On August 1, 2012, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the PRC. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, but none were received. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

The merchandise subject to the order is certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description available in Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 59561 (November 29, 2001), remains dispositive.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to Baosteel  2 because it had reported and submitted timely-filed certifications that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 3 We stated, consistent with the recently announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, that the Department would not rescind the review in these circumstances but, rather, would complete the review with respect to Baosteel and issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) based on the final results of the review. As stated above, we did not receive any comments on our Preliminary Results nor did we receive information from CBP indicating that there were reviewable transactions from Baosteel during the POR. Therefore, we continue to determine that Baosteel had no reviewable transactions of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification, the Department will issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on our final results. 4

In the Preliminary Results, the Department noted that Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel (“Hunan Valin”) does not have a separate rate, and that it is therefore under review as part of the PRC-wide entity. 5 Although Hunan Valin reported that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, the Department does not find that the PRC-wide entity, of which Hunan Valin is part, had no shipments during the POR. After issuing the Preliminary Results, the Department did not receive any comments from interested parties. Therefore, for these final results, in accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, and as explained in more detail in the Preliminary Results, the Department continues to find that because Angang Group International (“Angang”), as part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to submit any response to the Department's questionnaire it is appropriate to rely on the facts otherwise available to determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity and to assign to the PRC-wide entity the highest-rate and the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity on the record of this proceeding, i.e., 90.83%. 6

The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. See Assessment Practice Refinement. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number ( i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. 8

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC 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 previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 90.83 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the 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 notification of the 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.

We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review on August 3, 2012. See Preliminary Results.

We invited interested parties to file comments following the release of the Preliminary Results. No comments were received.

The period of review (“POR”) for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. 2

The merchandise subject to the order is pasta. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) item numbers 1902.19.20. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 38546 (July 24, 1996), remains dispositive.

We have made no changes to our findings announced in the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary Results; see also Memorandum from Christopher Siepmann, International Trade Compliance Analyst to Susan Kuhbach, Office Director, “Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Marsan”), Birlik Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Birlik”), Bellini Gida Sanayi A.Ş. (“Bellini”), and Marsa Yag Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Marsa Yag”)” (July 27, 2012).

For the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, we find the following ad valorem subsidy rates:

Marsan's final cash deposit rate is a “combination rate” pursuant to 19 CFR 351.107(b). It applies only to subject merchandise exported by Marsan and produced by Birlik and/or Bellini.

Because Marsan, Birlik, Bellini and Istanbul Gida received de minimis countervailable subsidies during the POR, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties shipments of subject merchandise (a) exported by Marsan and produced by Birlik and/or Bellini, or (b) exported by Istanbul Gida, Birlik or Bellini, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

For all other combinations or companies, as appropriate, that were not reviewed, the Department will direct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, at the rates in effect at the time of entry.

Because Marsan, Birlik, Bellini and Istanbul Gida have de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries, but to collect no cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the combination and companies described above on all shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.

Also, for all other combinations or companies, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this review are not changed by the results of this review.

This notice serves as a 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 or 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.

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

The Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review on August 1, 2012. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the 15th (2010) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, In Part, 77 FR 45582 (August 1, 2012) (“ Preliminary Results” ). We invited interested parties to file comments following the release of the Preliminary Results. No comments were received.

The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

As discussed further under “Scope of the Order,” pasta from Italy that is certified as organic by European Union authorized agents and accompanied by a U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program import certificate is excluded from the order.

Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by the scope of the order is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are certified by a European Union authorized body and accompanied by a National Organic Program import certificate for organic products. See Memorandum from Yasmin Nair to Susan Kuhbach, entitled “Recognition of EU Organic Certifying Agents for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy,” dated October 10, 2012, which is on file in the Department's CRU. Pursuant to the Department's May 12, 2011 changed circumstances review, effective January 1, 2009, gluten-free pasta is also excluded from the scope of the countervailing duty order. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part, 76 FR 27634 (May 12, 2011).

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.

As explained in our Preliminary Results, we find that the Government of Italy (“GOI”) failed to respond to our request for usage information regarding Measure 3.14 of the POR Sicilia 2000/2006. Therefore, consistent with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have relied on facts otherwise available. Furthermore, because the GOI failed to provide this information, which was in its possession, we determine that the GOI did not act to the best of its ability. Consequently, an adverse inference is warranted in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts available, we determine that the assistance received by Tomasello under Measure 3.14 of the POR Sicilia 2000/2006 is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 45585.

We have made no changes to our findings announced in the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 45586; see also Memorandum from Joseph Shuler, International Trade Analyst, to the File, “2010 Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Molino e Pastificio Tomasello, S.p.A.,” dated July 24, 2012.

For the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, we find that the ad valorem net subsidy rate for Tomasello to be:

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results. For Tomasello, the Department will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties at the net subsidy rate listed above.

For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A., and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l., which was revoked from the order), the Department has directed CBP to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, at the rates in effect at the time of entry.

For Tomasello, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above.

For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which are excluded from the order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the order), we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this review are not changed by the results of this review.

This notice serves as a 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 or 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.

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Office of Advisory Committees is extending the application deadline for the appointment of 25 members of the Council for a two-year term to begin fall 2012. The Council was rechartered most recently on April 5, 2012.

The criteria and procedures for selecting the members contained in the September 14, 2012 notice continue to apply and are republished herein for convenience.

Members will be selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines based on his or her ability to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing sector, to act as a liaison among the stakeholders represented by the membership, and to provide a forum for those stakeholders on current and emerging issues in the manufacturing sector. In assessing this ability, the Department will consider such factors as, but not limited to, the candidate's proven experience in promoting, developing and marketing programs in support of manufacturing industries, job creation in the manufacturing sector, or the candidate's proven abilities to manage manufacturing organizations. Given the duties and objectives of the Council, the Department particularly seeks applicants who are active manufacturing executives (Chief Executive Officer, President, or a comparable level of responsibility) that are leaders within their local manufacturing communities and industry sectors. The Council's membership shall reflect the diversity of American manufacturing by representing a balanced cross-section of the U.S. manufacturing industry in terms of industry sectors, geographic locations, demographics, and company size, particularly seeking the representation of small- and medium-sized enterprises.

During the 2012-2014 charter term of the Manufacturing Council, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services intends to establish a new Economic Security Commission Subcommittee. The purpose of this subcommittee will be to examine factors that impact the long-term strategic challenges faced by the manufacturing sector in the United States. As indicated below, applicants are encouraged to highlight in their submissions any interest in and experience relevant to the work of this subcommittee.

The Secretary of Commerce appoints all Council members. All Council members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Council members shall serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of a U.S. entity in the manufacturing industry and its particular sector. For the purposes of eligibility, a U.S. entity is defined as a firm incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by another U.S. entity. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities.

As noted above, Council members serve in a representative capacity, expressing the views and interests of a U.S. entity; they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees. Council members receive no compensation for their participation in Council activities. Members participating in Council meetings and events are responsible for their travel, living and other personal expenses. Meetings are held regularly and not less than annually, usually in Washington, DC. Members are required to attend a majority of the Council's meetings.

To be considered for membership, please provide the following:

1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.

2. A sponsor letter from the applicant on his or her entity's letterhead or, if the applicant is to represent an entity other than his or her employer, a letter from the entity to be represented, containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Council. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant's manufacturing-related experience, including any manufacturing trade policy experience.

3. The applicant's personal resume.

4. An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all eligibility criteria.

5. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

6. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that, if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered lobbyist.

7. Information regarding the control of the entity to be represented, including the governing structure and stock holdings, as appropriate, demonstrating compliance with the criteria set forth above.

8. The entity's size, place of incorporation or principal place of business, ownership, product or service line and major markets in which the entity operates.

9. Please include all relevant contact information such as mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant.

10. Please indicate if the applicant has an interest in serving on the Economic Security Commission subcommittee, if appointed, and highlight any experience relevant to the work of the subcommittee.

Authority:

15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., the Board of Overseers will meet in open session on Wednesday, December 12, 2012. The Board of Overseers is composed of 12 members prominent in the fields of quality, innovation, and performance management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, assembled to advise the Secretary of Commerce on the conduct of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The agenda will include: Report from the Judges' Panel, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program Update, Baldrige Program Business Plan Status Report, Baldrige Performance Excellence Criteria Changes for 2013, and Recommendations for the NIST Director.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Board's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On December 12, 2012 approximately one-half hour will be reserved in the afternoon for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the Baldrige Web site at http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/community/overseers.cfm . Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, via fax at 301-975-4967 or electronically by email to nancy.young@nist.gov

All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Nancy Young no later than Wednesday, December 5, 2012, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their passport number, country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, address and telephone. Ms. Young's email address is nancy.young@nist.gov and her phone number is (301) 975-2361.

NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the GOA appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at §§ 600.745(b) and 679.6 authorize issuance of EFPs to allow fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations.

NMFS received an application for an EFP from Mr. Gauvin in September 2012. The purposes of the EFP research would be to improve the performance of the salmon excluder device developed under EFP 11-01, from 2011 to 2012, and to validate the performance of this device for pollock trawl gear used in the Central GOA. The goal is to develop a device for pollock trawl gear that reduces salmon bycatch without significantly lowering catch rates of pollock. Previous EFP applications, permits and final reports for salmon excluder experiments conducted in Alaska are available at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/efp.htm.

The EFP would allow for development and testing of the salmon excluder device for two years from January 2013 through December 2014, during the pollock A through D seasons. Testing in each season would allow the device to be used under salmon occurrence and pollock fishing practices specific to each season. Testing in the A season would catch primarily Chinook salmon and roe-bearing pollock, while testing in the B through D seasons would catch Chinook salmon and pollock that are not likely to be roe-bearing. EFP fishing would be conducted by one to two vessels in each season.

To test the salmon excluder device, exemptions would be necessary from regulations for Central GOA Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, retention requirements and trip limits for pollock, halibut PSC limits, selected observer requirements, closures for the pollock directed fishery, and specified total allowable catch amounts (TACs) for pollock. The taking of Chinook salmon during the experiment is crucial for determining the effectiveness of the salmon excluder device to allow Chinook salmon to escape from a pelagic trawl cod end. Chinook salmon taken during the experiment would not be counted toward the Chinook salmon PSC limits under § 679.21(h)(2)(i). The amount of Chinook salmon bycatch by the pollock trawl fishery during the EFP period could potentially approach the Central GOA Chinook salmon PSC limits of 18,316 Chinook salmon. If the EFP Chinook salmon were counted toward the Chinook salmon PSC limits, those limits would impede the ability of the participating trawl vessels from obtaining a sufficient sample size of Chinook salmon required for testing the salmon excluder device and may cause the closure of the Central GOA pollock fishery. Information regarding the Chinook salmon PSC limits for Central and Western GOA established under Amendment 93 was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012 (77FR 42629).

Up to 2,400 Chinook would be required for each year (2013 and 2014) in the A through D seasons, for a total of 4,800 Chinook salmon over the two-year EFP. The experimental design requires this quantity of salmon to ensure statistically valid results. The applicant also has requested an exemption from inseason pollock closures (§ 679.7(a)(2)), maximum retainable amounts for pollock (§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii)(B)), halibut PSC limits (§ 679.21(d)(3)), daily pollock trip landing and retention limits (§ 679.7(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii)), selected observer requirements (§ 679.50), and proposed observer requirements. Additional exemptions from 50 CFR part 679 are anticipated for amendments to observer regulations, following the publication of the final rule to restructure the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23326). Implementation of the restructured Observer Program is scheduled for January 2013.

EFP fishing would be conducted by one or two pelagic trawl catcher vessels. These vessels would be exempted from selected observer requirements at § 679.50. The applicants would use “sea samplers” who are NMFS-trained observers. They would not be deployed as NMFS observers, however, at the time of the EFP fishing. The “sea samplers” would conduct the EFP data collection, collect tissue samples for genetic assessment of stock of origin, and perform other observer duties that normally would be required for vessels directed fishing for pollock.

Groundfish taken under the EFP would be exempt from the TACs specified in the annual harvest specifications (§ 679.20). A total of 2,400 metric tons (mt) of groundfish (primarily pollock) would be taken during each of the two years (2013 through 2014) for a total of 4,800 mt over the duration of the EFP. Approximately 2,304 mt of the groundfish harvested each year from the EFP is expected to be pollock. The experimental design requires this quantity of pollock to ensure a statistically adequate sample size for measuring pollock escapement through the salmon excluder device.

Because very little groundfish incidental catch occurs in the pollock fishery, the harvest of other groundfish species during the EFP fishing is expected to be no greater than approximately 4 percent of the groundfish taken during the fishery (96 mt per year). The majority of these other groundfish species harvested under the EFP likely would be only small amounts of arrowtooth flounder, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, deep-water flatfish, and rex sole.

The applicant reports that EFP fishing under this permit is likely to incidentally harvest up to approximately 4.0 mt of halibut each year. If the permit is issued, NMFS would exempt the vessels participating in the EFP from halibut PSC limits at § 679.21, and as specified in the GOA 2013 and 2014 annual harvest specifications. A catch of 4.0 mt of halibut for this EFP would represent approximately 0.2% of the annual GOA trawl apportionment.

The experiment will not be conducted in Steller sea lion critical habitat, but will be in locations that historically produce high concentrations of Chinook salmon during pollock fishing, to ensure a statistically adequate sample size. In particular, some of the locations north, west, and east of Kodiak are ideal for conducting the experiment by ensuring that the vessel encounters sufficient concentrations of salmon and pollock for addressing experimental design criteria.

The activities under the EFP are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment as analyzed in the EA for this action (see ADDRESSES ). The EFP would be subject to modifications pending any new relevant information regarding the 2013 or 2014 fishery, including pollock harvest specifications.

In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the proposal warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Director of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center reviewed the EFP, determined that the research proposal represents a valid scientific study, and has expressed support for continuing this trawl bycatch research in the GOA. The Council will consider the EFP application during its meeting held December 3 through 12, 2012, at the Hilton Hotel in Anchorage, AK. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.

Public comments are being solicited on the application and the EA through the end of the comment period stated in this notice. To be considered, comments must be received by 5 p.m. A.l.t. on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Copies of the application and EA are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Interested persons also may comment on the application and on the EA at the December 2012 Council meeting during public testimony.

Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/ .

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 specific 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 provided to the public for review.

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 harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) further established 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.

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].

In August 2011, NMFS received an application from WSF, requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), Dall's porpoises ( Phocoenoides dalli ), Pacific white-sided dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), killer whales ( Orcinus orca ), gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ), humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), minke whales ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ), Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardii ), California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) and Steller sea lions ( Eumatopius jubatus ) incidental to pile driving activities conducted during the replacement of a transfer span at the Port Townsend ferry terminal, which is located inside Port Townsend Bay in northern Puget Sound (see Figure 1-9 in the WSF IHA application). Upon receipt of additional information and a revised application (submitted October 2011), NMFS determined the application complete and adequate on January 5, 2012.

The applicant's project will replace the current cable-lift transfer span at Slip 1 of the Port Townsend ferry terminal with a hydraulic lift H span (see Figure 1-3 in the WSF IHA application). The project will include removal of the existing transfer span, lift towers, tower foundations, and a portion of the bridge seat and replace them with a new transfer span, bridge seat, and lift cylinder shafts. During the project, up to 56 piles will be removed (40 timber and 16 steel), and require installation of up to 26 piles (16 steel, 8 temporary H-piles, and 2 cylinder shaft casings). Because elevated sound levels from pile driving have the potential to result in marine mammal harassment, NMFS issued an IHA for take incidental to the specified activity.

The project will replace an aging cable-lift transfer span with a new hydraulic lift span at the Port Townsend ferry terminal in northern Puget Sound, Washington. Transfer spans are moveable traffic bridges that connect ferries with the terminal dock, allowing the transfer span to be raised or lowered depending on the daily tide levels (see Figure 1-2 in WSF's IHA application). The new hydraulic lifts, or H-spans, will be operated vertically by two hydraulic cylinders located under the offshore ends of the transfer span. The proposed project will involve the removal of the existing transfer span, lift towers, tower foundations, and a portion of the bridge seat. Once the old structures are removed, they will be replaced with a new transfer span, bridge seat, and lift cylinder shafts (see Appendix A of the IHA application).

To replace the aging transfer span, 40 timber piles and 16 steel piles (four 30-inch and four 24-inch wingwall steel piles, and eight temporary piles) will be removed using a vibratory hammer. The vibratory hammer will then be used to install up to 8 steel piles (five 30-inch and up to three 24-inch), up to 8 temporary steel piles, up to 8 piles for the new wingwall fender panels and reaction frames (up to four 24-inch and up to four 30-inch), and two 80-inch cylinder shafts that will house the hydraulic lifts. The use of an impact hammer will be limited to the “proofing” of five 30-inch piles and three 24-inch piles in order to drive them the last two feet into the substrate. A breakdown of pile types and associated activity are shown in Table 1.

Of the eight 24- and 30-inch steel piles, three 24-inch piles will be installed to support the platform for the new Hydraulic Power Unit (HPU) and five 30-inch piles would be installed for the new bridge seat. Up to eight temporary steel piles will be installed using a vibratory hammer to support a template for construction of the cylinder shafts. The vibratory hammer will then be used to install the two 80-inch hollow steel cylinder shafts. The final eight 24- and 30-inch steel piles will be installed using a vibratory hammer for the new wingwall reaction frames and wingwall fender panels at the terminus of the transfer span.

Although the exact duration of pile driving will vary depending on the installation procedures and geotechnical conditions, the applicant estimates that the 16 24- to 30-inch permanent piles will each require 20 minutes of vibratory installation. Five 30-inch piles and up to three 24-inch piles will each require 10 minutes of impact driving or “proofing” to verify capacity. The vibratory driving of eight temporary piles that support the template for the hydraulic cylinder shafts will each require 15 minutes to install because it will not be necessary to drive these piles as deep as the permanent piles. The two 80-inch cylinder shaft casing will take approximately 20 minutes each to install using a vibratory hammer. All piles will be installed with an APE Model 400 (or equivalent) vibratory hammer; however, it will be necessary to proof the five 30-inch bridge seat piles and three 24-inch HPU support piles using an impact hammer. Proofing will require 10 minutes of impact pile driving for each of these eight piles to verify load-bearing capacity. Sound attenuation devices, such as a bubble curtain, will be used during impact hammering. The wingwall temporary piles and the 80-inch cylinder shafts will be driven solely with a vibratory hammer.

In addition to pile installation, a total of 56 piles will be removed using vibratory extraction or a crane. These consist of the 16 steel piles and 40 old timber piles. If a timber pile breaks below the mudline—something older timber piles are prone to do—pile stubs will be removed with a clamshell bucket, but noise associated with this activity is expected to be negligible. Once piles and fragments of piles are removed, they will be loaded onto a barge or container and disposed of at an approved offsite location. There could be barges in the water to support these pile removal activities; however, these will be concentrated in the direct vicinity of the ferry terminal. Because direct pull and clamshell pile removal, and use of barges do not release loud sounds into the environment, marine mammal harassment from these activities is not anticipated.

The activity will occur at the Port Townsend ferry terminal located in northern Puget Sound inside Port Townsend Bay.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommended in-water work window for this area is July 16 through February 15. Timing restrictions such as this are used to avoid in-water work when ESA-listed salmonid species are most likely to be present. Proposed pile installation and removal activities are scheduled to occur between November 12, 2012, and February 15, 2013, in agreement with the state's recommendation. The on-site work will last approximately 16 weeks with actual pile removal and driving activities taking place approximately 25 percent of that time (approximately 4 weeks).

Detailed descriptions of sound propagation and sound sources were provided in the Federal Register notice (77 FR 39471, July 3, 2012). Significant sound sources during in-water construction activities associated with the project include vibratory pile removal and pile installation using both vibratory and impact pile driving.

Since 1997, NMFS has used generic sound exposure thresholds as guidelines to estimate when harassment may occur. Current practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to sound defines thresholds as follows: Cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to sound levels of 180 and 190 dB root mean square (rms; note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 µPa) or above, respectively, are considered to have been taken by Level A (i.e., injurious) harassment, while behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 120 dB rms for continuous sound (such as will be produced by the WSF activities) and 160 dB rms for pulsed sound, but below injurious thresholds. For airborne sound, pinniped disturbance has been documented at 100 dB (unweighted) for pinnipeds in general, and at 90 dB (unweighted) for harbor seals (note that all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 µPa).

Data from other Washington State Ferries projects were used for the noise analysis of vibratory removal of 12-inch timber piles as well as the vibratory removal and driving of 30-inch and 24-inch hollow steel piles (Laughlin, 2005; Laughlin, 2010; Laughlin, 2011). Due to the lack of information related to the vibratory driving of 80-inch hollow steel cylinder shafts, noise levels recorded for a project using similar equipment in Richmond, California were used to estimate sound levels (CalTrans, 2007). For impact pile driving, WSF relied on measurements for steel piles at other Puget Sound ferry terminal locations (Laughlin, 2005). Sound levels for impact and vibratory pile driving are shown in Table 2. Ambient underwater sound levels in the vicinity of Port Townsend were measured in April 2010 (Stockham et al., 2010). These data show that local background levels are below 120 dB (50th percentile between 100 and 104 dB), at least during April; therefore, the Level B harassment threshold for continuous sound sources (120 dB) was not adjusted for this location. WSF conducted a site specific vibratory test pile project in coordination with NMFS at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal to determine the distances at which vibratory pile removal or driving attenuate down to the 120 dB threshold (i.e., the threshold level used to measure Level B harassment for continuous sounds). The site specific test allowed physical factors in Port Townsend Bay that can influence sound attenuation rates to be taken into account, such as absorption in seawater, absorption in the sub-bottom, scattering from inhomogeneities (lack of uniformity) in the water column and from surface and bottom roughness and water depth (bathymetry). During the test, two hollow steel piles, one 36-inch and one 30-inch, were driven and removed using a vibratory hammer. An array of hydrophones measured in-water noise during the test project. Vibratory driving of the 36-inch steel pile generated 159 to 177 dB rms at 10 m, and vibratory driving of the 30-inch steel pile generated 164 to 174 dB rms at 10 m. Vibratory removal of the 30-inch steel pile generated 171 dB rms at 10 m. Based on these results, the sound generated from vibratory installation and removal of 30-inch piles may take up to 4.2 miles (6.8 km) to attenuate to below 120 dB. Because of the project area's location in a semi-enclosed bay, sound transmission will be stopped by land masses much earlier in certain directions.

In-air sound from pile driving also has the potential to affect marine mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's surface. As a result, WSF analyzed the potential for pinnipeds hauled out or swimming at the surface near the ferry terminal to be exposed to airborne SPLs that could result in Level B behavioral harassment. The distance to the 90 dB Level B threshold for airborne sound was estimated to be 81 m, which is less than the distance to the nearest known haul out site 3 km away (Kilisut Harbor spit). Although there are no pinniped haul-out sites near the project area, animals could be exposed when swimming at the surface with their heads above the water; however, the airborne sound harassment zone is smaller than and encompassed by the underwater sound harassment zones for both vibratory and impact pile driving.

We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 3, 2012 (77 FR 39471). During the 30-day comment period, NMFS received a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and a letter from a member of the public. The letter from a member of the public did not contain substantive comments. The comments from the Commission, and our responses, are provided here. All measures proposed in the initial Federal Register notice are included within the authorization and NMFS has determined that they will effect the least practicable impact on the species or stocks and their habitats.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that we require WSF to implement ramp-up procedures after 15 minutes if pile-driving or -removal activities were delayed or shut down because of the presence of a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone and observers did not see that marine mammal leave the zone.

Response: We disagree with this recommendation. The Commission cites several reasons why marine mammals may remain in the exclusion zone after shutdown and yet be undetected by observers during the 15 minute clearance period (e.g., perception and availability bias). While this is possible in theory, we find it extremely unlikely that an animal could remain undetected in such a small zone and under typical conditions in Port Townsend Bay. The exclusion zone has a 22 m radial distance, and typical observation conditions in Port Townsend Bay are excellent. We believe the possibility of a marine mammal remaining undetected in the exclusion zone, in relatively shallow water, for greater than 15 minutes is discountable. A requirement to implement ramp-up after every shutdown or delay less than 30 minutes in duration would be impracticable, resulting in significant construction delays and therefore extending the overall time required for the project, and thus the number of days during which disturbance of marine mammals could occur.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that we require WSF to monitor before, during, and after all ramp-ups of vibratory and impact pile driving to gather the data needed to determine the effectiveness of this technique as a mitigation measure.

Response: We disagree that WSF needs to monitor for marine mammals before, during, and after all ramp-ups. Protected species observers will be on-site and monitoring for marine mammals at least 30 minutes prior to, during, and after all impact driving (including during ramp-ups) and at least two full days per week during all vibratory pile driving. We believe that monitoring for all impact driving and at least two days per week of vibratory pile driving days per week will allow for adequate data collection and interpretation of how marine mammals are behaving in response to pile driving, including during ramp-ups.

Comment 3: The Commission recommends that we require WSF to monitor the Level A and B harassment zones to detect the presence and characterize the behavior of marine mammals during all pile-driving and removal activities that use a vibratory or impact hammer.

Response: As stated in the proposed IHA, marine mammal monitoring will occur 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all impact pile driving activities. In addition, at least two NMFS-approved protected species observers will conduct behavioral monitoring out to 1,900 m during all vibratory pile driving for the first two weeks of activity to validate take estimates and evaluate the behavioral impacts pile driving has on marine mammals out to the Level B harassment isopleth. NMFS believes this is an adequate effort of monitoring because sounds from vibratory pile driving will not exceed the Level A harassment threshold and sounds from impact pile driving only exceed the Level A harassment threshold 22 m from the source.

Due to Port Townsend's location on the boundary between two inland water regions, 11 marine mammal species may occur at some time of year in the vicinity of the ferry terminal: Harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin, killer whale, gray, whale, humpback whale, minke whale, Pacific harbor seal, California sea lion, northern elephant seal, and Steller sea lion. The Steller sea lion, Southern Resident killer whale, and humpback whale are the only marine mammals that may occur in the vicinity of the ferry terminal that are listed under the ESA; the Southern Resident killer whale and humpback whale are listed as endangered and the eastern distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lion is listed as threatened. All marine mammal species are protected under the MMPA. The Federal Register notice (77 FR 39471, July 3, 2012) summarizes the population status and abundance of these species and provides detailed life history information.

Impact and vibratory pile driving are the construction activities associated with the proposed action with the potential to take marine mammals. Elevated in-water sound levels from pile driving in the proposed project area may temporarily impact marine mammal behavior. However, elevated in-air sound levels are not expected to affect marine mammals because the nearest pinniped haul-out is approximately 3 km away and the zone of harassment for airborne sound is encompassed within the zones of harassment for underwater sound. The Federal Register notice (77 FR 39471, July 3, 2012) provides a detailed description of marine mammal hearing and of the potential effects of these construction activities on marine mammals.

The proposed activities at the Port Townsend ferry terminal would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haul-out sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and salmonids. There are no rookeries or major haul-out sites within 3 km, foraging hotspots, or other bottom features of significant biological importance to marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from the effects of pile removal and installation on likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near the ferry terminal and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during removal and installation of piles during the transfer span replacement project. In addition, removal of the 40 creosote-treated wood piles from the marine environment will have long-term benefits due to improvements in water and sediment quality. The Federal Register notice (77 FR 39471, July 3, 2012) describes these potential impacts in greater detail.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, 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 (where relevant).

The applicant will implement the following mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals:

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends an in-water work window of July 16 through February 15, annually. This work window was designed to avoid in-water work when ESA-listed salmonids are most likely to be present, but may also be beneficial to marine mammals that prey on salmon. Actual construction activities will take place from November 12, 2012, through February 15, 2013, which ensures that these activities do not coincide with salmonid use of the action area. The daily construction work window for in-water work will begin no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise and will end at sunset (or shortly after sunset) when visibility decreases to the point where effective marine mammal monitoring is no longer possible.

To the extent possible, a vibratory hammer would be used to drive all piles. It is anticipated that an impact hammer will be necessary to “proof” five 30-inch hollow steel piles. During impact pile driving, a bubble curtain will be used as an attenuation device to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels and avoid the potential for injury. In the event that hydroacoustic monitoring during in-water construction activities involving impact pile driving indicates that the proper attenuation is not being achieved, the proposed harassment and exclusion zones (described next) will be modified to account for the reduced attenuation.

During impact pile driving, WSF will establish a marine mammal exclusion zone of 22 m around each pile to avoid exposure to sounds at or above 180 dB. The 190 dB (pinniped) injury isopleth is contained within the 22 m exclusion zone. The exclusion zone will be monitored during all impact pile driving to ensure that no marine mammals enter the 22 m radius. The purpose of this area is to prevent Level A harassment (injury) of any marine mammal species. Typically, an exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving is unnecessary to prevent Level A harassment, as source levels would not exceed the Level A harassment threshold; however, in response to a recommendation from the Marine Mammal Commission, a 5 m exclusion zone will be established during vibratory pile driving of the two 80-inch piles.

Monitoring will be initiated 30 minutes prior to the commencement of pile driving activities. If a protected species observer sees a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone prior to start of impact pile driving, the observer will notify the on-site construction manager (or other authorized individual), who will then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved outside of the exclusion zone or if the animal has not been resighted within 15 minutes. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward the exclusion zone during pile driving, pile driving will cease until that animal has cleared and is on a path away from the exclusion zone or 15 minutes has lapsed since the last sighting.

A “soft-start” technique will be used at the beginning of each day's pile installation or removal, or if installation or removal has ceased for more than one hour, to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. For vibratory pile driving, the soft-start procedure requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40-60 percent reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times before full energy may be achieved. For impact hammering, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.

Should environmental conditions (e.g., fog, high sea state, poor lighting) obscure the harassment zone, pile driving will be suspended until visibility returns.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 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; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, 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.

WSF has developed a monitoring plan that includes monitoring the harassment and exclusion zones during pile driving and collecting sighting data for each marine mammal species observed during in-water construction activities. To implement this plan, qualified marine mammals observers will be on-site at all times during pile removal and installation. WSF must designate at least one biologically-trained, on-site individual, approved in advance by NMFS, to monitor the area for marine mammals 30 minutes before, during, and 20 minutes after all impact pile driving activities and call for shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or approaching the designated exclusion zone (preliminarily set at 22 m for impact pile driving and 5 m for vibratory installation of the 80-inch piles). In addition, at least two NMFS-approved protected species observers would conduct behavioral monitoring at least two days per week to estimate take and evaluate the behavioral impacts pile driving has on marine mammals out to the Level B harassment isopleths. Note that for impact hammering, this distance is about 465 m. For vibratory hammering, this estimated distance is about 6.8 km. Protected species observers will be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals (for example, high-quality binoculars, spotting scopes, compass, and range-finder) in order to determine if animals have entered into the exclusion zone or Level B harassment isopleth and to record species, behaviors, and responses to pile driving.

WSF will also conduct acoustic monitoring during vibratory pile installation of 24-inch and 80-inch steel piles. Acoustic monitoring during timber pile removal and installation and removal of 30-inch steel piles will not be conducted because data from these activities was collected in 2010 during the Port Townsend test pile driving project (Laughlin, 2010; Stockham et al., 2010) and during a 2010 dolphin replacement project in Port Townsend.

Protected species observers will be required to submit a report to NMFS within 120 days of expiration of the IHA or completion of pile driving, whichever comes first. The report would include data from marine mammal sightings (such as species, group size, and behavior), any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting.

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].

All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment, involving temporary, short-term modifications of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. Marine mammals may also temporarily avoid the area during construction. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to avoid injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is considered remote.

If a marine mammal responds to an underwater sound by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is typically unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).

Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate take based on how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. Typically, potential takes are estimated by multiplying the ensonified area by the local marine mammal densities of the species that may occur within that zone. There are no density estimates for any Puget Sound population of marine mammals. As a result, for this IHA, takes were estimated using local marine mammal data sets (e.g., Orca Network, state and federal agencies), opinions from state and federal agencies, and incidental observations from WSF biologists. For example, between 1990 and 2005, an average of 1.75 killer whale groups were reported in the quadrant that includes Port Townsend, with most sightings occurring between September and December, and March. On the basis of that information, an estimated amount of potential takes for killer whales is presented here. However, while a pod of killer whales could potentially visit again during the project timeframe, and thus be taken, it is more likely that they would not.

The project area is not believed to be particularly important habitat for marine mammals, although harbor seals are year-round residents and have a known haul-out site within 3 km of Port Townsend (haul-out sites for other pinniped species are located at a distance of 7 km or greater from the project site). Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with the proposed activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals, although those effects could be recurring if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity.

WSF requested authorization for the potential taking of small numbers of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, killer whales, Dall's porpoises, harbor porpoises, Pacific white-sided dolphins, gray whales, humpback whales, and minke whales in Port Townsend Bay and Admiralty Inlet that may result from pile removal and installation during construction activities associated with the transfer span replacement project described previously in this document. Based on comments received from the Marine Mammal Commission, the takes requested for harbor seals, California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and harbor porpoise have been corrected to account for the number of days during which the activity will occur instead of the number of hours extrapolated to days. The corrected numbers are reflected in the following paragraphs. The takes requested are expected to have no more than a minor effect on individual animals and no effect at the population level for these species. Any effects experienced by individual marine mammals are anticipated to be limited to short-term disturbance of normal behavior or temporary displacement of animals near the source of the sound.

Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise is that in order to avoid the potential for injury (PTS), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB or above, respectively. This level is considered precautionary as it is likely that more intense sounds would be required before injury would actually occur (Southall et al., 2007). Potential for behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving) and 120 dB for non-pulse noise (such as vibratory pile driving), but below the aforementioned thresholds. These levels are also considered precautionary.

Based on empirical measurements taken by WSDOT and Caltrans (which are presented in the Description of Specified Activities section above), estimated distances to NMFS' current harassment threshold sound levels from pile driving during the proposed construction activities are presented in Table 4. The 22 m distance to the Level A harassment threshold and the establishment of a 5 m exclusion zone for vibratory installation of the 80-inch piles provides protected species observers a reasonably sized area to monitor during impact pile driving. Monitoring these zones and implementing mitigation measures will prevent marine mammals from being exposed to sound levels that reach the Level A harassment threshold.

For each of the 11 marine mammal species that may occur within the proposed action area, incidental take was determined by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present with the Zone of Influence (ZOI) during pile driving activities (Table 5). Typically, incidental take is estimated by multiplying the area of the ZOI by the local animal density. This provides an estimate of the number of animals that might occupy the ZOI at any time; however, there are no density estimates for marine mammal populations in Puget Sound. Therefore, the take requests were estimated using local marine mammal data sets (e.g., Orca Network, state and federal agencies), opinions from state and federal agencies, and incidental observations from WSF biologists. Expected marine mammal presence was determined by past observation and general abundance near the Port Townsend ferry terminal during the construction work window. Distances to the applicable NMFS thresholds for Level A and Level B harassment take for each type of pile (vibratory and impact) were presented in Section 1.6.6 in the IHA application. These distances were used to calculate the various ZOIs or area ensonified by sounds at or greater than threshold. For example, for the Level A threshold, the estimated distance to the 180 dB isopleth was 22 m for impact pile driving, which equates to a 1,520 square meter ZOI. The distance to the 160 dB isopleths during impact pile driving was estimated at 465 m, which equates to a 0.45 square km (only half the area is water). The distance to the 120 dB threshold for vibratory pile driving was estimated at 6.8 km, which equates to a ZOI of approximately 42 square km in water. Both of these areas will be monitored during construction to report actual marine mammal takes by Level B harassment.

Airborne noises can affect pinnipeds, especially resting seals hauled out on rocks or sand spits. The airborne 90 dB Level B threshold for hauled out harbor seals was estimated at 81 m, and the airborne 100 dB Level B threshold for other pinnipeds was estimated at 17 m. No haulout sites are within the disturbance threshold distances; the nearest harbor seal haulout is approximately 3 km from the ferry terminal. In addition, the airborne noise harassment ZOI is smaller than both the impact and vibratory hammer underwater noise harassment ZOIs, and therefore is encompassed in the underwater noise take estimates.

Surveys conducted during the fall/winter of 2009/2010 by biologists contracted by the Snohomish Public Utility District recorded about 10 harbor seals per day (Tollit et al., 2010). The applicant estimates that the total number of pile driving and removal hours would not exceed 18 eight-hour work days; therefore, the estimated number of seals that could be harassed would be 180. The survey conducted by Tollit et al. (2010) also recorded sightings of California sea lions passing Admiralty Head (located directly across Admiralty Inlet from Port Townsend) and reported six animals over the course of 88 days between October 2009 and February 2010. Similarly, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recorded eight California sea lions in Admiralty Inlet during vessel-based surveys in Puget Sound between 1992 and 2004. Based on the results from these surveys, WSF estimates that up to six California sea lions could enter the 160 dB harassment zone per day, or a total of 108 during the 18 eight-hour work days that would involve in-water pile installation and removal activities. These surveys did not, however, report any sightings of northern elephant seals in Admiralty Inlet. Wintering elephant seals haul out on Protection Island, which is 12 km to the west of Port Townsend, and Smith and Minor Islands 24 km to the north, but may forage as far south as Admiralty Inlet. Therefore, it is possible that elephant seals could enter Port Townsend Bay during the proposed activity at the ferry terminal, and WSF believes that a couple northern elephant seals could be exposed to sound from pile driving and removal activities each day, especially since they are capable of spending prolonged periods below the water where they cannot be detected. Based on these considerations, WSF requests a total of 5 northern elephant seal takes by Level B harassment during the three eight-hour work days that involve pile driving and removal. Among pinnipeds, Steller sea lions are relatively common in Admiralty Inlet during the winter as they move between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound; hauling out at Craven Rock east of Marrowstone Island, or on channel buoys. The survey conducted by Tollit et al. (2010) recorded nearly 800 Steller sea lions over 88 days, or about 9 Steller sea lions per day. Considering that pile driving activities are expected to take about 18 work days to complete, WSF estimates that 90 Steller sea lions could be exposed to sound resulting in Level B harassment.

Take estimates for cetaceans also relied on recent survey data because density estimates for the inland waters of Washington are not available. Harbor porpoises are frequently observed in Admiralty Inlet, Tollit et al. (2010) recorded over 1,500 harbor porpoises during 88 survey days between October 2009 and February 2010, or approximately 17 per day. WSF estimates that pile driving activities will take about 18 work days to complete; therefore, approximately 306 harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound levels resulting in Level B harassment during this period. The survey by Tollit et al. (2010) did not positively identify any Dall's porpoises, and their preference for deeper waters and spatial distribution in Puget Sound make it unlikely that Dall's porpoises transiting through Admiralty Inlet would regularly enter the shallow waters of Port Townsend Bay; however, it is possible for Dall's porpoises to approach close enough to the proposed pile-driving activity to be exposed to sound resulting in Level B harassment. Therefore, based on an average winter group size of three animals (PSAMP data), WSF estimates that three Dall's porpoise may enter the Level B harassment zone three times during pile driving activities, and request a total of nine Dall's porpoise takes by Level B harassment.

The inland distribution of Pacific white-sided dolphins is largely limited to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Haro Strait on the west side of the San Juan Islands. Because these dolphins appear confined to the deeper channels of the inland waters of Washington State, they may occur in Admiralty Inlet, but are unlikely to enter the shallower waters of Port Townsend Bay. In addition, these animals move to warmer waters in the fall and winter and may be entirely absent from the area during the proposed ferry terminal replacement project. Without better evidence on the reports of Pacific white-sided dolphins sighted in Admiralty Inlet during the winter or on the likelihood of these dolphins occurring in the vicinity of the ferry terminal, WSF requests 10 takes of Pacific white-sided dolphins by Level B harassment, which is based on their average group size exposed to one day of pile driving activity. Similar to Pacific white-sided dolphins, killer whales are not expected to be present near Port Townsend during the proposed fall/winter activity period. Transient killer whale rarely occur in Puget Sound, and Southern Resident killer whales spend much of the winter in the vicinity of the Fraser River; however, based on the unpredictable nature of transient movements and past records of Southern Resident sightings, it is possible that a pod of killer whales could pass through Admiralty Inlet and be within the Level B harassment zone. For example, Tollit et al. (2010) did report three sightings of Southern Resident killer whales passing Admiralty Head in October 2009, and one group of transients passed by in December 2009 (neither group entered Port Townsend Bay). Therefore, WSF requests 30 killer whale takes by Level B harassment, which equates to one group of three transients plus the 27 animals that comprise J pod—the Southern Resident pod most likely to occur in Puget Sound during the proposed activity period.

The IHA application also requests takes of three species of baleen whale—gray whale, humpback whale, and minke whale. Gray whales generally enter the inland waters of Washington from March through May and sightings during the fall and winter are infrequent. However, because gray whales that enter Puget Sound tend to localize around Admiralty Inlet and Possession Sound, the possibility of a gray whale occurring in the vicinity of Port Townsend Bay during the proposed pile driving activity cannot be discounted. Therefore, based on the average gray whale group size, WSF requests two gray whale takes by Level B harassment. Humpback whales are also occasionally observed in Puget Sound, but most sightings occur during the summer months and nearly all recent winter and fall sightings have been confined to the vicinity of the San Juan Islands. Although humpback whales are not expected in the vicinity of Port Townsend Bay during the proposed action, the possibility of a sighting cannot be fully discounted. Based on the average group size, WSF requests two humpback whale takes by Level B harassment. Minke whales are also very rare in Puget Sound during the winter; however, of the few reported sightings in Puget Sound, most have occurred in the vicinity of Admiralty Inlet. Given the rarity of these animals in winter, WSF only anticipates that minke whales would make an occasional transit, if any, of Admiralty Inlet during the proposed activity with the remote possibility of one or two whales entering Port Townsend Bay. Therefore, based on these considerations, WSF requests two minke whale takes by Level B harassment.

To summarize, WSF requests, and NMFS authorizes, takes of 180 harbor seals, 108 California sea lions, 5 northern elephant seals, 90 Steller sea lions, 306 harbor porpoises, 9 Dall's porpoises, 10 Pacific white-sided dolphins, 3 transient killer whales, 27 Southern Resident killer whales, 2 gray whales, 2 humpback whales, and 2 minke whales. These numbers do not take the required mitigation measures into consideration, and are likely overestimates because they represent the maximum number of animals expected to occur within the Level B harassment isopleth. The actual number of animals that may be harassed is likely to be less.

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.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.

Marine mammals would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Pile driving would occur in shallow coastal waters of Port Townsend Bay. The action area (waters around the ferry terminal) is not considered significant feeding or reproductive habitat for pinnipeds. The closest haul-out is 3 km away, which is outside the project area's largest harassment zone for airborne noise. Any marine mammals—most likely pinnipeds—approaching the action area would likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging.

Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by pile driving noise. However, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area to some degree, thereby potentially reducing exposure and impacts. Pile driving activities are expected to occur for approximately 4 weeks. Although marine mammal prey species may be affected by pile driving activities, any impacts would be short in duration and limited to the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal. NMFS expects that any fish that exhibit behavioral responses (i.e., avoidance) while in-water construction activities occur would resume normal behavior following the cessation of the activity. Furthermore, Puget Sound is a highly populated and industrialized area, so animals are likely tolerant or habituated to anthropogenic disturbance, including low level vibratory pile driving operations, and noise from other anthropogenic sources (such as vessels) may mask construction related sounds. There are no known areas within Port Townsend Bay where any of these species concentrate specifically for breeding or feeding. Based on all the information considered, there is no anticipated effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals. Accordingly, the activity will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals.

The amount of take WSF requested for each species, and NMFS authorizes, is considered small (less than five percent) relative to the estimated populations or stocks of 14,612 Pacific harbor seals, 238,000 California sea lions, 101,000 northern elephant seals, 48,500 Steller sea lions, 10,632 harbor porpoises, 57,000 Dall's porpoises, 25,233 Pacific white-sided dolphins, 314 transient killer whales, 20,000 gray whales, 1,100 humpback whales, and 1,000 minke whales.

The request of up to 27 takes of Southern Resident killer whales by Level B harassment represents a larger percentage (31%) of the population; this number was estimated because Southern Resident killer whales travel in large groups. Although killer whales are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the ferry terminal during pile driving, if they were to appear, it may be as a full group or pod, which necessitates the need for a larger number of takes requested.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS determines that the proposed pile removal and installation would result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

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

The Southern Resident killer whale and humpback whale are listed as endangered under the ESA and the eastern distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lion is currently listed as threatened, but NMFS has proposed delisting of the eastern DPS (77 FR 23209, April 18, 2012). These species may occur within the action area. NMFS' Office of Protected Resources initiated formal consultation on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for the takes of Southern Resident killer whales, humpback whales, and the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions. This consultation is complete, with the determination in a Biological Opinion that the activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions, Southern Resident killer whales, and humpback whales. In addition, the activity will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales.

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, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to marine mammals and other applicable environmental resources resulting from issuance of a one-year IHA and the potential issuance of additional authorizations for incidental harassment for the ongoing project. NMFS has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and, therefore, it is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to WSF for this activity.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the WSF to incidentally take marine mammals during in-water construction activities associated with the Port Townsend ferry terminal transfer span replacement project in Port Townsend, WA, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Under the PRA, 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(c) 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, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

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

• Ways to enhance the quality of, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

The information collection consists of procurement activities relating to solicitations, amendments to solicitations, requests for quotations, construction contracts, awards of contracts, performance bonds, and payment information for individuals (vendors) or contractors engaged in providing supplies or services.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Purpose of Meeting: To obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the Committee's mission to advise on technology security, combating weapons of mass destruction (C-WMD), counter terrorism and counter proliferation.

Agenda: Beginning at 8:30 a.m., December 6, and through the end of the meeting on December 7, the committee will receive classified Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD) briefings from the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. The committee will also hold classified discussions on Middle East WMD concerns, Addressing C-WMD Capabilities Needs and Gaps for 2020, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the Way Forward, the Global C-WMD Awareness System, and Securing Special Nuclear Materials.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that the public interest requires all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by Title 5, United States Code, Section 552b(c)(1) and are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material which cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret material.

Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/J/2/5/8R-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: william.hostyn@dtra.mil . Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Committee at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in the paragraph immediately above or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database— https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Committee may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on November 15, 2012, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: DC Choice Evaluation.

OMB Control Number: Pending.

Type of Review: New collection; request for a new OMB Control Number.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,059.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 984.

Abstract: The Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education is conducting a congressionally mandated evaluation of the newly re-authorized program providing private school scholarships to low-income residents of Washington, DC. As was the case for the prior evaluation of the program, the foundation of the new evaluation will be a randomized control trial comparing outcomes of eligible applicants (students and their parents) assigned by lottery to receive or not receive a scholarship. This design is consistent with the requirement for a rigorous evaluation as well as the need to fairly allocate the scholarships if the program is oversubscribed. The study will include the administration of annual academic assessments and surveys of students, parents, and principals.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) for the State Independent Living Services and Center for Independent Living Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0527 .

Type of Review: Extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,360.

Abstract: States wishing to receive funding under the State Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living programs must submit an approvable three-year State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. The purpose of these programs is to promote the independent living philosophy based on consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access and individual and systems advocacy to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities and to promote and maximize the integration and full inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities into the mainstream of American society. The SPIL encompasses the activities planned by the state to achieve its specified independent living objectives and reflects the state's commitment to comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements during the three years covered by the plan.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Needs Assessment and Workplan Guide for the Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Program.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0690.

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection of information.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 817.

Abstract: Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers are required to conduct needs assessments of state vocational rehabilitation agencies and their partners in their regions, create workplans to address the needs they identify, and evaluate the technical assistance and continuing education provided to address those needs. This guide establishes the requirements for, and information to be reported about, those activities.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2014-16 System Clearance.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0790.

Type of Review: Revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,609,126.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 758,329.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics is requesting a three year generic system clearance for the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to be administered in the 2014-2016 timeframe. The primary reason for the system clearance request is that it enables NAEP to meet its large and complex assessment reporting schedules and deliverables through a more efficient clearance process. NAEP is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, technology and engineering literacy, and the arts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-279 Title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. The nature of NAEP is that burden alternates from a relatively low burden in national-level administration years to a substantial burden increase in state-level administration years when the sample has to allow for estimates for individual states and some of the large urban districts. Consequently, the estimated respondent burden is substantially lower for the 2014 and 2016 versus the 2015 administration of NAEP. The NAEP results will be reported to the public through the Nations Report Card as well as other online NAEP tools.

The National Assessment Governing Board (Board) is established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, as amended.

The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include the following: selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.

On November 29, 2012, the Ad Hoc Committee on Background Information will meet in open session from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Executive Committee will convene in open session from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and thereafter in closed session from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

During the closed session, the Executive Committee will receive and discuss the current procurement plans and independent government cost estimates from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) staff for proposed item development, data collection, scoring and analysis, and reporting of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results for 2013-2017, and their implications on future NAEP activities. The discussion of independent government cost estimates for the NAEP 2013-2017 contracts is necessary for ensuring that NAEP contracts meet congressionally mandated goals and adhere to Board policies on NAEP Assessments available at www.nagb.org/policies.html . This part of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because public disclosure of this information would likely have an adverse financial effect on the NAEP program by providing contractors attending an unfair advantage in procurement and contract negotiations for NAEP. Discussion of this information would be likely to significantly impede implementation of a proposed agency action if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

On November 30, 2012, the full Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., followed by a closed session from 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m., and an open session from 2:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

From 8:30 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. on November 30, the Board will review and approve the November 29-December 1, 2012 meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the August 2012 Board meeting. Thereafter, the Chairman will introduce new Board members followed by remarks from the new members and the Chairman.

On November 30, 2012 from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., the Executive Director of the Governing Board will provide a report to the Board, followed by updates from the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Following these sessions, the Board will recess for Committee meetings from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Reporting and Dissemination Committee will meet in open session and the Assessment Development Committee and the Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology will meet in open and closed sessions as described below.

On November 30, 2012, the Assessment Development Committee will meet in open session from 9:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m. and in closed session from 10:40 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. During the closed session, ADC members will review secure science interactive computer tasks (ICTs) and test items for the 2014 pilot test in preparation for the 2015 NAEP science assessment. The review of secure ICTs for grades 4, 8, and 12 must be conducted in closed session because the ADC members will be provided with secure items and materials which are not yet available for release to the general public. Premature disclosure of the secure test items and materials would compromise the integrity and substantially impede implementation of the secure NAEP assessments and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.

The Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology (COSDAM) will meet in open session from 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. and thereafter in closed session from 10:45 a.m. to 11:50 a.m., followed by an open session from 11:50 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. During the closed session, COSDAM members will receive an embargoed technical briefing on preliminary results of the linking study at grade 8 in mathematics and science. The linking study was conducted in 2012 between NAEP and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) assessments. These data have not yet been released and therefore cannot be disclosed to the general public at this time. Premature disclosure of these secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP and TIMSS assessments and reporting, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

Following the Committee meetings, on November 30, 2012 from 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. the full Board will meet in closed session to receive two briefings—a linking study of NAEP and TIMSS, and results of the Mathematics Curriculum Study. For the NAEP/TIMSS linking study, the Board will receive an embargoed briefing on preliminary results. For the mathematics curriculum study, the Board will receive an embargoed briefing on the results from the 2005 High School Transcript Mathematics Curriculum Study of 12th graders. The briefings will include secure test items, embargoed assessment data, and results that cannot be discussed in an open meeting prior to their official release. Premature disclosure of these results would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP and TIMSS assessment program, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 United States Code.

After the November 30 closed general session, the Board will meet in open session. From 2:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., the Board will receive the annual briefing on the Governing Board and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Policy Task Force. From 2:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., the Board will receive a demonstration of the online Grade 12 Preparedness Technical Report and a briefing on plans for future research studies. Thereafter, from 3:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., Board members will receive their annual ethics briefing from the Office of General Counsel. The November 30, 2012 Board meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 4:15 p.m.

On December 1, 2012, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. to discuss potential candidates for Board terms beginning October 1, 2013. The Committee discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of section 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.

On December 1, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. the full Board will receive a demonstration of computer-based tasks and test materials for the NAEP 2014 Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) Assessment at grade 8. During this closed session, Board members will be provided with specific test materials for review which are not yet available for release to the general public. Premature disclosure of these secure test items and materials would compromise the integrity and substantially impede implementation of the NAEP assessment and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.

Following this closed session, the full Board will meet in open session to discuss its ongoing work on Making a Difference Initiatives which includes plans for the 2013 Education Summit for Parent Leaders. From 10:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. the Board will receive Committee reports and take action on Committee recommendations. The December 1, 2012 meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 12:00 p.m.

A verbatim transcript of the meeting, including summaries of the activities of the closed sessions and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite #825, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

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

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

Under EPA contract number GS-35F-0601K, Order Number EP-G12H-00442, contractor ECS of 2750 Prosperity Ave., Suite 600, Fairfax, VA; and its identified subcontractors: Cherokee Services Group of 777 W. Cherokee Street, Catoosa, OK and Dell Services Federal Government of 8270 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive, Fairfax, VA will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing services and support to meet the needs of all EPA users. EPA users include standard, power, high computing, and shared computer as well as remote users and users at alternate work locations. The service providers (SP) will provide support for EPA hardware endpoints including but not limited to desktops, laptops, thin clients and scientific computers, PCs used as laboratory instrument controllers and software will be included in the scope of support only, if the High Computing Users Optional Contract Line Item (CLIN) is exercised; access to EPA server resources, data, systems, printers, and peripherals.

SPs will also provide support for EPA operating systems (OSs), Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software and custom developed software; access to the EPA wide area network (WAN) and the Internet; technical refresh of EPAs computing endpoints; Assistive Technology Center Support; and Training and Conference Room Support. The SPs will also provide services to complete installation, implementation, provisioning, maintenance, deprovisioning, decommission, removal and disposal of IT infrastructure through EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM).

The Federal disposal requirements as described herein on a continuing basis are in response to EPA user requirements. SPs will also maintain an awareness of the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of all services provided, with a continuing emphasis on devising and developing better methods and/or procedures to provide the IT infrastructure required by the EPA user community to meet present and future needs in support of EPA's mission. Furthermore, the SPs will provide services for coordination of procurement by EPA Federal staff through EPA's Program Offices and the EPA designated hardware provider. Finally, the SP will be required to coordinate and collaborate with other EPA infrastructure IT service providers (e.g. VoIP, PBX, switches, routers, hubs, Wireless LANs, network wiring, mobile telephone services, landline telephones, audio/video equipment and services). In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-35F-0601K, Order Number EP-G12H-00442, ECS and its identified subcontractors will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ECS and its identified subcontractors' personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ECS and its identified subcontractors access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and the Research Triangle Park facilities in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until September 30, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

ECS and its identified subcontractors' personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 estimates 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.

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

6. Identify the docket ID number assigned to the ICR action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the ICR title and related EPA and OMB numbers.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instruments or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list at 40 CFR 9.1.

As used in the PRA context, burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

EPA is planning to submit a number of currently approved ICRs to OMB for review and approval under PRA. In addition to specifically identifying the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID numbers, this unit provides a brief summary of the information collection activity and the Agency's estimated burden. The Supporting Statement for each ICR, a copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more detailed explanation.

Title: Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0278.11.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0044.

ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2013.

Abstract: This information collection activity provides EPA with notification of supplemental registration of distributors of pesticide products. EPA is responsible for the regulation of pesticides as mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. Section 3(e) of FIFRA (see 7 U.S.C. 136a(e)), allows pesticide registrants to distribute or sell a registered pesticide product under a different name instead of or in addition to the name under the original registration. Such distribution and sale is termed “supplemental distribution” and the product is termed a “distributor product.” EPA requires the pesticide registrant to submit a supplemental statement (EPA Form 8570-5, Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product) when the registrant has entered into an agreement with a second company that will distribute the registrant's product under the second company's name and product name.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.32 hours per response. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include those identified in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 325320 as businesses participating in this program as pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1,451.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 387 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $34,505. This includes an estimated burden cost of $34,505 and an estimated cost of $0 for non-burden hour paperwork costs, e.g., investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 68 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. This decrease reflects the decrease in the number of applications the Agency expects to receive in the next 3 years. This change is an adjustment.

Title: Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1632.04.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0133.

ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2013.

Abstract: This information collection request covers the information collection activities associated with the container design and residue removal requirements and containment structure requirements. With respect to the container design and residue removal requirements, the information collection activities are associated with the requirement that businesses subject to the container regulations (pesticide registrants) and repackaging regulations (pesticide registrants and refillers) maintain records of test data, cleaning procedures, certain data when a container is refilled, and other supporting information. These records are subject to both call-in by EPA and on-site inspection by EPA and its representatives. EPA has not established a regular schedule for the collection of these records, and there is no reporting.

With respect to the containment structure requirements, the information collection activities are associated with the requirement that businesses subject to the containment structure regulations maintain records of the: (1) Monthly inspection and maintenance of each containment structure and all stationary bulk containers; (2) duration over which non-stationary bulk containers holding pesticide and not protected by a secondary containment unit remain at the same location; and (3) construction date of the containment structure.

The businesses subject to the containment structure regulations include agrichemical retailers and refilling establishments, custom blenders, and commercial applicators of agricultural pesticides. The records have to be maintained by the owners and operators of such businesses. There is no regular schedule for the collection of either of these records, nor does EPA anticipate a call-in of records at some future date. Instead, the records would be available to inspectors to ensure that businesses are in compliance with containment requirements. These inspections are generally conducted by the states, which enforce FIFRA regulations through cooperative agreements with EPA.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average from 2 to 7.5 hours per response. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include pesticide registrants and businesses which formulate pesticide products or pesticide formulation intermediates (NAICS code 325320), farm supply wholesalers (NAICS code 422910), swimming pool applicators (classified under NAICS codes 561790, 453998, and 235990), and agricultural (aerial and ground) commercial applicators (classified under NAICS code 115112).

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 23,586.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 169,660 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $6,248,079. This includes an estimated burden cost of $5,561,578 for container regulations and an estimated cost of $686,501 for containment regulations.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 4,890.5 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. This decrease reflects three revisions to the estimated annual burden. First, EPA received very few waiver requests for complying with the non-refillable container regulations, so the estimated rate of registrants requesting waivers decreased from 5% to 1%. The decrease in waiver requests resulted in a corresponding decrease in the associated burden. Second, since registrant repackaging activities are similar to the repackaging activities conducted by refillers and swimming pool supply companies, EPA increased the average annual burden per registrant respondent from 1 hour to 7.5 hours per respondent to be consistent with the average burden per refiller or swimming pool supply company. Third, for entities subject to the containment requirements, some activities in the previous ICR were completed by the compliance date of August 16, 2009. This ICR is focusing only on the ongoing annual information collection activities for the containment requirements, resulting in a corresponding decrease in the estimated annual burden per respondent from the previous ICR. This change is an adjustment.

Title: Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/Feed Crops and New Inert Ingredients.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0597.11.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0024.

ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2013.

Abstract: The use of pesticides to increase crop production often results in pesticide residues in or on the crop. To protect the public health from unsafe pesticide residues, EPA sets limits on the nature and level of residues permitted pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). A pesticide may not be used on food or feed crops unless the Agency has established a tolerance (maximum residue limit) for the pesticide residues on that crop or established an exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance.

Under the law, EPA is responsible for ensuring that the maximum residue levels likely to be found in or on food/feed are safe for human consumption through a careful review and evaluation of residue chemistry and toxicology data. In addition, EPA must ensure that adequate enforcement of the tolerance can be achieved through the testing of submitted analytical methods. If the data are adequate for EPA to determine that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure, the Agency will establish the tolerance or grant an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

This ICR only applies to the information collection activities associated with the submission of a petition for a tolerance action. While EPA is authorized to set pesticide tolerances, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for their enforcement. Food or feed commodities found to contain pesticide residues in excess of established tolerances are considered adulterated, and are subject to seizure by FDA, and may result in civil penalties.

Trade secret or CBI is frequently submitted to EPA in support of a tolerance petition because submissions usually include the manufacturing process, product formulation, and supporting data. When such information is provided to the Agency, the information is protected from disclosure under FIFRA section 10. CBI data submitted to the EPA is handled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average from 1,726 hours for each petitioner response and 1,739 hours for each IR-4 response. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include anyone who files a petition asking EPA to take a specific tolerance action. While any entity can file a petition with EPA, petitions typically come from those businesses engaged in the manufacturing of pesticides and the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4). The NAICS codes for the most frequent type of respondent are 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing) and 541600 (management, scientific, and technical consulting services).

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 137.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 236,800 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $21,280,921. This is the estimated burden cost; there is no cost for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs in this information collection.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall increase of 58,515 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimate to account for an increase from 103 to 137 in the estimated average number of tolerance petitions submitted annually, which resulted in a change to the annual burden hours for respondents from 178,285 in the previous renewal to 236,800 in the current renewal. This change is an adjustment.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the individual ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of these ICRs to OMB and the opportunity for the public to submit additional comments for OMB consideration. If you have any questions about any of these ICRs or the approval process in general, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 estimates 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.

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by the voluntary collection activities under this ICR include pesticide application equipment manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, pesticide registrants, university researchers, and others who have an interest in reducing spray drift. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for the principal respondents is:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action.

Title: Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Technologies.

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2472.01.

OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-NEW.

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA intends to initiate a voluntary information collection for research to verify the effectiveness of application technologies for agricultural pesticide sprays that have the potential to significantly reduce pesticide spray drift. The focus of this research is on technologies, including spray nozzles, shrouds and shields, and drift reducing adjuvant chemicals used for aerial or groundboom applications to row and field crops. Collectively these technologies are referred to as drift reduction technologies (DRTs). The voluntary program would encourage the identification and use of DRTs that can substantially reduce drift of pesticide spray droplets from the target application site (e.g., a corn field) downwind to non-target areas. Exposures and adverse effects to humans, wildlife, and crops and other vegetation from pesticide spray drift are well recognized. Published research suggests 1-10% or more of applied agricultural pesticide sprays drift from the target field. EPA believes there are application technologies that have the potential to significantly reduce the amount of spray drift. As these technologies are identified, their drift-reducing potential needs to be verified.

Burden statement: The average cost per response is $10,476. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 12 companies.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1 or 2 submissions by each company.

Estimated total annual costs: $73,000. There are no costs for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from October 1, 2012 to October 12, 2012, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Imports, Notice of commencement, Premanufacturer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Test marketing exemptions.

Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes a noncompetitive $50 million grant program to establish and enhance state  1 and tribal  2 response programs. CERCLA 128(a) response program grants are funded with categorical  3 State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) appropriations. Section 128(a) cooperative agreements are awarded and administered by the EPA regional offices. Generally, these response programs address the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites and other sites with actual or perceived contamination. This document provides guidance that will enable states and tribes to apply for and use Fiscal Year 2013 section 128(a) funds. 4

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance entry for the section 128(a) State and Tribal Response Program cooperative agreements is 66.817. This grant program is eligible to be included in state and tribal Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR part 35 subparts A and B, with the exception of funds used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield remediation under section 104(k)(3); or purchase insurance or develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a State or Tribal response program.

Requests for funding will be accepted from December 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013. Requests EPA receives after January 31, 2013 will not be considered for FY2013 funding. Information that must be submitted with the funding request is listed in Section VIII of this guidance. States or tribes that do not submit the request in the appropriate manner may forfeit their ability to receive funds. First time requestors are strongly encouraged to contact their Regional EPA Brownfields contacts, listed at the end of this guidance, prior to submitting their funding request.

Requests submitted by the January 31, 2013 request deadline are preliminary; final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional offices once final funding allocation determinations are made. As in previous years, EPA will place special emphasis on reviewing a cooperative agreement recipient's use of prior section 128(a) funding in making allocation decisions and unexpended balances are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR35.518 to the extent consistent with this guidance.

States and tribes requesting funds are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their cooperative agreement's final package. For more information, please go to www.grants.gov .

State and tribal response programs oversee assessment and cleanup activities at the majority of brownfields sites across the country. The depth and breadth of state and tribal response programs vary. Some focus on CERCLA related activities, while others are multi-faceted, for example, addressing sites regulated by both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Many state programs also offer accompanying financial incentive programs to spur cleanup and redevelopment. In enacting CERCLA section 128(a), 5 Congress recognized the accomplishments of state and tribal response programs in cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields sites. Section 128(a) also provides EPA with an opportunity to strengthen its partnership with states and tribes.

This funding is intended for those states and tribes with overall management and administrative capacity within their government required to administer a federal grant. The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of an environmental response program and that the response program establishes and maintains a public record of sites addressed.

Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out section 128(a) cooperative agreements.

To be eligible for funding under CERCLA section 128(a), a state or tribe must:

1. Demonstrate that its response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements of a response program, described in Section V of this guidance; or be a party to voluntary response program Memorandum of Agreement (VRP MOA)  6 with EPA;

AND

2. Maintain and make available to the public a record of sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year and are planned to be addressed in the upcoming year, see CERCLA section 128(b)(1)(C).

States and tribes are not required to provide matching funds for cooperative agreements awarded under section 128(a), with the exception of the section 128(a) funds a state or tribe uses to capitalize a Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund under CERCLA section 104(k)(3).

Section 128(a) recipients that do not have a VRP MOA with EPA must demonstrate that their response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements. Achievement of the four elements should be viewed as a priority. Section 128(a) authorizes funding for activities necessary to establish and enhance the four elements, and to establish and maintain the public record requirement.

The four elements of a response program are described below:

1. Timely survey and inventory of brownfields sites in state or tribal land. EPA's goal in funding activities under this element is to enable the state or tribe to establish or enhance a system or process that will provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely locations, and the general characteristics of brownfields sites in their state or tribal lands. EPA recognizes the varied scope of state and tribal response programs and will not require states and tribes to develop a “list” of brownfields sites. However, at a minimum, the state or tribe should develop and/or maintain a system or process that can provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely location, and general characteristics of brownfields sites within their state or tribal lands. Inventories should evolve to a prioritization of sites based on community needs, planning priorities, and protection of human health and the environment. Particular attention should focus on those communities with limited capacity to compete for, and manage a competitive brownfield assessment, revolving loan, and cleanup grant.

Given funding limitations, EPA will negotiate work plans with states and tribes to achieve this goal efficiently and effectively, and within a realistic time frame. For example, many of EPA's Brownfields Assessment cooperative agreement recipients conduct inventories of brownfields sites in their communities or jurisdictions. EPA encourages states and tribes to work with these cooperative agreement recipients to obtain the information that they have gathered and include it in their survey and inventory.

2. Oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms and resources. EPA's goal in funding activities under this element is to have state and tribal response programs that include oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms, and resources that are adequate to ensure that:

a. A response action will protect human health and the environment, and be conducted in accordance with applicable laws; and

b. The state or tribe will complete the necessary response activities if the person conducting the response activities fails to complete the necessary response activities (this includes operation and maintenance and/or long-term monitoring activities).

3. Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation. 7 EPA's goal in funding activities under this element is to have states and tribes include in their response program mechanisms and resources for meaningful public participation, at the local level, including, at a minimum:

a. Public access to documents and related materials that a state, tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site activities;

b. Prior notice and opportunity for meaningful public comment on cleanup plans and site activities including the input into the prioritization of sites; and

c. A mechanism by which a person who is, or may be, affected by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at a brownfields site—located in the community in which the person works or resides—may request that a site assessment be conducted. The appropriate state or tribal official must consider this request and appropriately respond.

4. Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and verification and certification that cleanup is complete. EPA's goal in funding activities under this element is to have states and tribes include in their response program mechanisms to approve cleanup plans and to verify that response actions are complete, including a requirement for certification or similar documentation from the state, the tribe, or a licensed site professional that the response action is complete. Written approval by a state or tribal response program official of a proposed cleanup plan is an example of an approval mechanism.

In order to be eligible for section 128(a) funding, states and tribes (including those with MOAs) must establish and maintain a public record system, described below, in order to receive funds. The public record should be made available to the public in an effort to provide a mechanism for meaningful public participation (refer to Section V. 3 above). Specifically, under section 128(b)(1)(C), states and tribes must:

1. Maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a record of sites that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions have been completed during the previous year;

2. Maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a record of sites that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions are planned to be addressed in the next year; and

3. Identify in the public record whether or not the site, upon completion of the response action, will be suitable for unrestricted use. If not, the public record must identify the institutional controls relied on in the remedy and include relevant information concerning the entity that will be responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls; and how the responsible entity is implementing those activities (see Section VI.C).

Section 128(a) funds may be used to maintain and make available a public record system that meets the requirements discussed above.

It is important to note that the public record requirement differs from the “timely survey and inventory” element described in the “Four Elements” section above. The public record addresses sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year and are planned to be addressed in the upcoming year. In contrast, the “timely survey and inventory” element, described above, refers to identifying brownfields sites regardless of planned or completed actions there.

EPA's goal is to enable states and tribes to make the public record and other information, such as information from the “survey and inventory” element, easily accessible. For this reason, EPA will allow states and tribes to use section 128(a) funding to make the public record, as well as other information, such as information from the “survey and inventory” element, available to the public via the internet or other means. For example, the Agency would support funding state and tribal efforts to include detailed location information in the public record such as the street address, and latitude and longitude information for each site. 8 States and tribes should ensure that all affected communities have appropriate access to the public record including making it available on-line, in print at libraries, or other community gathering places.

In an effort to reduce cooperative agreement reporting requirements and increase public access to the public record, EPA encourages states and tribes to place their public record on the Internet. If a state or tribe places the public record on the internet, maintains the substantive requirements of the public record, and provides EPA with the link to that site, EPA will, for purposes of cooperative agreement funding only, deem the public record reporting requirement met.

EPA encourages states and tribes to maintain public record information, including data on institutional controls, on a long term basis (more than one year) for sites at which a response action has been completed. Subject to EPA regional office approval, states or tribes may include development and operation of systems that ensure long term maintenance of the public record, including information on institutional controls (such as ensuring the entity responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls is implementing those activities) in their work plans. 9

Section 128(a)(1)(B) describes the eligible uses of cooperative agreement funds by states and tribes. In general, a state or tribe may use a cooperative agreement to “establish or enhance” their response programs, including elements of the response program that include activities related to responses at brownfields sites with petroleum contamination. Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Developing legislation, regulations, procedures, ordinances, guidance, etc. that establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of their response programs;

• Establishing and maintaining the required public record described in Section VI of this guidance;

• Operation, maintenance and long-term monitoring of institutional controls and engineering controls;

• Conducting site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup, provided such activities establish and/or enhance the response program and are tied to the four elements. In addition to the requirement under CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) to provide for public comment on cleanup plans and site activities, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed and solicit input from local communities, especially potential environmental justice communities, communities with a health risk related to exposure to hazardous waste or other public health concerns, economically disadvantaged or remote areas, and communities with limited experience working with government agencies. EPA will not provide section 128(a) funds solely for assessment or cleanup of specific brownfields sites; site-specific activities must be part of an overall section 128(a) work plan that includes funding for other activities that establish or enhance the four elements;

• Capitalizing a revolving loan fund (RLF) for brownfields cleanup under CERCLA section 104(k)(3). These RLFs are subject to the same statutory requirements and cooperative agreement terms and conditions applicable to RLFs awarded under section 104(k)(3). Requirements include a 20 percent match (can be in the form of a contribution of money, labor, material, or services from a non-federal source) on the amount of section 128(a) funds used for the RLF, a prohibition on using EPA cooperative agreement funds for administrative costs relating to the RLF, and a prohibition on using RLF loans or subgrants for response costs at a site for which the recipient may be potentially liable under section 107 of CERCLA. Other prohibitions contained in CERCLA section 104(k)(4) also apply; and

• Purchasing environmental insurance or developing a risk-sharing pool, indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program.

Under CERCLA section 128(a), “establish” includes activities necessary to build the foundation for the four elements of a state or tribal response program and the public record requirement. For example, a state or tribal response program may use section 128(a) funds to develop regulations, ordinances, procedures, and/or guidance. For more developed state or tribal response programs, “establish” may also include activities that keep their program at a level that meets the four elements and maintains a public record required as a condition of funding under CERCLA section 128(b)(1)(C).

Under CERCLA section 128(a), “enhance” is related to activities that add to or improve a state or tribal response program or increase the number of sites at which response actions are conducted under a state or tribal response program.

The exact “enhancement” uses that may be allowable depend upon the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. For example, regional offices and states or tribes may agree that section 128(a) funds may be used for outreach and training directly related to increasing awareness of its response program, and improving the skills of program staff. It may also include developing better coordination and understanding of other state response programs, e.g., RCRA or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). As another example, states and tribal response programs enhancement activities can include outreach to local communities to increase their awareness and knowledge regarding the importance of monitoring engineering and institutional controls. Other “enhancement” uses may be allowable as well.

States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for site-specific activities that improve state or tribal capacity. The amount grantees may request for site-specific assessments and cleanups may not exceed 50% of the total amount of funding. A grantee may request a waiver to exceed the 50% of annual funding for site specific activities. In order for EPA to consider the waiver, the total amount of the request may not exceed the grantee's prior year's funding level. The funding request must include a brief justification describing the reason(s) for spending more than 50% of an annual allocation on site-specific activities. An applicant must include the following information in the written justification:

• Total amount requested for eligible brownfield site-specific activities;

• Percentage of the eligible brownfield site-specific activities (assuming waiver is approved) in the total budget;

• Site specific activities that will be covered by this funding. If known, provide site specific information and describe the development or enhancement of your state/tribal site specific program. Further explain how the community will be (or has been) involved in prioritization of site work and especially those sites where there is a potential or known significant environmental impact to the community;

• Please explain how this shift in funding will not negatively impact the core programmatic capacity (i.e., the ability to establish/enhance four elements of a response program) and how related activities will be maintained in spite of an increase in site-specific work. Grantees must demonstrate that they have adequate funding from other sources to effectively carry out work on the four elements for EPA to grant a waiver of the 50% limit on using 128(a) funds for site-specific activities;

• Describe how this shift in funding towards site-specific work is more appropriate for your response program rather than a request for an increase in overall funding;

• Please explain whether the sites to be addressed are those for which the affected community(ies) has requested work be conducted (refer to Section VII.A Overview of Funding for more information).

EPA Headquarters will base approval of waivers on the information that is included in the justification along with the request for funding, as well as other information available to the Agency. EPA's Regional Brownfield Coordinators will inform grantees of the Agency's final decision(s).

Site-specific assessment and cleanup activities should establish and/or enhance the response program and be tied to the four elements. Site-specific assessments and cleanups must comply with all applicable laws and are subject to the following restrictions:

a. Section 128(a) funds can only be used for assessments or cleanups at sites that meet the definition of a brownfields site at CERCLA section 101(39). EPA encourages states and tribes to use site-specific funding to perform assessment (e.g., phase II and phase III assessments) and cleanup activities that will lead more quickly to the reuse of sites Furthermore, states and tribes that perform site-specific activities should plan to engage the targeted community in the project. For example, Community Relations Plans (CRP) could be developed to address reasonable notice to the public concerning the cleanup, and provide opportunities for the public to comment on the cleanup. States and tribes should work towards securing additional funding for site-specific activities by leveraging resources from other sources such as businesses, non-profit organizations, education and training providers, and/or federal, state, tribal, and local governments;

b. Absent EPA approval, no more than $200,000 per site assessment can be funded with section 128(a) funds, and no more than $200,000 per site cleanup can be funded with section 128(a) funds;

c. Absent EPA approval, the state/tribe may not use funds awarded under this agreement to assess and clean up sites owned or operated by the recipient; and

d. Assessments and cleanups cannot be conducted at sites where the state/tribe is a potentially responsible party pursuant to CERCLA section 107, except:

• At brownfields sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or

• When the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except that the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

Subgrants cannot be provided to entities that may be potentially responsible parties (pursuant to CERCLA section 107) at the site for which the assessment or cleanup activities are proposed to be conducted, except:

1. At brownfields sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or

2. When the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except that the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for activities that establish and enhance their response programs including addressing petroleum brownfield sites. Specifically, the costs of site-specific activities, such as site assessments or cleanup at petroleum contaminated brownfields sites, defined at CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II), are eligible and are allowable if the activity is included in the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize a Brownfields RLF may be used at brownfields sites contaminated by petroleum to the extent allowed under CERCLA section 104(k)(3).

Other eligible uses of funds for site-specific related include, but are not limited to, the following activities:

• Technical assistance to federal brownfields cooperative agreement recipients;

• Development and/or review of quality assurance project plans (QAPPs); and

• Entering data into the ACRES database.

Costs incurred for activities at non-brownfields sites, e.g., oversight, may be eligible and allowable if such activities are included in the state's or tribe's work plan. These costs need not be incurred in connection with a brownfields site to be eligible, but must be authorized under the state's or tribe's work plan to be allowable. Other uses may be eligible and allowable as well, depending upon the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. However, assessment and cleanup activities may only be conducted on eligible brownfields sites, as defined in CERCLA section 101(39).

Funding authorized under CERCLA section 128(a) is awarded through a cooperative agreement  10 between EPA and a state or a tribe. The program is administered under the general EPA grant and cooperative agreement regulations for states, tribes, and local governments found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 31 as well as applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 35 Subparts A and B. Under these regulations, the cooperative agreement recipient for section 128(a) grant program is the government to which a cooperative agreement is awarded and which is accountable for the use of the funds provided. The cooperative agreement recipient is the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the entity is designated in the cooperative agreement award document. Further, unexpended balances of cooperative agreement funds are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518 to the extent consistent with this guidance. EPA allocates funds to state and tribal response programs under 40 CFR 35.420 and 40 CFR 35.737.

Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional offices will negotiate and enter into section 128(a) cooperative agreements with eligible and interested states or tribes. EPA will accept only one application from each eligible state or tribe.

States and tribes must define in their work plan the “section 128(a) response program(s)” to which the funds will be applied, and may designate a component of the state or tribe that will be EPA's primary point of contact for negotiations on their proposed work plan. When EPA funds the section 128(a) cooperative agreement, states and tribes may distribute these funds among the appropriate state and tribal agencies that are part of the section 128(a) response program. This distribution must be clearly outlined in their annual work plan.

If a portion of the section 128(a) grant funds requested will be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for cleanup, pursuant to section 104(k)(3), two separate cooperative agreements must be awarded, i.e., one for the RLF and one for non-RLF uses. States and tribes may, however, submit one initial request for funding, delineating the RLF as a proposed use. Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize an RLF are not eligible for inclusion into a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG).

If a state or tribe chooses to use its section 128(a) funds to capitalize a revolving loan fund program, the state or tribe must have the authority to manage the program, e.g., issue loans. If the agency/department listed as the point of contact for the section 128(a) cooperative agreement does not have this authority, it must be able to demonstrate that another state or tribal agency does have the authority to manage the RLF and is willing to do so.

States and tribes may include section 128(a) cooperative agreements in their PPG 69 FR 51,756 (2004). Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize an RLF or purchase insurance or develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program are not eligible for inclusion in the PPG.

EPA regional offices will determine the project period for each cooperative agreement. These may be for multiple years depending on the regional office's cooperative agreement policies. Each cooperative agreement must have an annual budget period tied to an annual work plan. Pre-award costs are subject to 40 CFR 35.113 and 40 CFR 35.513.

As part of the annual work plan negotiation process, states or tribes that do not have VRP MOAs must demonstrate that their program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described in Section V. EPA will not fund, in future years, state or tribal response program annual work plans if EPA determines that these requirements are not met or reasonable progress is not being made. EPA may base this determination on the information the state or tribe provides to support its work plan, or on EPA's review of the state or tribal response program.

Prior to funding a state's or tribe's annual work plan, EPA regional offices will verify and document that a public record, as described in Section VI and below, exists and is being maintained. 11 Specifically for:

• States or tribes that received initial funding prior to FY12: Requests for FY13 funds will not be accepted from states or tribes that fail to demonstrate, by the January 31, 2013 request deadline, that they established and are maintaining a public record. ( Note , this would potentially impact any state or tribe that had a term and condition placed on their FY12 cooperative agreement that prohibited drawdown of FY12 funds prior to meeting public record requirement). States or tribes in this situation will not be prevented from drawing down their prior year funds once the public record requirement is met; and

• States or tribes that received initial funding in FY12: By the time of the actual FY13 award, the state or tribe must demonstrate that they established and maintained the public record (those states and tribes that do not meet this requirement will have a term and condition placed on their FY13 cooperative agreement that prevents the drawdown of FY13 funds until the public record requirement is met).

States and tribes should be aware that EPA and its Congressional appropriations committees place significant emphasis on the utilization of prior years' funding. Unused funds from prior years will be considered in the allocation process. Existing balances of cooperative agreement funds as reflected in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse could support an allocation amount below a grantee's request for funding or, if appropriate deobligation and reallocation by EPA Regions as provided for in 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518 . Grantees should include a detailed explanation and justification of funds that remain in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse from prior years (that are related to response program activities or brownfield related activities).

EPA Regional staff will review EPA's Financial Database Warehouse to identify the amount of remaining prior year(s) funds. The cooperative agreement recipient should work, as early as possible, with both their own finance department, and with their Regional Project Officer to reconcile any discrepancy between the amount of unspent funds showing in EPA's system, and the amount reflected in the recipient's records. The recipient should obtain concurrence from the Region on the amount of unspent funds requiring justification by the deadline for this request for funding.

Please explain the programmatic effects of a reduction (to your current funding amount) on significant activities of your response program. Specifically, at what amount (e.g., percentage of your current funding level) would your response program experience core programmatic impacts such as a reduction in staff, a decrease in oversight activities, or other impacts to the environment and health of the communities the program serves, etc.? An EPA Region may require that this information be submitted as part of the request for funding in order to fully understand the individual program impacts associated with decreased funding. These impacts will be considered as part of the decision for the final allocation.

EPA regional offices will work with interested states and tribes to develop their preliminary work plans and funding requests. Final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional office once final allocation determinations are made. Please refer to process flow chart below (dates are estimates and subject to change):

For Fiscal Year 2013, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.1 million per state or tribe. Please note the CERCLA 128(a) annual program's budget has remained static while demand for funding continues to increase every year. 12 Therefore, it is likely that the FY13 state and tribal individual funding amounts will be less than the FY12 individual funding amounts.

After the January 31, 2013, request deadline, EPA's Regional Offices will submit summaries of state and tribal requests to EPA Headquarters. Before submitting requests to EPA Headquarters, regional offices may take into account additional factors when determining recommended allocation amounts. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the depth and breadth of the state or tribal program; scope of the perceived need for the funding, e.g., size of state or tribal jurisdiction or the proposed work plan balanced against capacity of the program, amount of current year funding, funds remaining from prior years, etc.

After receipt of the regional recommendations, EPA Headquarters will consolidate requests and allocate funds accordingly.

States and tribes requesting section 128(a) FY13 funds must submit the following information, as applicable, to their regional brownfield contact on or before January 31, 2013. If a grantee wishes to avoid an allocation reduction, when submitting a request for FY13 funds, include a detailed explanation and justification of funds that remain in EPA's financial Data Warehouse from prior years (that are related to response program activities or brownfield related activities).

For those states and tribes that received section 128(a) funds, you must provide the amount of prior years' funding including funds that recipients have not received in payments (i.e., funds EPA has obligated for grants that remain in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse). EPA will take into account these funds in the allocation process when determining the recipient's programmatic needs under 40 CFR 35.420 and 40 CFR 35.737.

All states and tribes requesting FY13 funds must submit a summary of the planned use of the funds with associated dollar amounts. Please provide the request in the chart below. The amount of funding requested should be an amount that can be reasonably spent in one year. It is likely that the FY13 state and tribal individual funding amounts will be less than the FY12 individual funding amounts. The requestor should work, as early as possible, with their EPA Regional Program contact to ensure that the funding amount requested and related activities are reasonable.

Cooperative agreements for state and tribal response programs will include programmatic and administrative terms and conditions. These terms and conditions will describe EPA's substantial involvement including technical assistance and collaboration on program development and site-specific activities. Each of the subsections below summarizes the basic terms and conditions, and related reporting that will be required if a cooperative agreement with EPA is awarded.

In accordance with 40 CFR 31.40, state and tribes must provide progress reports as provided in the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement negotiated with EPA regional offices. State and tribal costs for complying with reporting requirements are an eligible expense under the section 128(a) cooperative agreement. As a minimum, state or tribal progress reports must include both a narrative discussion and performance data relating to the state's or tribe's accomplishments and environmental outputs associated with the approved budget and workplan, and should provide an accounting of section 128(a) funding. If applicable, the state or tribe must include information on activities related to establishing or enhancing the four elements of the state's or tribe's response program. All recipients must provide information relating to establishing or, if already established, maintaining the public record. Depending upon the activities included in the state's or tribe's work plan, an EPA regional office may request that a progress report include:

1. Reporting interim and final progress reports. Reports must prominently display the following three relevant Essential Elements as reflected in the current EPA strategic plan: Strategic Plan Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development, Strategic Plan Objective 3.1: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities, and Work plan Commitments and Timeframes. EPA's strategic plan on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html.

2. Reporting environmental insurance. Recipients with work plans that include funding for environmental insurance must report:

• Number and description of insurance policies purchased ( e.g., type of coverage provided; dollar limits of coverage; any buffers or deductibles; category and identity of insured persons; premium; first dollar or umbrella; site specific or blanket; occurrence or claims made, etc.);

• The number of sites covered by the insurance;

• The amount of funds spent on environmental insurance ( e.g., amount dedicated to insurance program, or to insurance premiums); and

• The amount of claims paid by insurers to policy holders.

3. Reporting for site-specific assessment or cleanup activities. Recipients with work plans that include funding for brownfields site assessment or cleanup must input information required by the OMB-approved Property Profile Form into the Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database for each site assessment and cleanup. In addition, recipients must report how they provide the affected community with prior notice and opportunity for meaningful participation as per CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) on proposed cleanup plans and site activities. For example, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed and solicit input from local communities, especially potential environmental justice communities, communities with a health risk related to exposure to hazardous waste or other public health concerns, economically disadvantaged or remote areas, and communities with limited experience working with government agencies.

4. Reporting for other site-specific activities. Recipients with work plans that include funding for other site-specific related activities must include a description of the site-specific activities and the number of sites at which the activity was conducted. For example:

• Number and frequency of oversight audits of licensed site professional certified cleanups;

• Number and frequency of state/tribal oversight audits conducted;

• Number of sites where staff conducted audits, provided technical assistance, or conducted other oversight activities; and

• Number of staff conducting oversight audits, providing technical assistance, or conducting other oversight activities.

5. Reporting required when using funding for an RLF. Recipients with work plans that include funding for revolving loan fund (RLF) must include the information required by the terms and conditions for progress reporting under CERCLA section 104(k)(3) RLF cooperative agreements.

6. Reporting for Non-MOA states and tribes. All recipients without a VRP MOA must report activities related to establishing or enhancing the four elements of the state's or tribe's response program. For each element state/tribes must report how they are maintaining the element or how they are taking reasonable steps to establish or enhance the element as negotiated in individual state/tribal work plans. For example, pursuant to CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(B), reports on the oversight and enforcement authorities/mechanisms element may include:

• A narrative description and copies of applicable documents developed or under development to enable the response program to conduct enforcement and oversight at sites. For example:

○ Legal authorities and mechanisms (e.g., statutes, regulations, orders, agreements); and

○ Policies and procedures to implement legal authorities; and other mechanisms;

• A description of the resources and staff allocated/to be allocated to the response program to conduct oversight and enforcement at sites as a result of the cooperative agreement;

• A narrative description of how these authorities or other mechanisms, and resources, are adequate to ensure that:

○ A response action will protect human health and the environment; and be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state law; and if the person conducting the response action fails to complete the necessary response activities, including operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, the necessary response activities are completed; and

• A narrative description and copy of appropriate documents demonstrating the exercise of oversight and enforcement authorities by the response program at a brownfields site.

The regional offices may also request other information be added to the progress reports, as appropriate, to properly document activities described by the cooperative agreement work plan.

EPA regions may allow states or tribes to provide performance data in appropriate electronic format.

The regional offices will forward progress reports to EPA Headquarters, if requested. This information may be used to develop national reports on the outcomes of CERCLA section 128(a) funding to states and tribes.

States and tribes must report, by January 31, 2013, a summary of the previous federal fiscal year's work (October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012). The following information must be submitted to your regional project officer:

• Environmental programs where CERCLA 128(a) funds are used to support capacity building (general program support, non-site-specific work). Indicate as appropriate from the following:

• Number of properties (or sites) enrolled in a response program during FY12;

• Number of properties (or sites) where documentation indicates that cleanup work is complete and all required institutional controls (IC's) are in place, or not required;

• Total number of acres associated with properties (or sites) in the previous bullet; and

• Number of properties where assistance was provided, but the property was not enrolled in the response program (OPTIONAL).

EPA may require states/tribes to report specific performance measures related to the four elements which can be aggregated for national reporting to Congress.

For example:

1. Timely survey and inventory—estimated number of brownfields sites in the state or on tribal land;

2. Oversight and enforcement authorities/mechanisms—number of active cleanups and percentage that received oversight; percentage of active cleanups not in compliance with the cleanup workplan and that received communications from recipient regarding non-compliance;

3. Public participation—percentage of sites in the response program where public meetings/notices were conducted regarding the cleanup plan and/or other site activities; number of requests and responses to site assessment requests; and

4. Cleanup approval/certification mechanisms—total number of “no further action” letters or total number of certificate of completions.

All recipients must report, as specified in the terms and conditions of their cooperative agreement, information related to establishing, or if already established, maintaining the public record, described above. States and tribes can refer to an already existing public record, e.g., Web site or other public database to meet the public record requirement. Recipients reporting may only be required to demonstrate that the public record (a) exists and is up-to-date, and (b) is adequate. A public record may include the following information:

A list of sites at which response actions have been completed including:

• Date the response action was completed;

• Site name;

• Name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;

• Location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);

• Whether an institutional control is in place;

• Type of institutional control in place (e.g., deed restriction, zoning restriction, local ordinance, state registries of contaminated property, deed notices, advisories, etc.);

• Nature of the contamination at the site (e.g., hazardous substances, contaminants or pollutants, petroleum contamination, etc.); and

• Size of the site in acres.

A list of sites planned to be addressed by the state or tribal response program including:

• Site name and the name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;

• Location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);

• To the extent known, whether an institutional control is in place;

• Type of the institutional control in place ( e.g., deed restriction, zoning restriction, local ordinance, state registries of contaminated property, deed notices, advisories, etc.);

• To the extent known, the nature of the contamination at the site ( e.g., hazardous substances, contaminants, or pollutants, petroleum contamination, etc.); and

• Size of the site in acres

Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the subaward and executive total compensation reporting requirements established under OMB guidance at 2 CFR Part 170, unless they qualify for an exception from the requirements, should they be selected for funding.

Unless exempt from these requirements under OMB guidance at 2 CFR Part 25 (e.g., individuals), applicants must:

• Register in the CCR/SAM prior to submitting an application or proposal under this announcement. CCR/SAM information can be found at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/;

• Maintain an active CCR/SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or proposal under consideration by an agency, and

• Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it submits to the agency. Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by visiting the D&B Web site at: https://iupdate.dnb.com/iUpdate/companylookup.htm.

Failure to comply with these requirements will affect the applicant's ability to receive funding. Please note that the CCR has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM). To learn more about SAM, go to SAM.gov or https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

An applicant that receives an award under this announcement is expected to manage assistance agreement funds efficiently and effectively, and make sufficient progress towards completing the project activities described in the work-plan in a timely manner. The assistance agreement will include terms/conditions implementing this requirement.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub.L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Because this final action does not contain legally binding requirements, it is not subject to the Congressional Review Act.

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

Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) or FIFRA and those who sell, distribute, or use pesticides, as well as any non-government organization.

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003, is available at http://www.regulations.gov, or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

1. Responses to SFIREG Pyrethroid labeling issue letter.

2. Cooperative Agreement Guidance/Grant Template Discussion.

3. EPA Region/State Lead Agency Relationships/Roles.

4. Pollinator Protection Issues.

5. Issue Paper: Methomyl Fly Bait Restricted Use Classification.

6. Issue Paper: Defining Aquatic Habitat on Label.

7. Regional Issues/Responses to pre-SFIREG Questionnaire.

8. “State Regulator in Residence” Program.

9. Tribal Certification Policy Implementation.

10. Regulating Effects of Pesticides Outside Control of Applicator.

11. Performance Measures and How They Will be Implemented.

This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification. If requesting special accommodations, please see DATES .

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or one acre or more of water.

In accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional and national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:

Submitter: Monsanto Company, (524-EUP-RNU).

Pesticide Chemical: Double stranded RNA (dsRNA) transcript comprising a Dv49 inverted repeat sequence derived from Diabrotica virgifera, and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-ZMIR10871).

Summary of Request: Monsanto is requesting a EUP for two years to test new PIP technology for control of corn rootworm (CRW), a major pest of corn in the United States (U.S.). Corn Events MON 87410 and 87411 express a double stranded RNA (dsRNA) transcript suppression cassette with an inverted repeat sequence, Dv49, obtained from Diabrotica virgifera. When PIP-produced Dv49 dsRNA is consumed by the pest, it down regulates the targeted pest's Snf7 gene, resulting in pest mortality.

As described in the application documents for 524-EUP-RNU in this docket, the PIP events comprising the single and combined trait products in this request include other registered PIP Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) proteins and either of the two new corn events MON 87410 and 87411. The Bt proteins to be used in the single or combination traits in the proposed EUP include Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry IF, Vip3Aa20, Cry3Bb1, Cry34Abl/Cry35Abl and eCry3.1Ab. The environmental and human health safety of these proteins has been demonstrated, and they are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance (40 CFR 174.501, 174.502, 174.506, 174.518, 174.519, 174.520, 174.528, 174.532). A permanent tolerance exemption has been established for nucleic acids including the dsRNA that is part of the PIPs (40 CFR 174.507). Other marker proteins PAT, CP4 EPSPS, and PMI are also exempt from the requirement of a tolerance (40 CFR 174.522, 174.523, 174.527).

The tests will be conducted in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico and in the U.S. in twenty two (22) states as follows: Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Georgia (GA), Hawaii (HI), Idaho (ID), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Michigan (MI), Minnesota (MN), Mississippi (MS), Missouri (MO), Nebraska (NE), North Carolina (NC), Ohio (OH), Pennsylvania (PA), South Carolina (SC), South Dakota (SD), Tennessee (TN), Wisconsin (WI).

The two protocols in the EUP include: (1) Seed development and increase for future testing including nursery observations of traits in various genetic backgrounds; and (2) product characterization work including phenotypic and agronomic observations, efficacy, yield benefit evaluations and regulatory data generation.

A copy of the application and any information submitted is available for public review in the docket established for this EUP application.

Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register .

Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0425, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's registration review final decisions for tralomethrin, Case Number 7400, and fenarimol, Case Number 7001. Tralomethrin was a broad-spectrum Type II systemic pyrethroid ester insecticide that was registered for use in a variety of residential and commercial settings, and on a small number of agricultural crops including broccoli, cauliflower, cotton, lettuce, peanuts, and sunflowers. Tralomethrin technical was cancelled in a product cancellation order issued in the Federal Register of February 25, 2011. The effective date of the cancellation is February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10587, February 25, 2011). Fenarimol is a member of the pyrimidine class of fungicides used for control of such pests as scab, powdery mildew, rusts, and leaf spot. Fenarimol inhibits fungal growth by adversely affecting the formation of the fungal sterol ergosterol, and is currently registered for use on fruit and nut crops such as apples, cherries, filberts (nonbearing), grapes, hops, pears, and pecans, as well as on ornamental plants, trees, and grasses and turf lawns. The fenarimol technical and end use products are voluntarily canceled as of July 31, 2013.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered tralomethrin and fenarimol in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The tralomethrin and fenarimol final decision documents in the docket describe the Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review final decision for these pesticides.

In addition to the final registration review decision documents, the registration review docket for tralomethrin and fenarimol also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed registration review decisions were posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information. During the 60-day comment period, no public comments were received. Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for tralomethrin and fenarimol will remain open until all actions required in the final decision have been completed.

Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/.

Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide authority for this action.

Environmental protection, Registration review, Pesticides and pests, Tralomethrin and Fenarimol.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from Arysta to cancel all of its iodomethane product registrations. Iodomethane is a pre-plant soil fumigant used to control pests in soil where fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and turf will be grown. In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Arysta and EPA agreed to cancel and amend the pesticide product registrations identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit III. Specifically, the MOA contains Arysta's irrevocable request that its end-use products, EPA Registration Numbers 66330-43, 66330-57, 66330-58, 66330-59, and 66330-60, will be canceled effective December 31, 2012, and that its iodomethane technical product, EPA Registration Number 66330-44 will be canceled effective December 1, 2015. The MOA also adds a condition of registration to the technical product's registration that as of January 1, 2013, Arysta will not sell or distribute this product unless its label bears the following statement:

This notice announces receipt by EPA of the request to cancel the iodomethane product registrations described in Unit II. The affected products and the registrant making the requests are identified in Tables 1-3 of this unit.

Unless the Agency receives substantive comments in response to this notice that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order canceling the affected registrations on the requested effective dates.

Table 3 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register .

Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

The iodomethane registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register . EPA intends to include in any such final order the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the product(s) listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit III.

In any final order granting Arysta's request for voluntary cancellation of its iodomethane technical/manufacturing-use product registration, as of the effective date of the cancellation order, all sale and distribution of existing stocks of Arysta's iodomethane technical/manufacturing-use product by Arysta shall be prohibited unless the sale or distribution is for proper disposal or is solely for purposes of export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA. In any final order granting Arysta's request for voluntary cancellation of end-use product registrations:

1. As of the effective date of the cancellation order, Arysta is prohibited from distributing or selling existing stocks of end-use products, unless the sale or distribution is for proper disposal, or is solely for export consistent with the requirements of FIFRA section 17;

2. As of the effective date of the cancellation order, persons other than Arysta are prohibited from distributing or selling existing stocks of Arysta's end-use products, unless the sale or distribution is for proper disposal, return to Arysta, or is intended solely for export consistent with the requirements of FIFRA section 17; and

3. As of the effective date of the cancellation order, no person may use any existing stocks of any of Arysta's end-use products.

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0824.

OMB Approval Date: November 1, 2012.

OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2015.

Title: Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) and Contact Information Form, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

Form Number: FCC Form 498.

Estimated Annual Burden: 5,000 respondents; 5,000 responses; 1.5 hours per response; 7,500 burden hours per year; total annual cost burden N/A.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 254, and Part 54 of the Commission's rules.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission notes that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents and contributors to the universal service programs, must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs, and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. With respect to the Service Provider Identification Number and Contact Information Form (FCC Form 498), USAC shall publish each participant's name, SPIN, and contact information via USAC's Web site. All other information, including financial institution account numbers or routing information, shall remain confidential.

Needs and Uses: The information collected by FCC Form 498 is used by USAC to disburse federal universal service support consistent with the specifications of eligible participants in the universal service programs. FCC Form 498 submissions also provide USAC with updated contact information so that USAC can contact universal service fund participants when necessary. Without such information, USAC would not be able to distribute support to the proper entities and this would prevent the Commission from fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under the Act to preserve and advance universal service.

The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

1. Report title: Disclosure and Reporting Requirements of CRA-Related Agreements.

Agency form number: Reg G.

OMB control number: 7100-0299.

Frequency: On occasion and annual.

Reporters: Insured depository institutions (IDIs), savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) and nongovernmental entities or persons (NGEPs).

Estimated annual reporting hours: 78 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: 1 hour (3 disclosure requirements and 5 reporting requirements) and 4 hours (2 reporting requirements).

Number of respondents: 3 IDIs and SLHCs, and 6 NGEPs.

General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1831y(b) and (c). The FDI Act authorizes the Federal Reserve to require the disclosure and reporting requirements of Regulation G (12 CFR part 207). In general, the Federal Reserve does not consider individual respondent commercial and financial information collected by the Federal Reserve pursuant to Regulation G as confidential. However, a respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to section (b)(4) of Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Abstract: Section 48 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), entitled “CRA Sunshine Requirements,” imposes disclosure and reporting requirements on IDIs or their affiliates, and NGEPs that enter into written agreements that meet certain criteria (covered agreements). 1 The written agreements must (1) be made in fulfillment of the CRA and (2) involve funds or other resources of an IDI or affiliate with an aggregate value of more than $10,000 in a year, or loans with an aggregate principal value of more than $50,000 in a year. Section 48 excludes from the disclosure and reporting requirements any agreement between an IDI or its affiliate and an NGEP if the NGEP has not contacted the IDI or its affiliate, or a banking agency, concerning the CRA performance of the IDI.

The disclosure and reporting requirements in connection with Regulation G are mandatory and apply to state member banks and their subsidiaries; savings and loan holding companies; bank holding companies; affiliates of bank holding companies, other than banks, savings associations, and subsidiaries of banks and savings associations; and NGEPs that enter into covered agreements with any of the aforementioned companies.

2. Report title: Disclosure Requirements in Connection With Subpart H of Regulation H (Consumer Protections in Sales of Insurance).

Agency form number: Reg H-7.

OMB control number: 7100-0298.

Frequency: On occasion.

Reporters: State member banks.

Estimated annual reporting hours: 12,962 hours.

Estimated average hours per response: 1.5 minutes

Number of respondents: 823.

General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831x. The FDI Act authorizes the Federal Reserve to require the disclosure requirements associated with Subpart H of Regulation H (12 CFR 208.81—208.86). Since the Federal Reserve does not collect any information, no issue of confidentiality normally arises.

Abstract: Section 305 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires financial institutions to provide written and oral disclosures to consumers in connection with the initial sale of an insurance product or annuity concerning its uninsured nature and the existence of the investment risk, if appropriate, and the fact that insurance sales and credit may not be tied.

Covered persons are required to make insurance disclosures before the completion of the initial sale of an insurance product or annuity to a consumer. The disclosure must be made orally and in writing to the consumer that: (1) The insurance product or annuity is not a deposit or other obligation of, or guaranteed by, the financial institution or an affiliate of the financial institution; (2) the insurance product or annuity is not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other agency of the United States, the financial institution, or (if applicable) an affiliate of the financial institution; and (3) in the case of an insurance product or annuity that involves an investment risk, there is investment risk associated with the product, including the possible loss of value.

Covered persons are required to make a credit disclosure at the time a consumer applies for an extension of credit in connection with which an insurance product or annuity is solicited, offered, or sold. The disclosure must be made orally and in writing that the financial institution may not condition an extension of credit on either: (1) the consumer's purchase of an insurance product or annuity from the financial institution or any of its affiliates; or (2) the consumer's agreement not to obtain, or a prohibition on the consumer from obtaining, an insurance product or annuity from an unaffiliated entity.