeds exposed to continuous noise, such as that produced by vibratory pile extraction, are 190 dB root mean square (rms) re: 1 μPa as the potential onset of Level A (injurious) harassment and 120 dB RMS re: 1 μPa as the potential onset of Level B (behavioral) harassment.

Vibratory extraction will not result in sound levels near 190 dB; therefore, injury will not occur. However, noise from vibratory extraction will likely exceed 120 dB near the source and may induce responses in-water such as avoidance or other alteration of behavior at time of exposure. However, seals flushing from haul-outs in response to small vessel activity and the presence of work crews would already be considered as `harassed'; therefore, any harassment resulting from exposure to sound pressure levels above the 120 dB criterion for behavioral harassment would not be considered additional.

The airborne sound disturbance criteria currently used for Level B harassment is 90 dB rms re: 20 μPa for harbor seals. Based on information on airborne source levels measured for pile driving with vibratory hammer, removal of wood piles is unlikely to exceed 90 dB; further, the vibratory hammer will be outfitted with a muffling device ensuring that airborne SPLs are no higher than 80 dB.

Potential effects of sound produced by the action on harbor seals were detailed in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012). In short, while it may be inferred that temporary hearing impairment (temporary threshold shift; TTS) could theoretically result from the DNR project, it is highly unlikely, due to the source levels and duration of exposure possible. It is expected that elevated sound will have only a negligible probability of causing TTS in individual seals. Further, seals are likely to be disturbed via the approach of work crews and vessels long before the beginning of any pile removal operations and would be apprised of the advent of increased underwater sound via the soft start of the vibratory hammer. It is not expected that airborne sound levels will induce any form of behavioral harassment, much less TTS in individual pinnipeds.

The DNR and other organizations, such as the Cascadia Research Collective, have been monitoring the behavior of harbor seals present within the NRCA since 1977. Past disturbance observations at Woodard Bay NRCA have shown that seal harassment results from the presence of non-motorized vessels (e.g., recreational kayaks and canoes), motorized vessels (e.g., fishing boats), and people (Calambokidis and Leathery, 1991; Buettner et al., 2008). Results of these studies are described in the proposed IHA notice for this action. Based on these studies, we anticipate that the presence of work crews and vessels will result in behavioral harassment, primarily by flushing seals off log booms, or by causing short-term avoidance of the area or similar short-term behavioral disturbance.

In summary, based on the preceding discussion and on observations of harbor seals during past management activities in Woodard Bay, we have determined that impacts to harbor seals during restoration activities will be limited to behavioral harassment of limited duration and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most) resulting from physical disturbance. It is anticipated that seals would be initially disturbed by the presence of crew and vessels associated with the habitat restoration project. Seals entering the water following such disturbance could also be exposed to underwater SPLs greater than 120 dB (i.e., constituting harassment); however, given the short duration and low energy of vibratory extraction of 12-24 in timber piles, PTS will not occur and TTS is not likely. Alternatively, the presence of work crews and vessels, or the introduction of sound into the water, could result in short-term avoidance of the area by seals seeking to use the haul-out. Abandonment of any portion of the haul-out is not expected, as harbor seals have been documented as quickly becoming accustomed to the presence of work crews. During similar activities carried out under the previous IHAs, seals showed no signs of abandonment or of using the haul-outs to a lesser degree.

We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012). While marine mammal habitat will be temporarily ensonified by low sound levels resulting from habitat restoration effort, no impacts to the physical availability of haul-out habitat will occur. It is expected that, at most, temporary disturbance of habitat potentially utilized by harbor seal prey species may occur as piles are removed. The DNR's restoration activities will result in a long-term net positive gain for marine mammal habitat, compared with minimal short-term, temporary impacts.

Please see the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012) for a summary of previous monitoring.

In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

The DNR will continue certain mitigation measures stipulated in the previous IHAs, designed to minimize disturbance to harbor seals within the action area in consideration of timing, location, and equipment use. Foremost, pile, structure, and fill removal will only occur between November and March, outside of harbor seal pupping and molting seasons. Therefore, no impacts to pups from the specified activity during these sensitive time periods will occur. In addition, the following measures will be implemented:

• The DNR will approach the action area slowly to alert seals to their presence from a distance and will begin pulling piles at the farthest location from the log booms used as harbor seal haul-out areas;

• No piles within 30 yd (27 m) of the two main haul-out locations identified in the IHA application will be removed;

• The contractor or observer will survey the operational area for seals before initiating activities and wait until the seals are at a sufficient distance (i.e., 50 ft [15 m]) from the activity so as to minimize the risk of direct injury from the equipment or from a piling or structure breaking free;

• The DNR will require the contractor to initiate a vibratory hammer soft start at the beginning of each work day; and

• The vibratory hammer power pack will be outfitted with a muffler to reduce in-air noise levels to a maximum of 80 dB.

The soft start method involves a reduced energy vibration from the hammer for the first 15 seconds and then a 30-second waiting period. This method will be repeated twice before commencing with operations at full power.

We have carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures as proposed and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures includes consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.

Injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds could likely only result from startling animals inhabiting the haul-out into a stampede reaction. Even in the event that such a reaction occurred, it is unlikely that it will result in injury, serious injury, or mortality, as the activities will occur outside of the pupping season, and access to the water from the haul-outs is relatively easy and unimpeded. However, DNR will approach haul-outs gradually from a distance, and will begin daily work at the farthest distance from the haul-out in order to eliminate the possibility of such events. During the previous years of work under our authorization, implementation of similar mitigation measures has resulted in no known injury, serious injury, or mortality (other than one event considered atypical and outside the scope of the mitigation measures considered in relation to disturbing seals from the haul-outs). Based upon the DNR's record of management in the NRCA, as well as information from monitoring DNR's implementation of the improved mitigation measures as prescribed under the previous IHAs, we have determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.

DNR's monitoring plan adheres to protocols already established for Woodard Bay to the maximum extent practical for the specified activity. Monitoring of both the north and south haul-outs will occur for a total of 15 work days, during the first 5 days of project activities, when the contractors are mobilizing and starting use of the vibratory hammer; during 5 days when activities are occurring closest to the haul-out areas; and during 5 additional days, to include days when fill removal is occurring in Woodard Bay. It is not expected that Woodard Bay fill removal will result in seal disturbance; however, the stipulation that monitoring be conducted while this activity occurs is intended to ensure that such is the case. Monitoring of both haul-outs will be performed by at least one observer. The observer will (1) be on-site prior to crew and vessel arrival to determine the number of seals present pre-disturbance; (2) maintain a low profile during this time to minimize disturbance from monitoring; and (3) conduct monitoring beginning 30 minutes prior to crew arrival, during pile removal activities, and for 30 minutes after crew leave the site.

The observer will record incidental takes (i.e., numbers of seals flushed from the haul-out). This information will be determined by recording the number of seals using the haul-out on each monitoring day prior to the start of restoration activities and recording the number of seals that flush from the haul-out or, for animals already in the water, display adverse behavioral reactions to vibratory extraction. A description of the disturbance source, the proximity in meters of the disturbance source to the disturbed animals, and observable behavioral reactions to specific disturbances will also be noted. In addition, the observer will record:

• The number of seals using the haul-out on each monitoring day prior to the start of restoration activities for that day;

• Seal behavior before, during and after pile and structure removal;

• Monitoring dates, times and conditions;

• Dates of all pile and structure removal activities; and

• After correcting for observation effort, the number of seals taken over the duration of the habitat restoration project.

Within 30 days of the completion of the project, DNR will submit a monitoring report that will include a summary of findings and copies of field data sheets and relevant daily logs from the contractor.

We are authorizing DNR to take harbor seals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to specified restoration activities. These activities, involving extraction of creosoted timber piles and removal of derelict pier superstructure and fill, are expected to harass marine mammals present in the vicinity of the project site through behavioral disturbance only. Estimates of the number of marine mammals that may be harassed by the activities are based upon actual counts of harbor seals harassed during days monitored under the previous IHAs, and the estimated total number of working days. Methodology of take estimation was discussed in detail in our notice of proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012).

DNR considers that 40 total work days (as opposed to the total work window, and not including days spent removing fill from the Woodard Bay area) may occur, potentially resulting in incidental harassment of harbor seals. Using the average count from monitoring under the previous IHAs, the result is an estimated incidental take of 1,680 harbor seals (40 days × 42 seals per day). We consider this to be a highly conservative estimate in comparison with the estimated actual take of 875 seals from 2010 and 231 seals from 2011, which is nonetheless based upon the best available information.

We have defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In determining whether or not authorized incidental take will have a negligible impact on affected species stocks, we consider a number of criteria regarding the impact of the proposed action, including the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment take that may occur. Although DNR's restoration activities may harass pinnipeds hauled out in Woodard Bay, impacts are occurring to a small, localized group of animals. No mortality or injury is anticipated or authorized, and the specified activity is not expected to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out. Seals will likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of crews and equipment. However, seals have been observed as becoming habituated to physical presence of work crews, and quickly re-inhabit haul-outs upon cessation of stimulus. In addition, the specified restoration actions may provide improved habitat function for seals, both indirectly through a healthier prey base and directly through restoration and maintenance of man-made haul-out habitat. No impacts are expected at the population or stock level.

No pinniped stocks known from the action area are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. Recent data suggests that harbor seal populations have reached carrying capacity.

Although the estimated take of 1,680 is 11 percent of the estimated population of 14,612 for the Washington Inland Waters stock of harbor seals, the number of individual seals harassed will be lower, with individual seals likely harassed multiple times. In addition, although the estimated take is based upon the best information available, we consider the estimate to be highly conservative. For similar restoration activities in 2010-11, estimated actual take was much lower (875 seals over 35 work days in 2010 and 231 seals over 21 work days in 2011).

Mitigation measures will minimize onset of sudden and potentially dangerous reactions and overall disturbance. In addition, restoration work is not likely to affect seals at both haul-outs simultaneously, based on location of the crew and barge. Further, although seals may initially flush into the water, based on previous disturbance studies and maintenance activity at the haul-outs, the DNR expects seals will quickly habituate to piling and structure removal operations. For these reasons no long term or permanent abandonment of the haul-out is anticipated. Much of the work planned for 2012-13 consists of fill removal, which does not require in-water work or vessel support, and is largely located in Woodard Bay, which is shielded from the haul-out locations by land. The specified activity is not anticipated to result in injury, serious injury, or mortality to any harbor seal. The DNR will not conduct habitat restoration operations during the pupping and molting season; therefore, no pups will be affected by the specified activity and no impacts to any seals will occur as a result of the specified activity during these sensitive time periods.

Based on the foregoing analysis, behavioral disturbance to pinnipeds in Woodard Bay will be of low intensity and limited duration. To ensure minimal disturbance, DNR will implement the mitigation measures described previously, which we have determined will serve as the means for effecting the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammal stocks or populations and their habitat. We find that DNR's restoration activities will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, and that the requested number of takes will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.

There are no ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area; therefore, no consultation under the ESA is required.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, we prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from issuance of an IHA to DNR. We signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on October 27, 2010. We have reviewed the application and determined that there are no substantial changes to the action or new environmental impacts or concerns. Therefore, we have determined that a new or supplemental EA or Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary. The EA referenced above is available for review at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

We have determined that the impact of conducting the specific activities described in this notice and in the IHA request in Woodard Bay, Washington may result, at worst, in temporary modifications in behavior (Level B harassment) of small numbers of marine mammals. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected stock of marine mammals. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the affected species or stock of marine mammals for subsistence uses is not implicated for this action.

As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to DNR to conduct habitat restoration activities in Woodard Bay during the period of November 1, 2012, through March 15, 2013, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/.

Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for three years. Approximately 77 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location which first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

1. October 11, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 23 Cummings Street, Somerville, MA 02145.

2. November 15, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., Hampton Inn & Suites, 1104 Isle of Palms Connector, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464.

3. December 12, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 5000 Lake Boulevard, Clearwater, FL 33760.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at esander@peoplepc.com or at (386) 852-8588.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for three years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 136 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

1. October 10, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 6745 Rock Spring Road, Wilmington, NC 28405.

2. October 17, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.

3. November 7, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

4. November 15, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton, 1 Hotel Drive, Boston, MA 02128.

5. December 5, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 2620 West International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114.

6. December 12, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.

To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

The analysis will focus on Fort Belvoir's Main Post (7,700 acres) and the Fort Belvoir North Area (800 acres, formerly called the Engineer Proving Ground). The update will not include Fort Belvoir property at Rivanna Station in Charlottesville, VA; the Mark Center in Alexandria, VA; or the Humphreys Engineer Center.

The EIS will analyze environmental impacts of the short-range projects currently programmed for construction in fiscal years 2013-2017. These projects include new office buildings; community and recreational facilities; a Fisher House; industrial and maintenance facilities; privatization of utilities; long-term lease of additional land to the privatized housing partner; the National Museum of the U.S. Army; and roads. If and when these projects are completed, approximately 4,800 additional employees would be expected to work at Fort Belvoir.

The Army is also updating its RPMP for Fort Belvoir by analyzing the on-post and off-post environmental impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development and management of real property (land uses, facilities, resources, infrastructure, and population capacity. The EIS will assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with updating the RPMP to meet the Army's current and future planning needs.

A range of reasonable alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS. Alternatives will reflect various scenarios for implementation of the short-range projects, combined with various scenarios for land use designations on the installation for longer range planning. The EIS will also consider a No Action alternative, under which the approved 1993 Master Plan (as amended in the 2007 BRAC EIS) would remain in effect. Other reasonable alternatives identified during the scoping process will be considered for evaluation in the EIS.

The proposed short-range projects at Fort Belvoir could have significant impacts to traffic, air quality, and natural, cultural, and other resources. Long-range development could have significant impacts to the same resources. Mitigation measures will be identified for adverse impacts.

Scoping and public comments: Federally-recognized Indian tribes, federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and the public are invited to be involved in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS by participating in meetings and/or submitting written comments. The scoping process will help identify possible alternatives, potential environmental impacts, and key issues of concern to be analyzed in the EIS. Written comments will be accepted within 30 days of publication of the NOI in the Federal Register . Meetings will be held in Alexandria, VA. Notification of the times and locations for the scoping meetings will be published locally.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

• August 9, 2012.

• Senior Officer Compensation Disclosures and Related Topics—Final Rule.

• System Audit Committee—Final Rule.

• Quarterly Report on Farm Credit System Condition.

• Office of Examination Supervisory and Oversight Activities Report.

On December 7, 2010, in document DA 10-2318, Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the establishment and appointment of members and Co-Chairpersons of the EAAC, an advisory committee required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), Public Law 11-260, for the purpose of achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of our nation's migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, also known as the next generation 9-1-1 system (NG9-1-1). The purpose of the EAAC is to determine the most effective and efficient technologies and methods by which to enable access to Next Generation 911 (NG 9-1-1) emergency services by individuals with disabilities, and to make recommendations to the Commission on how to achieve those effective and efficient technologies and methods. During the spring of 2011, the EAAC conducted a nationwide survey of individuals with disabilities and released a report on that survey on June 21, 2011. Following release of the survey report, the EAAC developed recommendations, which it submitted to the Commission on December 7, 2011, as required by the CVAA. At the September 2012 EAAC meeting, the seven subcommittees of the EAAC will present reports and consider activities for 2012.

The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

Title: Basel II: Disclosures and Recordkeeping.

OMB Number: 3064-0153.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.

Estimated Average Time per Response: implementation—330 hours; systems maintenance—27.9 hours; disclosures—5.79 hours; control, oversight and verification—11.05 hours; documentation—19 hours; and supervisory approvals—16.82 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 3,284 hours.

General Description of Collection: On December 7, 2007, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller, and the Federal Reserve Board (collectively, the “Agencies”) issued the joint final rule titled Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (final rule) implementing a new risk-based regulatory capital framework for institutions in the United States. The final rule requires certain large or internationally active banks and bank holding companies (BHCs) to (1) adopt a written implementation plan, (2) update that plan for any mergers, (3) obtain prior written approvals for the use of certain approaches for determining risk-weighted assets, and (4) make certain public disclosures regarding their capital ratios, their components, and information on implicit support provided to a securitization. There are no required reporting forms associated with this information collection.

The Agencies, on August 30, 2012, proposed three rules that would amend this collection:

Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Minimum Regulatory Capital Ratios, Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, and Prompt Corrective Action (77 FR 52792); Regulatory Capital Rules: Standardized Approach for Risk-Weighted Assets; Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements (77 FR 52888); and Regulatory Capital Rules: Advanced Approaches Risk-based Capital Rules; Market Risk Capital Rule (77 FR 52978). An information collection request to revise and rename the collection on the basis of the three rules has been submitted to OMB for review. However, since the FDIC's collection expires on January 31, 2013, the FDIC is proceeding with the renewal process to ensure continuation of the collection in the event that OMB does not act on the FDIC's request to revise the collection prior to its expiration date.

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.

The FAR requires insertion of clause 52.247-2, Permits, Authorities, or Franchises, when regulated transportation is involved. The clause requires the contractor to indicate whether it has the proper authorization from the Federal Highway Administration (or other cognizant regulatory body) to move material. The contractor may be required to provide copies of the authorization before moving material under the contract. The clause also requires the contractor, at its expense, to obtain and maintain any permits, franchises, licenses, and other authorities issued by State and local governments. The Government may request to review the documents to ensure that the contractor has complied with all regulatory requirements.

The estimated annual reporting burden has decreased from what was published in the Federal Register at 74 FR 56640, on November 2, 2009. The decrease is based on a revised estimate of the number of respondents, responses per year and response time per response. According to Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data, 3,877 contracts were awarded to 1021 unique vendors under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 484 for trucking, where the requirements for this collection would apply. It is estimated that a maximum of 25%, or 255 of these vendors would be required to provide the information required by the clause. The information need only be gathered and submitted on an exception basis. We estimate that any respondent will be required to submit supporting information only one time annually. In addition, we think that it will take the contractor only half an hour to pull existing franchises or permits from the files.

Respondents: 255.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 255.

Hours Per Response: 0.5.

Total Burden Hours: 128.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0053, Permits, Authorities, or Franchises, in all correspondence.

Proposed Project A Prototype Consumer Reporting System for Patient Safety Events

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ's collection of information for a Prototype Consumer Reporting System for Patient Safety Events. This project aims to design and test a system for collecting information from patients about health care safety events following standard definitions and formats.

There is a growing body of evidence that many adverse medical events go unreported in current systems (Weissman et al., 2008). A primary reason for this reporting gap is that most reporting systems do not presently accept or elicit reports from patients and their families (RTI 2010). AHRQ recognizes that the unique perspective of health care consumers could reveal important information that is not reported by health care providers. Patient reports could complement and enhance reports from providers and thus produce a more complete and accurate understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of medical adverse events (RTI, 2010).

In an effort to realize untapped potential of health care consumers to provide important information about patient safety events, AHRQ has funded the development of a prototype Consumer Reporting System for Patient Safety (CRSPS), designed to collect information from medical patients about medical errors that resulted or nearly resulted in harm or injury. The purpose of this project is to test the prototype for its ability to record data from consumers about patient safety events defined as an incident or near miss by the AHRQ Common Formats (AHRQ, 2010, details at: www.pso.ahrq.gov/formats/commonfmt.htm ).

Currently there is no mechanism for consumers to report information about patient safety events defined as an incident or near miss by the AHRQ Common Formats. Such information is necessary for research on how to improve the quality of health care, promote patient safety and reduce medical errors. There is a need to collect this information from consumers and match these consumer reports to the information collected by providers, because the two sources may differ. Examining data from both sources allows the project to determine to what extent patients are able to provide more complete or more detailed information.

This research has the following goals:

1. To develop and design a prototype system to collect information about patient safety events.

2. To develop and test W eb and telephone modes of a prototype questionnaire.

3. To develop and test protocols for a follow-up survey of health care providers.

This demonstration project is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, RAND Corporation with Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and ECRI Institute, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

To achieve the goal of this project the following data collections will be implemented:

1. Safety event intake form and follow up. The safety event intake form asks about a medical error or mistake, harm or injury as well as near misses. Medical patients, consumers, family members and other caregivers voluntarily report safety events through a Web site or by telephone. The questions ask what happened, details of the event, when, where, whether there was harm, the type of harm, contributing factors, disclosure, and whether the patient reported the event and to whom. Information is also collected regarding whether the respondent is willing to have CRSPS staff follow up to clarify information. If a respondent consents, CRSPS staff will follow up by phone and ask questions about any information that was not clear in the initial report and annotate the report with this information.

2. Health care provider follow up. For the subset of consumers that consent, patient safety officers at health care provider organizations who maintain the adverse event reporting system will contribute supplemental information about the consumer-reported incident which occurred at their facility. CRSPS staff will contact the health care organization to share the consumer report with the patient safety officer or other appointed liaison. The liaison will determine if the consumer-reported incident matches an event in the provider's Incident Reporting System, and if so, provide additional information.

Data collected will be analyzed to produce estimates and basic descriptive statistics on the quantity and type of consumer-reported patient safety events, examine the variability of responses to questions, examine the mode of data collection by event types, and conduct correlations, cross tabulations of responses and other statistical analysis.

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for respondents' time to participate in this information collection based on the expected number of respondents, 840 to the intake form and 84 to the provider follow up. The number of respondents is based on the size of the selected community, estimates of health care utilization, rates of adverse events, and response rates in similar investigations. The intake form is expected to maximally require 25 minutes via the Web or telephone including the optional 10 minutes of follow-up questions, resulting in a total burden of 490 hours. The health care provider follow up is expected to take 20 minutes and only occurs for the estimated 10% of patients consenting; this form carries a total burden of 28 hours. The total burden is 518 hours annually.

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden for patients, $10,652, and for the health care organization, $885, for a total annualized cost burden of $11,537. Respondents will not incur any other costs beyond those associated with their time to participate.

AHRQ is supporting the conduct of this project as part of a contract with the RAND Corporation and the ECRI Institute. The estimated cost for this work is $899,827.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.

Substantial segments of the SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for “Partnerships for Sustainable Research and Dissemination of Evidence-Based Medicine (R24)” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft CPG entitled “Labeling and Marketing of Nutritional Products Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats.” The purpose of this CPG is to communicate FDA's strategy for enforcing the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) with respect to dog and cat food products that make labeling or marketing claims to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Since 1988, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has observed an increase in the number of dog and cat food products making such claims that are sold with, or without, the direction of a licensed veterinarian. Because of this increase, and to help ensure animal safety, CVM is issuing this draft CPG to set out its current thinking with respect to factors it will consider before determining whether to take regulatory action against dog and cat food products intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

FDA does not generally intend to recommend or initiate regulatory actions against dog and cat food products that are labeled and/or marketed as intended for use to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the animal's total daily nutrient requirements when all the following factors are present. Specifically: (1) Manufacturers make the products available to the public only through licensed veterinarians or through retail or Internet sales to individuals purchasing the product under the direction of a veterinarian; (2) manufacturers do not market such products as alternatives to approved new animal drugs; (3) the manufacturer is registered under section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350(d)); (4) manufacturers comply with all food labeling requirements for such products (see 21 CFR part 501); (5) manufacturers do not include indications for a disease claim (e.g., obesity, renal failure) on the label of such products; (6) manufacturers limit distribution of material with any disease claims for such products only to veterinary professionals; (7) manufacturers secure electronic resources for the dissemination of labeling information and promotional materials such that they are available only to veterinary professionals; (8) manufacturers include only ingredients that are general regarded as safe (GRAS) ingredients, approved food additives, or feed ingredients defined in the 2012 Official Publication of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) for the intended uses in such products;  1 and (9) the label and labeling for such products are not false and misleading in other respects. 2

This level 1 draft CPG is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft CPG, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing a notice of the proposed collection of information set forth below.

With respect to the following collection of information, we invite comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Title: Draft Compliance Policy Guide on Labeling and Marketing of Nutritional Products Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats.

Description: The purpose of this CPG is to communicate FDA's strategy with respect to dog and cat food products that are labeled and/or marketed as intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the animal's total daily nutrient requirements.

Description of Respondents: Manufacturers of dog and cat foods that are labeled and/or marketed as intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the animal's total daily nutrient requirements.

We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

CVM estimates from its experience that approximately 5 manufacturers will be affected by the draft CPG, times 75 products produced annually equals 375 total annual responses. The hours per response are based on approximately .25 hour per response for respondents to look up the ingredient names in the AFFCO Official Publication .

This draft CPG also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 571 (Food Additive Petitions and FAP Labeling) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0546. The collection of information in 21 CFR 570.35 (GRAS) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0342. The requirement for food facility registration has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0502.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Copies of the CPG may be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. The Office of Regulatory Affairs home pages include this draft CPG and may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/ under “Compliance Policy Guides.”

The sponsors in table 1 of this document have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the four NADAs listed because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADAs 030-525, 035-825, 046-822, and 103-090, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective September 20, 2012.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of these applications.

Background and Purpose

The ASME/USCG Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards provides a unique opportunity for classification societies, industry groups, standards development organizations, government agencies, and interested members of the public to come together for a professional exchange of information on topics ranging from technological impacts on the marine industry, corresponding coverage in related codes and standards, and government regulations.

Held once every two to three years, the public workshop is sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), in coordination with the USCG Office of Design and Engineering Standards. ASME is a standards setting organization with wide-ranging volunteer committee membership, which includes USCG supported personnel who serve as members of various ASME committees in support of USCG missions in maritime safety and environmental protection. The USCG Office of Design and Engineering Standards is responsible for developing and promulgating national regulations and standards that govern the safe design and construction of ships and shipboard equipment, including hull structure, stability, electrical and mechanical systems, lifesaving and fire safety equipment, and related equipment approval and laboratory acceptance.

This workshop is an opportunity for the public to provide expertise on technical matters affecting the marine industry, to leverage new technologies, and to improve future policymaking, standards development, and rulemaking. The most recent workshop was held in Washington, DC, on July 29-30, 2010 (75 FR 8099, February 23, 2010). Public engagement on regulations and design standards enhances both the effectiveness and the quality of policy development. As an example, dialogue from the previous workshop on the safe and economical use of natural gas as a marine fuel provided valuable insight for the development of CG-521 Policy Letter No. 01-12, 1 which sets forth national policy regarding acceptable design criteria for shipboard natural gas fuel systems.

Topics for the 2013 workshop are listed below and include application of various marine technologies to promote safe and environmentally conscious operation of ships and offshore vessels and platforms.

The next workshop will be held in Arlington, VA, over a two-day period on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, and Thursday, July 25, 2013. See ADDRESSES above for event location information.

This workshop comprises a series of panel sessions over a two-day period covering a variety of topics. Proposed topics include:

If you are interested in presenting a paper on one or more topics listed above, submit a 100 word abstract via email to: workshop@uscg.mil. Abstracts are due on or before November 2, 2012, and should also contain the title of your paper, name of each author/co-author, name of each presenter and affiliation to author/co-author, as well as the title, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email address for each named individual.

If you receive notification that your abstract is accepted, you may then submit a draft paper and presentation via email to: workshop@uscg.mil. Draft papers are due on or before February 8, 2013; final papers (formatted and ready for publication) are due on or before May 1, 2013. Presentations are due on or before June 1, 2013.

For additional information on this workshop, visit the USCG Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event.

To register for this workshop, visit the USCG Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event. While the workshop is open to the public, meeting space is limited by room capacity. Since seating is limited, we ask anyone interested in attending the workshop to register in advance. The deadline for advance registration is Monday, July 1, 2013. Registration on the first day of the workshop will be permitted on a space-available basis. The registration fee for this event is $325 USD if submitted on or before May 31, 2013 and $375 USD if submitted after May 31, 2013. The registration fee includes admission for one person to each panel session for the two day event, several coffee breaks, and a reception on the first day of the event.

Material presented at the workshop will be made available to the public on the USCG Web site listed above after the conclusion of this event. For additional information on material presented at this event, you may contact one of the individuals listed above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Summaries of comments made and materials presented will be available on the docket at the conclusion of this event. To view the docket, see instructions above in ADDRESSES .

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

Persons with disabilities who require special assistance should advise us of their anticipated special needs as early as possible by one of the individuals listed above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Please note that the workshop may adjourn early if all business is finished.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 14 U.S.C. 93(a)(4).

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Importer ID Input Record.

OMB Number: 1651-0064.

Form Number: CBP Forms 5106.

Abstract: The collection of the information on the Importer ID Input Record (CBP Form 5106) is the basis for identifying entities who wish to import merchandise into the United States, act as consignee on an importation when not the importer of record, or otherwise do business with CBP that would involve the payment of duties, taxes, fees or other monies or the refund of same. Each person, business firm, Government agency, or other organization that intends to file an import entry must file CBP Form 5106 with the first formal entry or request for services that will result in the issuance of a bill or a refund check upon adjustment of a cash collection. This form must also be filed by or on behalf of the ultimate consignee at the first importation in which the party acting as ultimate consignee is so named. CBP Form 5106 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1484 and provided for by 19 CFR 24.5. The current version of this form is accessible at: http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_5106.pdf.

Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with an increase in the burden hours from 1,000 hours to 75,000 due to revised estimates by CBP of the number of respondents filing Form 5106. The change in the estimated burden is also due to CBP revising the estimate for the time to complete Form 5106 from 6 minutes to 15 minutes. There are no changes to CBP Form 5106 or to the information collected.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Businesses and Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents Annually: 300,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 75,000.

CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.

Title: Voluntary Customer Survey.

OMB Number: 1651-0135.

Abstract: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to conduct a customer survey of international travelers seeking entry into the United States at the twenty highest volume airports in order to determine perceptions of the arrival process at our ports of entry. This voluntary customer survey will be conducted using short computer or verbal surveys of travelers as they move through entry processing areas. Travelers who do not speak English will be given a written version of the survey in their language and may submit their responses in writing. The survey will include questions about wait times, ease of entry processing, and the level of communication, efficiency and professionalism of CBP officers. The results and analysis of the survey responses will be used to identify actionable items to improve services to the traveling public with respect to the entry processes for travelers arriving at United States air ports of entry.

Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Individuals, Travelers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 21,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,743.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Study of Public Housing Agencies' Engagement with Homeless Households—Follow-up Sample Survey.

OMB Control Number: 2528-pending.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information collection will support research that will explore and document how public housing agencies (PHAs) currently serve and interact with homeless households, to achieve the following: (1) Establish a baseline level of PHAs' current engagement in serving homeless households, (2) document the practices of PHAs that have an explicit preference for homeless households; (3) explore PHA perceptions of barriers to, or concerns about, increasing the number of homeless households served or targeting homeless households for priority housing assistance; and (4) identify mechanisms to address or eliminate barriers to serving homeless households in mainstream housing assistance, with a focus on the housing choice voucher (HCV) program and public housing. Findings of this study will enable the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which funds PHAs, to develop strategies to expand access to mainstream housing opportunities for homeless households that are rooted in evidence and informed by the PHAs themselves. This proposed data collection consists of a telephone survey to be administered to a purposeful sample of 125 public housing agencies.

Members of affected public: Public housing agencies.

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

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Notice of Funding Availability for OneCPD Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program.

Description of the need for the information proposed: Application information is needed to determine competition winners, i.e., those technical assistance providers best able to assist CPD grantees and communities to develop efficient and effective programs and projects that increase the supply of affordable housing units, prevent and reduce homelessness, improve data collection and reporting, and use coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies to revitalize and strengthen their communities.

Agency Form Numbers: SF-424, SF-424CB, SF-424CBW, LLL, 2880.

Members of the affected public: For profit and non-profit organizations or State and local governments equipped to provide technical assistance to recipients of funds administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD).

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

Status of proposed information collection: New Collection.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will submit the proposed extension of information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Site Visit Protocols for Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP2) Evaluation; Second Round.

OMB Control Number:

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is conducting an important national study of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), with a particular focus on the round of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), known as “NSP2.” This information collection will constitute the second round of site visits and interviews of NSP2 grantees, as well as collection of grantees' property-level data on NSP2 activities conducted. The information collected will be used to describe how program implementation occurred in practice, gather views of what program outcomes and impacts have occurred, and explore factors that contributed to program outcomes.

Agency Form Numbers:

Members of the Affected Public: A total of 29 NSP2 grantees (25 local and 4 national) and 50 partner agencies will be part of the study. Staff of these grantees will be asked to participate in interviews with HUD's contractor and to provide HUD's contractor with access to their records for tracking program activity. Local interviews will take approximately 2 hours per person and will be administered to approximately 4 staff per NSP2 grantee and 4 additional staff among partner agencies. Interviews with national grantees will be administered to approximately 2 staff per NSP2 grantee.

Property-level data will be compiled either by grantee representatives or by a HUD contractor. Approximately one-half of the 29 grantees (or 14 grantees) and 25 partner organizations will likely chose to report the required data themselves via the study's preformatted spreadsheet. HUD estimates that each spreadsheet will take one person about 1.5 working days (12 hours) to complete, on average.

For the remaining 15 grantees and 25 partner organizations, the data will be compiled by the research team with the support of local representatives. The majority of this effort will be conducted by the researcher. HUD estimates that it will take approximately two hours per grantee and partner organization to provide access to records during this time (e.g., pulling the appropriate files).

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The following chart details the respondent burden on a quarterly and annual basis:

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Department's program functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Department's assessment of the paperwork burden that may result from the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information which may be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on responders, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., electronic transmission of data).

Title of Proposal: 24 CFR part 125, Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2529-0033.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This is an extension of a currently approved information collection used to select applicants for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants under a FHIP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). These grants are to fund fair housing enforcement and/or education and outreach activities under the following initiatives: Administrative Enforcement; Private Enforcement, Education and Outreach, and Fair Housing Organizations. Additionally, the information is collected to monitor grants and grant funds.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD 904 A, B and C, SF-425, SF-424, SF-LLL, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2993, HUD-424CB, HUD-424-CBW, HUD2994-A, HUD-96010, and HUD-27061.

Members of the affected public: The collection of information involves Qualified Fair Housing Organizations (QFHOs); Fair Housing Organizations (FHOs); public or private non-profit organizations or institutions and other public or private entities that are working to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices; State and local governments; and Fair Housing Assistant Program Agencies.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of 46,420 total hours is needed to prepare the information collection. The number of respondents is 400 with a frequency response of 1 per annum, and the total hours per respondent is 76.50 hours for application development. There is an estimated 104 agencies that will receive funding and have to provide quarterly and final reports, with approximately 59 having to provide Enforcement Logs and 1 agency reporting on a semi-annual basis. The estimated number of respondents is based on the average of the number of submissions for NOFA years 2009 to current. The number of hours is an average based on grantee estimates of time to review instructions, search existing data sources, prepare required responses to the application, complete the certification, and assemble exhibits.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The 2012 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-55, approved November 18, 2011) provides that up to $10,000,000 of the $75,000,000 appropriated for tenant protection actions may be made available to provide housing choice voucher rental assistance to residents residing in low-vacancy areas and who may have to pay rents greater than 30 percent of household income, as the result of certain specified conditions. The 2012 Appropriations Act provides that the tenant protection assistance may be provided as either enhanced vouchers or project-based voucher assistance.

HUD's notice that provides the instructions, eligibility, and selection criteria on the funding process for tenant protection vouchers for certain at-risk households in low-vacancy areas can be found on HUD's Web site at the following addresses: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/notices/pih and at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/notices/hsg.

HUD is seeking public comment on this notice. Following receipt and consideration of public comment, a final notice will be issued with final instructions, eligibility, and selection criteria, which may include revisions to the instructions and criteria contained in the notice that has been posted on HUD's Web site, at the Web site addresses listed above.

Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board (“Board”). In compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c) (5), this notice advises of actions that have been taken by the Board from August 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

Action: On November 30, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of Administrative Action permanently withdrawing the FHA approval of Euro Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (“EMB”).

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: EMB used falsified and/or conflicting information in the origination of HUD/FHA loans; failed to ensure loan applications were taken and processed by authorized employees; failed to ensure that documents were not handled by an interested third party; failed to adequately document the income used to qualify the borrower; failed to document the source of funds used for the downpayment and/or closing costs; failed to perform quality control on all loans that went into default within the first six months; and failed to timely submit audited financial statements and supplementary reports to HUD.

Action: On October 11, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Superior Mortgage Corporation (“Superior”) that required Superior to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $10,000, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Superior failed to notify the Department that it had paid a fine in the amount of $30,000 to the Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed to ensure that only principal owners or corporate officers submit the annual certification report; and submitted a false certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic annual certification for 2011.

Action: On September 20, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Town Square Mortgage & Investments, Inc. (“Town Square Mortgage”) that required Town Square Mortgage to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $11,000, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Town Square Mortgage submitted false audited financial statements to HUD for Fiscal Year ending April 30, 2010, when it claimed ownership of a residential condominium unit located in Apollo Beach, Florida; submitted audited financial statements to HUD that were not in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles due to the improper capitalization of a residential condominium unit; and displayed the FHA/HUD logo on its Web site when promoting its FHA mortgage services.

Action: On November 8, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of Wall Street Financial Corporation (“WSFC”) for a period of one year.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: WSFC failed to timely submit or complete its audited financial statements for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2010; failed to pay its annual certification fee; and failed to submit its annual certification for 2010.

Action: On October 4, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Franklin American Mortgage Company (“FAMC”) that required FAMC to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: FAMC failed to notify HUD that it paid a fine in the amount of $6,750 to the Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to resolve allegations that FAMC had violated the Mortgage Licensing Act, and submitted a false certification to HUD when it submitted it electronic annual certification for 2011.

Action: On November 23, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Midland Mortgage Company (“MMC”) that required MMC, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $1,300,000 and to pay all outstanding mortgage insurance premiums owed to HUD.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: MMC failed to remit mortgage insurance premiums to HUD/FHA on 3,438 loans, and failed to notify HUD/FHA within fifteen (15) days of the termination of 2,488 contracts for mortgage insurance.

Action: On November 30, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation (“UFMC”) for a period of one year.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violation of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: UFMC failed to notify HUD that it voluntarily surrendered its license to the New York State Banking Department on or about October 20, 2010.

Action: On November 28, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Vanguard Funding, LLC (“VF”) that required VF, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $101,500, to indemnify HUD against losses relating to five (5) FHA-insured loans for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Settlement Agreement, and to require third party training for its underwriters.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: VF failed to notify HUD within ten (10) business days that it was the subject of two state enforcement actions prohibiting it from originating mortgages; VF originated six (6) FHA-insured mortgages in the state of New York while it was the subject of an order from the state of New York suspending its mortgage banker license; VF permitted a non-FHA approved mortgage broker to perform loan origination services on two (2) FHA-insured loans; VF approved three (3) loans for borrowers who were ineligible for federally insured mortgages due to outstanding delinquent federal debt; VF approved two (2) FHA-insured loans without adequately documenting the income used to qualify the borrowers; VF approved three (3) FHA-insured loans without resolving discrepancies in the loan files relating to the borrowers' income and employment; VF failed to document the source of gift funds on three (3) FHA-insured loans; VF approved a loan when the borrower did not meet the minimum credit requirements; VF approved one loan where it omitted a liability of the borrower in the underwriting analysis; VF accepted three (3) loan applications from loan correspondents for which VF was not an FHA approved Sponsor; and VF failed to review five (5) FHA-insured loans that went into early payment default within the first six (6) months of repayment.

Action: On December 20, 2011, the Board issued a letter of reprimand to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”).

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Wells Fargo failed to comply with property preservation and protection requirements on two (2) HUD-insured homes following foreclosure.

Action: On December 12, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with MetLife Bank, N.A. (“MetLife”) that required MetLife, without admitting fault or liability, to pay an administrative payment in the amount of $41,250 and waive all insurance benefits or indemnify HUD against any losses relating to eleven (11) FHA-insured mortgages for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Settlement Agreement.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements self-reported by MetLife: MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved eleven (11) FHA-insured loans without identifying irregularities and resolving discrepancies and conflicting information in the loan files; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements on six (6) FHA-insured loans when it failed to adequately document the borrowers' income; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved four (4) FHA-insured loans after failing to ensure that documents were not handled by an interested third party; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements on four (4) FHA-insured transactions when it failed to document the source of funds used for the borrowers' down- payments and/or closing costs; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved three (3) FHA-insured loans and omitted monthly debt obligations from its underwriting analysis; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved an FHA-insured loan for a borrower who was ineligible because of an outstanding court-ordered judgment; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved a loan for FHA mortgage insurance without ensuring the borrower met the statutory 3.5% minimum investment requirement; and MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved a loan for a borrower that was over-insured by $3,598.54, because it had failed to consider the seller's inducement to purchase.

Action: On December 22, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Reliance First Capital, LLC (“Reliance”) that required Reliance to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $11,000, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Reliance failed to notify HUD that it agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $5,000 to the Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and submitted a false certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic annual certification for 2011.

Action: On December 8, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Virginia Commonwealth Bank (“VCB”) that required VCB, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $6,725 and to remit all outstanding mortgage insurance premiums and late fees owed to HUD.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: VCB failed to timely remit mortgage insurance premiums on forty-four (44) loans.

Action: On February 3, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with E Mortgage Management, LLC (“EMM”) that required EMM to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: EMM failed to notify HUD that EMM agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $61,500 to the Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and submitted a false certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic Annual Certifications for 2011.

Action: On February 3, 2012, the Board issued a Notice of Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of Master Mortgage Corporation (“MMC”) for five years.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: MMC failed to timely submit audited financial statements and supplementary reports to HUD, and failed to notify HUD that MMC and MMC's President were issued a Complaint and Cease and Desist Order from the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico that required MMC to pay fines totaling $280,000, ordered MMC to permanently cease and desist from operating and engaging in the business of a mortgage institution in Puerto Rico, required MMC to immediately surrender its mortgage institution's license, and barred MMC's president from serving as an officer, director, or owner of any financial institution.

Action: On February 23, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. (“Clarion”) that required Clarion to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $45,000, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Clarion failed to comply with HUD's quality control requirements; violated HUD's mortgagee employee and staffing requirements; and charged unallowable and unsupported fees.

Action: On February 15, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with PHH Home Loans, LLC (“PHH”) that required PHH to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: PHH failed to notify HUD that PHH agreed to pay a fine of $11,750 to the Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed to notify HUD that it paid a fine of $50,000 to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; and submitted a false certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic annual certification for 2011.

Action: On April 3, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with HomeState Mortgage Company, LLC (“HMC”) that required HMC, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $15,000 and to complete a six-month period of probation, during which time HMC must submit all marketing materials to HUD on a quarterly basis for review and approval.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: HMC reproduced the official HUD seal on an advertisement or business solicitation, and disseminated a misrepresentative or misleading advertisement or business solicitation to the public.

Action: On March 16, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with United Northern Mortgage Bankers LTD (“UNMB”) that required UNMB, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $25,000, indemnify HUD against losses relating to two FHA-insured loans for a period of five years, and complete a six-month period of probation during which time UNMB must submit the results of its monthly QC audits and certifications as to its QC staffing and operations.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: UNMB failed to ensure that the quality control reviews for early payment defaults were completed; used conflicting information in originating and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance; and failed to adequately document the stability of income used to qualify the borrowers.

Action: On April 27, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”) that required Fifth Third to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $700,000, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Fifth Third failed to timely remit mortgage insurance premiums to HUD/FHA, and failed to notify HUD/FHA within 15 calendar days of the termination, transfer or sale of mortgage insurance contracts.

Action: The Board entered into settlement agreements with the lenders listed below, which required the lender to pay a $7,500 or $3,500 civil money penalty, without admitting fault or liability.

Cause: The Board took this action based upon allegations that the lenders listed below failed to comply with the Department's annual recertification requirements in a timely manner.

1. Anchor Funding Corporation, Norcross, GA ($7,500.00) [Docket No. 11-1225-MRT]

2. Freyre Mortgage Corp., San Juan, PR. ($3,500.00) [Docket No. 11-1229-MRT ]

Action: The Board voted to withdraw the FHA approval of each of the lenders listed below for a period of one year.

Cause: The Board took this action based upon allegations that the lenders listed below were not in compliance with the Department's annual recertification requirements.

1. First Home Mortgage, Inc., Jonesboro, AR [Docket No. 12-1642-MRT] .

2. HCL Finance Inc., San Jose, CA [Docket No. 12-1641-MRT] .

3. Ikon Mortgage Lenders, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL [Docket No. 09-9910-MRT] .

4. Delta Home and Lending, Inc., Sacramento, CA [Docket No.12-1643-MRT] .

5. Axiom Mortgage Bankers Corporation, Irvine, CA [Docket No. 11-1234-MRT] .

6. Red Rock Mortgage & Lending, LLC., Oklahoma City, OK [ Docket No. 11-1233-MRT ].

The location of the federally owned mineral interest segregated by this notice is intended to be identical in location as the privately owned surface interest of the applicant, as described in the applicant's deeds recorded on June 21, 2006, at the Maricopa County Recorder's office under Recordation Numbers 20060834935 and 20060834944. The lands referred to in this notice consist of four individual parcels, described in the two deeds mentioned above, and are described as follows:

The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter;

Except the East 528 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest, all in Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa, Arizona.

That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows:

Beginning at a point 658.00 feet West of the Brass Cap and the Southeast corner of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 East; Thence North 754.85 feet to a set point; Thence West 577.00 feet to a set point; Thence South 755.26 feet to a set point; Thence East 577.00 feet to a point of beginning; Except any part thereof lying within the following described parcel: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 35; Thence South along the East line of said Section 35, a distance of 785 feet; Thence West 675 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South Parallel to and 675 feet West of the East line of said Section 35, a distance of 1100 feet; Thence West 570 feet; Thence North 1100 feet; Thence East 570 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, lying West of the West lines of those certain parcels described in Docket 11938, Page 261; and in Docket 14071, Page 774; and lying South of the North line of said parcel described in Docket 14071, Page 774; extended westerly.

A part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 35; Thence South along the East line of said Section 35, a distance of 785 feet; Thence West 675 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence South parallel to and 675 feet West of the East line of said Section 35, a distance of 1,100 feet; Thence West 570 feet; Thence North 1,100 feet; Thence East 570 feet to the Point of Beginning.

The areas described aggregates approximately 111.33 acres in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Under certain conditions, Section 209(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1719, authorizes the sale and conveyance of the federally owned mineral interests in land when the surface estate is not federally owned. The objective is to allow consolidation of the surface and mineral interests when either one of the following conditions exist: (1) There are no known mineral values in the land; or (2) Where continued Federal ownership of the mineral interests interferes with or precludes appropriate non-mineral development and such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development.

An application was filed for the sale and conveyance of the federally owned mineral interests in the above-described parcels of land. Subject to valid existing rights, on September 10, 2012 the federally owned mineral interests in the lands described above are hereby segregated from all forms of appropriation under the general mining and mineral leasing laws, while the application is being processed to determine if either one of the two specified conditions exists and, if so, to otherwise comply with the procedural requirements of 43 CFR part 2720. The segregative effect shall terminate upon: (1) Issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance as to such mineral interests; (2) Final rejection of the application; or (3) September 10, 2014, whichever occurs first.

Comments: Your comments are invited. Please submit all comments in writing to Vivian Titus at the address listed above. 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 available to the public 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.

This closure affects all public lands bounded by the Juniper Ridge and Tuledad Roads, (combined Lassen County Road 522), the Stage Road (Lassen County Road 504), Marr Road (Lassen County Road 526) and the BLM Buckhorn Road on the north; U. S. Highway 395 on the west; Nevada Highway 447 and the Sand Pass Road on the east; and the Wendel Road on the south. The closure begins at T34N, R13E, SE corner of Section 25 and continues through the entire fire area. This closure is made under authority of 43 CFR 8364. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this closure order may be subject to the penalties provided in 43 CFR 8360.0-7. Specific roads included in the closure are Ryepatch Road, Horn Road, Garate Road, Ramhorn Road, Shinn Ranch Road, Stoney Road, Deep Cut Road, Smoke Creek Road, Skedaddle Ranch Road, Brubeck Road, Dry Valley Road, and Buckhorn Road from the junction with Lassen County Road 526 (the Marr Road) to the junction with Nevada State Highway 447. The Ramhorn Springs Campground and the Dodge Reservoir and Campground are also closed.

The Paradox Valley Unit was constructed to assist in meeting the objectives and standards of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (Pub. L. 80-845) and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as amended and supplemented (Pub. L. 93-320), which authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of works in the Colorado River Basin to control the salinity of water delivered to users in the United States and Mexico. Authorized facilities included wells, pumps, pipelines, solar evaporation ponds, and all necessary appurtenant and associated works such as roads, fences, dikes, power transmission facilities, and permanent operating facilities.

The Paradox Valley Unit is located along the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley in Montrose County, Colorado, about ten miles east of the Colorado-Utah state line. The Dolores River is a major tributary to the Colorado River. Groundwater in the Paradox Valley is highly saline. Saline concentrations in this area have been measured in excess of 250,000 milligrams per liter; by far one of the most concentrated sources in the Colorado River Basin. Groundwater then surfaces into the Dolores River. Studies show that the Dolores River accumulated more than 205,000 tons of salt annually before the Paradox Valley Unit began operation.

The Paradox Valley Unit presently consists of a brine collection well field, brine surface treatment facility, brine injection facility, a 16,000-foot injection well, and associated roads, pipelines, and electrical facilities. Unit operations have been adjusted over time to address increased seismic activity and injection pressures. Under normal operations, the Paradox Valley Unit averages injection of about nine to ten million gallons of brine per month. The Unit currently controls about 110,000 tons of salt per year that would have entered the Dolores River and, in turn, degraded the water quality of the mainstem of the Colorado River.

The proposed action is to identify, evaluate, and implement brine disposal alternatives to replace or supplement Brine Injection Well No. 1 which was built in 1988 and has a projected remaining useful life of three to five years, under current operations, provided that acceptable seismicity levels and well integrity are maintained.

The Bureau of Reclamation's Paradox Valley Unit is one of the most effective salinity control projects in the Colorado River Basin and provides about ten percent of the total salinity control in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. Because the existing brine injection well is nearing the end of its useful life, another well or alternative brine disposal mechanism is needed for continued enhancement and protection of the quality of water available in the Colorado River for use in the United States and the Republic of Mexico, and to enable the United States to comply with its obligations under the agreement with Mexico of August 30, 1973.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Scoping is an early and public process for determining concerns to be addressed and for identifying significant issues and suggested alternatives related to the proposed action. In addition to oral comments provided at the scoping meetings, Reclamation also invites written comments during the scoping period. To be most effectively considered, written comments should be received no later than November 26, 2012.

When the EIS is complete, its availability will be announced in the Federal Register , in the local news media, through direct contact with interested parties, and on the project Web site. Comments will be solicited on the document at that time.

If special assistance is required to participate in the public scoping meetings, please contact Ms. Justyn Hock at 970-248-0625 or email at JHock@usbr.gov. Please notify Ms. Hock as far in advance as possible to enable Reclamation to secure the needed services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be notified.

The scoping meeting dates and addresses are:

• Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., Paradox Valley School, 21501 6 Mile Road, Paradox, Colorado 81429.

• Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 1391 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, Colorado, 81401.

• Thursday, September 27, 2012, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Colorado Mesa University, University Center—Room 221, 1100 North Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-3122.

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

The Commission instituted this investigation on June 29, 2012, based on a complaint filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) of Peterborough, New Hampshire alleging violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,400,471; U.S. Patent No. 6,222,538; U.S. Patent No. 6,504,575; and U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190. The NOI named HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea; Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas; ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas.

On August 2, 2012, Flashpoint and respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively “the Huawei Respondents”) filed a motion to amend the complaint and NOI to replace the currently named Huawei Respondents with Huawei Device Co., Ltd., having a principal place of business at Section B, Huawei Administration Building, Bantian, Longgang, Shenzhen, Guangdong, P.R. China, 518129, and Huawei Device USA Inc., having a principal place of business at 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite #600, Plano, Texas 75024.

On August 9, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting the joint motion to amend the complaint and NOI to replace the named Huawei Respondents with Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA Inc. The ALJ found that good cause exists to amend the complaint and NOI because Flashpoint recently learned which entities are responsible for the accused products based on communications with counsel for the Huawei Respondents. In addition, the ALJ found that the substitution of the parties will not require extension of the target date, will not change the scope of the investigation, and will assist in obtaining a complete record for the investigation. No petitions for review were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

The authority for the Commission=s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.43-45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.43-45).

The Commission instituted this investigation on August 18, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea, and Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, “SLED”). 76 FR 51396-97 (Aug. 18, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain light-emitting diodes and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,282,741; 7,893,443; 7,838,315; 7,959,312; 7,964,881; 6,551,848; 7,268,372; and 7,771,081. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents OSRAM GmbH of Munich, Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Regensburg, Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Danvers, Massachusetts (collectively, “OSRAM”). On December 7, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 15) granting SLED's motion to amend the Notice of Investigation to change the name of respondent OSRAM GmbH to OSRAM AG. Notice (Dec. 7, 2011).

On July 26, 2012, SLED filed a motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to substitute Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea (“Samsung Electronics”), for the SLED complainants, as a result of corporate reorganization. On July 30, 2012, OSRAM filed an opposition, and on August 7, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting the motion as an ID. Order No. 36.

On August 9, 2012, SLED and OSRAM filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement between OSRAM and Samsung Electronics. On August 10, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. Order No. 38.

No petitions for review of either ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review Order No. 38, and the investigation is thereby terminated. As a result, review of Order No. 36 is moot.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.21 and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42).

Background

Section 306(a) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedules I and II. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826 and 21 CFR 1303.11, DEA published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2011, notice of the established 2012 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in Schedules I and II (76 FR 78044). That notice stated that the Administrator would adjust, as needed, the established aggregate production quotas in 2012 as provided for in 21 CFR 1303.13. The 2012 proposed adjusted aggregate production quotas were subsequently published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2012 (77 FR 39737) in consideration of the outlined criteria. All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to the proposed adjusted aggregate production quotas on or before August 6, 2012.

Consideration has been given to the criteria outlined in the July 5, 2012, notice of proposed adjusted aggregate production quotas in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13. In addition, nine companies, eight DEA registered manufacturers and one non-registrant, submitted timely comments regarding a total of 25 Schedule I and II controlled substances. Comments received proposed that the aggregate production quotas for 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylcathinone (methylone), alfentanil, amphetamine (for conversion), amphetamine (for sale), codeine (for conversion), codeine (for sale), desomorphine, dihydromorphine, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, levomethorphan, lisdexamfetamine, methadone intermediate, methylphenidate, morphine (for conversion), morphine (for sale), noroxymorphone (for conversion), noroxymorphone (for sale), oripavine, oxycodone (for conversion), oxycodone (for sale), oxymorphone (for conversion), oxymorphone (for sale), sufentanil, and tapentadol were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.

DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the relevant 2011 year-end inventories, initial 2012 manufacturing quotas, 2012 export requirements, actual and projected 2012 sales, research and product development requirements, and additional applications received. Based on all of the above, the Administrator has determined that the proposed adjusted 2012 aggregate production quotas for 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylcathinone (methylone), 4-Methyl-N-Methylcathinone (mephedrone), alfentanil, amphetamine (for conversion), desomorphine, diethyltryptamine, dihydromorphine, gamma hydroxybutyric acid, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, levomethorphan, methadone, methadone intermediate, methylphenidate, morphine (for sale), oxycodone (for conversion), oxycodone (for sale), and sufentanil required additional consideration and hereby further adjusts the 2012 aggregate production quotas for those substances. Regarding amphetamine (for sale), codeine (for conversion), codeine (for sale), morphine (for conversion), noroxymorphone (for conversion), noroxymorphone (for sale), oripavine, oxymorphone (for conversion), oxymorphone (for sale), and tapentadol, the Administrator hereby determines that the proposed adjusted 2012 aggregate production quotas for these substances as published on July 5, 2012, at 77 FR 39737 are sufficient to meet the current 2012 estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and to provide for adequate inventories. Pursuant to the above, the Administrator hereby establishes the 2012 final aggregate production quotas for Schedule I and II controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:

The 2012 Assessment of Annual Needs represents those quantities of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine which may be manufactured domestically and imported into the United States in 2012 to provide adequate supplies of each chemical for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, lawful export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks of such chemicals. Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish an assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR 0.100.

On July 18, 2012, a notice entitled “Proposed Adjustment of the Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2012” was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 42333). That notice proposed to adjust the 2012 Assessment of Annual Needs for ephedrine (for sale), ephedrine (for conversion), pseudoephedrine (for sale), phenylpropanolamine (for sale) and phenylpropanolamine (for conversion). All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to the proposed assessments on or before August 17, 2012.

DEA did not receive any comments to the proposed adjustment of the assessment of annual needs for ephedrine (for sale), ephedrine (for conversion), pseudoephedrine (for sale), phenylpropanolamine (for sale), and phenylpropanolamine (for conversion).

In determining the adjusted 2012 assessments, DEA used the calculation methodology previously described in the 2010 and 2011 assessment of annual needs (74 FR 60294 and 75 FR 79407 respectively). DEA considered changes in demand, changes in the national rate of net disposal, and changes in the rate of net disposal by the registrants holding individual manufacturing or import quotas for the chemical; whether any increased demand or changes in the national and/or individual rates of net disposal are temporary, short term, or long term; whether any increased demand could be met through existing inventories, increased individual manufacturing quotas, or increased importation without increasing the assessment of annual needs; whether any decreased demand would result in excessive inventory accumulation by all persons registered to handle the particular chemical; and other factors affecting the medical, scientific, research, industrial, and importation needs in the United States, lawful export requirements, and reserve stocks, as found relevant.

Other factors that DEA considered include trends as derived from information provided in applications for import, manufacturing, and procurement quotas and in import and export declarations. The inventory, acquisition (purchases), and disposition (sales) data as provided by DEA-registered manufacturers and importers reflects the most current information available to DEA at the time of publication of this Notice. The underlying data used to determine the final 2012 assessment of annual needs is the same as that used in determining the proposed 2012 assessment of annual needs, as published on September 14, 2011, at 76 FR 56809.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 CFR 1315.13, the Administrator hereby orders that the 2012 assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in kilograms of anhydrous acid or base, is adjusted and established as follows:

Periodically the DOL solicits grant applications by issuing a Solicitation for Grant Applications. To ensure grants are awarded to the applicant(s) best suited to perform the functions of the grant, applicants are generally required to submit a two-part application. The first part of DOL grant applications consists of submitting Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance. The second part of a grant application usually requires a technical proposal demonstrating the applicant's capabilities in accordance with a statement of work and/or selection criteria. This information collection is subject to the PRA.

A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1225-0086. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2012; however, the DOL intends to seek continued approval for this collection of information for an additional three years.

The DOL, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing information collections before submitting them to the OMB. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed. Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the individual listed in the ADDRESSES section above. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and may be included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Agency: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Title of Collection: DOL Generic Solution for Solicitation for Grant Applications.

OMB Control Number: 1225-0086.

Affected Public: Private Sector—not for-profit institutions—and State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,500.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 7,500.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 25 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 187,500 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $0.

The DOL periodically conducts customer satisfaction surveys and conference evaluations that help assess Departmental products and services and lead to improvements in areas deemed necessary. This information collection is subject to the PRA.

A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1225-0059. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2012; however, the DOL intends to seek continued approval for this collection of information for an additional three years.

The DOL, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before they are submitted to the OMB. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed. Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the individual listed in the ADDRESSES section above. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and may be included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. The comments will become a matter of public record.

The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Agency: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Title of Collection: DOL Generic Solution for Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Conference Evaluations.

OMB Control Number: 1225-0059.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits, farms, and not for-profit institutions; and State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 375,000.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 375,000.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 6 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 37,500 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $0.

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0476 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0476.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The application dated March 1, 2012, is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12072A091.