Title: Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).

OMB Number: 0551-0028.

Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 2013.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The major objective of the DEIP is to expand U.S. agricultural exports by paying cash to exporters as bonuses, allowing them to sell U.S. agricultural products in targeted countries at competitive prices. When the program is operational, approximately 100 countries and 3 regions are targeted export destinations. Approximately 425 exporters are currently eligible to participate under the DEIP.

Under 7 CFR part 1494, exporters are required to submit the following: (1) Information required for program participation (section 1494.301), (2) performance security (section 1494.401), (3) export sales information in connection with applying for a CCC bonus (section 1494.501), and (4) documentation evidencing export to support payment of the bonus (section 1494.701). In addition, each exporter must maintain accurate records showing sales and deliveries of the eligible commodity exported in connection with an agreement made under the DEIP as outlined in section 1494.1001. The information collected is used by CCC to manage, plan for, evaluate the use of, and account for Government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for these collections is estimated to average 37 minutes per response.

Respondents: Exporters of U.S. agricultural commodities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20 per annum.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 84 per annum.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,036 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690-1578.

Requests for comments: Send comments regarding (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Mark Rowse, Director, Credit Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgStop 1025, Washington, DC 20250-1025, telephone (202) 720-6211, or to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistant Instruments.

OMB Number: 0596-0217.

Expiration Date of Approval: 02/28/2014.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: In order to perform specific Forest Service activities, Congress created several authorities to assist the Agency in carrying out its mission. The Forest Service issues Federal Financial Assistance (FFA) awards, which are grants and cooperative agreements, as authorized by the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act (FGCAA). This collection includes the following forms:

(1) Federal Financial Assistance Standard Forms,

(2) Pre-certification forms,

(3) Award and administrative related correspondence, and

(4) A new questionnaire related to a recipient's accounting system and financial management capabilities.

In addition to FFA, Congress created specific authorizations for acts outside the scope of the FGCAA. Appropriations language was developed to convey authority for the Forest Service to enter into relationships that are outside the scope of the FGCAA. The Forest Service implements these authorizations using instruments such as collection agreements, FGCAA exempted agreements, memorandums of understanding, and other agreements which mutually benefit participating parties. These instruments fall outside the scope of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and often require financial plans and statements of work. Forest Service employees collect information from cooperating parties from the pre-award to the closeout stage via telephone calls, emails, postal mail, and person-to-person meetings to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements. The multiple means for respondents to communicate their responses include forms, non-forms, electronic documents, face-to-face, telephone, and Internet. The scope of information collected varies, however, it typically includes the project type, project scope, financial plan, statement of work, and cooperator's business information.

The Forest Service would not be able to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements without the collected information. The Agency would also be unable to develop or monitor projects, make or receive payments, or identify financial and accounting errors.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 to 4 hours annually per person.

Type of Respondents: Non-profit and for profit institutions; institutions of higher education; State, local, and Native American tribal governments, individuals; foreign governments; and organizations.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 15,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 to 4.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 28,000 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title of Collection: On-line Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Complaint Form.

OMB Number: 3014-NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Abstract: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is seeking to make the process for submitting complaints under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) easier to use, more efficient, and timely. Complainants will be able to submit a complaint on-line using a standardized web-based complaint form which will prompt them to provide pertinent data necessary for the Access Board to investigate an ABA complaint. You may view the electronic data collection instrument on-line at http://cts.access-board.gov/formsiq/form.do?formset_id=2&ds=fdd&reload=true or obtain a copy of the instrument from Ms. Fairhall.

The Access Board enforces the ABA by investigating complaints submitted by members of the public concerning particular buildings or facilities designed, altered, or built, by or on behalf of, or leased by, federal agencies, or financed by federal funds. Complaints can currently be submitted by email, mail or fax. The proposed on-line complaint form will allow complainants to submit ABA complaints electronically and receive notification that their complaint has been received, together with the complaint number for them to use when making inquiries about the status of their complaint. The Access Board is not requiring all complaints to be submitted using the on-line complaint form; the Access Board will continue to accept complaints submitted by email, mail, or fax.

Complainants must submit in writing the name and address of the building or facility and a brief description of each barrier to accessibility they have found at the building or facility. Additional information about the facility, such as when it was built or known sources of federal funding, is helpful but not necessary. Personal information, including the complainant's name, address, phone number and email address is optional and, where provided, is not disclosed without written permission from the complainant. The new on-line complaint form will prompt complainants to provide the information necessary for Access Board staff to initiate an investigation into a complaint. In addition, complainants will be able to attach electronic files containing pictures, drawings, or other relevant documents to the on-line complaint form when it is filed. The Access Board anticipates that use of the on-line complaint form will improve the completeness of the information included in complaints that are submitted for investigation, and this will expedite processing of complaints. In addition, complainants will be able to submit complaints 24 hours a day, seven days a week and receive electronic notification that their complaint has been received.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than 30 minutes to complete the on-line complaint form, depending on the number of alleged barriers the complainant identifies.

There is no financial burden on the complainant. Use of the on-line form should relieve much of the burden that the current practice of mailing paper complaints puts on complainants. The Access Board is not requiring all complaints to be submitted using the on-line complaint. The Access Board will continue to accept complaints submitted by email, mail, or fax.

Individuals. Approximately 200 individuals file accessibility complaints with the Access Board each year.

Assuming all complainants choose to file complaints using the on-line complaint form, approximately 200 individuals would use the on-line complaint form annually.

Complainants need only submit one on-line form for each building or facility at which they have found accessibility barriers, regardless of the number of barriers they found. Most complainants file only one ABA complaint. Complainants will need to submit a separate form for each additional building or facility at which they have found an accessibility barrier.

Approximately 30 minutes per respondent total time is all that will be needed to complete the on-line complaint form, for a total of 100 hours annually.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information from respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Wednesday, January 9, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

• Administer Oath of Office to new appointees

• Approval of the draft September 12, 2012 meeting minutes (vote)

• Approval of the draft November 13-14, 2012 meeting minutes (vote)

• Planning and Evaluation Committee Report

• Technical Programs Committee Report

• Budget Committee Report

• Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Outdoor Developed Areas, final rule conforming amendment (vote); Transportation Vehicles, charter for new Rail Advisory Committee (vote)

• Executive Director's Report

• Public Comment, Open Topics

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

On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144, 126 Stat. 993). Section 904 of the Act authorizes the Access Board to convene a stakeholder working group to develop best practices for making information on prescription drug container labels accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. See 29 U.S.C. 792 note. The Act exempts the working group from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Board has formed an 18-member working group with equal representation from national organizations representing blind and visually-impaired individuals, the elderly, and industry groups representing retail, mail order, and independent community pharmacies to develop best practices for pharmacies on providing independent access to prescription drug container labels. The working group will explore various alternatives, including braille, large print labels, and various auditory technologies such as “talking bottles” and radio frequency identification tags. The group's recommendations, which are to be developed within one year, will be advisory only, not mandatory, and will not have the force of guidelines or standards.

The law also calls upon the National Council on Disability to conduct an informational and educational campaign in cooperation with the stakeholder working group to inform the public, including people with disabilities and pharmacists, of the best practices. The Government Accountability Office will undertake a review at a later date to assess the extent to which pharmacies are following the best practices and to what extent barriers to information on prescription drug container labels remain.

The working group will hold its first meeting on January 10 and 11, 2013. The agenda for the meeting includes initial remarks, introduction of working group members, discussion of administrative issues, discussion of prescription label access needs of consumer members, discussion of current practices, discussion and review of evaluation criteria to use to determine best practices, hands-on demonstrations of recommended practices, evaluation of recommended practices, and discussion of next steps. The preliminary meeting agenda, along with information about the working group, is available at http://www.access-board.gov/news/drug-labels-working-group.htm.

Working group meetings are open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the working group on issues of interest to them during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting.

The meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be provided. Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information). Persons wishing to provide handouts or other written information to the working group are requested to provide electronic formats to Susan Crawford via email prior to the meetings so that alternate formats can be distributed to working group members.

The NCST Advisory Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the National Construction Safety Team Act (15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq. ). The NCST Advisory Committee is comprised of ten members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues affecting teams established under the NCST Act. The NCST Advisory Committee advises the Director of NIST on the functions and composition of Teams established under the NCST Act and on the exercise of authorities enumerated in the NCST Act and reviews the procedures developed to implement the NCST Act and reports issued under section 8 of the NCST Act. Background information on the NCST Act and information on the NCST Advisory Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will hold a meeting via teleconference on Friday, January 11, 2013, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern Time. There will be no central meeting location. Interested members of the public will be able to participate in the meeting from remote locations by calling into a central phone number. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss the NCST Advisory Committee's draft annual report to Congress. A copy of the draft report will be posted on the NCST Advisory Committee's Web site at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the NCST Advisory Committee's affairs are invited to request detailed instructions by contacting Eric Letvin on how to dial in from a remote location to participate in the meeting. Eric Letvin's email address is eric.letvin@nist.gov, and his phone number is 301-975-5412. Approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved from 2:45 p.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time for public comments; speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve 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. 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 participate are invited to submit written statements to the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604, via fax at (301) 975-4032, or electronically by email to ncstac@nist.gov.

All participants in the meeting are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 10, 2013, in order to be included. Please submit your name, email address, and phone number to Eric Letvin. After registering, participants will be provided with detailed instructions on how to dial in from a remote location in order to participate. Eric Letvin's email address is eric.letvin@nist.gov, and his phone number is (301) 975-5412.

NIST hosted five prior Cloud Computing Forum & Workshop events in May 2010, November 2010, April 2011, November 2011 and June 2012. The purpose of this series of workshops was to respond to the request of the U.S. Chief Information Officer that NIST lead federal efforts on standards for data portability, cloud interoperability, and security  1 . The workshops' goals were to engage with industry to accelerate the development of cloud standards for interoperability, portability, and security, discuss the Federal Government's experience with cloud computing, report on the status of the NIST Cloud Computing efforts, launch and report progress on the NIST-led initiative to collaboratively develop a U.S. Government (USG) Cloud Computing Technology Roadmap among multiple federal and industrial stakeholders, and to advance the dialogue among all of these groups. The series has been expanded to focus on the emerging trend of Big Data in the context of its convergence with and complementary relationship to Cloud Computing.

On the first day, the workshop presenters will provide information on the USG Cloud Computing Technology Roadmap initiative as well as a status update on NIST efforts to help develop open standards in interoperability, portability and security in cloud computing. On the second and third days, the workshop will focus on the intersection of Cloud Computing and Big Data. Fully realizing the power of Big Data depends on meeting the unprecedented demands on storage, integration, and analysis presented by massive data sets—demands that Cloud Computing innovators are working to meet today. The workshop will explore possibilities for harmonizing Cloud Computing and Big Data measurement, benchmarking, and standards in ways that bring the power of these two approaches to bear in driving progress and prosperity.

NIST invites members of the public, especially Cloud Computing and Big Data community stakeholders, to participate in this event with a poster display or as an exhibitor. On Tuesday, January 15 and Wednesday, January 16, 2013, space will be available for 30 academic, industry, and standards developing organizations to exhibit their respective Cloud Computing or Big Data work at a demonstration booth or table. Space will also be available for 16 academic, industry, and standards developing organizations to display posters related to Cloud Computing or Big Data at the event. Interested organizations should contact Romayne Hines at romayne.hines@nist.gov or (301) 975-4090. Requests to exhibit and to display posters will be granted on a first-come, first-serve basis. The first 30 organizations requesting to exhibit will be accepted for the exhibits. The first 16 organizations requesting to display posters will be accepted for the poster display. Responses must be submitted by an authorized representative of the organization. Logistics information will be provided to accepted exhibitors. NIST will provide the poster and exhibit location space and one work table free of charge. Exhibitors are responsible for the cost of the poster or exhibit, including staffing and materials. NIST reserves the right to exercise its judgment in the placement of posters and exhibits. General building security is supplied; however, exhibitors are responsible for transporting and securing exhibit equipment and materials.

The workshop is open to the general public; however, those wishing to attend must register at http://www.nist.gov/itl/cloud/cloudbdworkshop.cfm by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, January 10, 2013. All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted and have appropriate government-issued photo ID to gain entry to NIST.

This inquiry correlates to several recent discussions the USPTO has had with Federal judges, academia, private practitioners and various stakeholder groups and bar and industry associations, exploring the desire and need for a patent small claims proceeding in the United States. The idea of a U.S. patent small claims court, however, is not new, having been raised first by industry and patent litigators over 20 years ago. In 1989, a conference hosted by Franklin Pierce Law Center, in cooperation with the Kenneth J. Germenshausen Center for the Law of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of New Hampshire, examined how to streamline patent litigation through a small claims court. After this conference, both the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and American Bar Association Intellectual Property Section (ABA-IP) further recognized the need for such a small claims solution, and adopted measures to support a patent small claims court. In 1990, the AIPLA endorsed the creation of a “small” claims patent court that was described in Resolution 401.4, and in the same year the Secretary of Commerce formed an Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform, which suggested further study of small claims procedures for patent cases in Federal courts. While a U.S. patent small claims proposal failed to advance further at that time, renewed discussion and consideration by bar associations, industry groups, practitioners, and members of the Federal judiciary, have now revived consideration and discussion of a patent small claims proceeding in the United States.

On Thursday, May 10, 2012, a roundtable of intellectual property experts co-sponsored by the USPTO and the United States Copyright Office convened at The George Washington University Law School (GWU) to consider the possible introduction of small claims proceedings for patent and copyright claims in the United States. Conformity with the U.S. Constitution and a potential structural framework for small claims proceedings in the realm of patents and copyrights were among the topics explored. On October 1, 2012, in continuation of the discussion initiated at the GWU roundtable, the USPTO hosted a Patent Small Claims Proceeding Forum composed of experts to discuss the concept of a patent small claims proceeding. Now, the USPTO also seeks comments from the public regarding a patent small claims proceeding.

Issues for Comment: Interested members of the public are invited to submit written comments on issues that they believe are relevant to a U.S. patent small claims proceeding. The topics and questions listed below are included to identify specific issues upon which the USPTO is interested in obtaining public opinion. The tenor of the following questions should not be taken as an indication that the USPTO has taken a position or is predisposed to any particular views.

1. Provide a general description of your understanding of the need or lack of a need for a patent small claims court or other streamlined proceedings. If you believe there is a need, please provide a description of which types of patent cases would benefit from such proceedings. If you believe that there is not a need for such a court or proceedings, please share why you hold such a view.

2. Please share your views, along with any corresponding analysis and empirical data, as to what a preferred patent small claims proceeding should look like. In doing so, please comment on any of the following issues:

(a) What the possible venues for a small claims proceeding should be, including whether patent small claims should be heard by Federal District Court judges or magistrates, whether patent small claims should be handled by an Article I court, such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, or whether patent small claims should be heard in another venue not specifically listed here;

(b) What the preferred subject matter jurisdiction of the patent small claims proceeding should be, including which if any claims, counterclaims, and defenses should be permitted in a patent small claims proceeding;

(c) Whether parties should agree to waive their right to a jury trial as a condition of participating in a small claims proceeding;

(d) Whether there should be certain required pleadings or evidence to initiate a small claims proceeding;

(e) Whether a filing fee should be required to initiate a small claims proceeding and what the nature of that fee should be;

(f) Whether multiple parties should be able to file claims in a small claims proceeding and whether multiple defendants may be sued together;

(g) What role attorneys should have in a small claims proceeding including whether corporations should be able to represent themselves;

(h) What the preferred case management characteristics that would help to control the length and expense of a small claims proceeding should be;

(i) What the preferred remedies in a small claims proceeding should be including whether or not an injunction should be an available remedy and any minimum threshold or maximum cap on damages that should be imposed;

(j) Whether a small claims proceeding should include attorney's fees or some form of a “loser pays” system;

(k) Whether a small claims proceeding should include mediation and whether mediation should be mandatory or permissive;

(l) What type of record should be created during a small claims proceeding including whether hearings should be transcribed and whether a written decision should be issued;

(m) What weight should be given to a decision rendered in a small claims proceeding in terms of precedent, res judicata, and estoppel;

(n) How should a decision in a small claims proceeding be enforced;

(o) What the nature of appellate review should be including whether there should be a direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or whether there should be intermediate review by a U.S. district court or some other venue;

(p) What, if any, constitutional issues would be raised by the creation of Federal small claims proceedings including separation of powers, the right to a jury trial, and/or due process;

(q) Whether the patent small claim proceedings should be self-supporting financially, including whether the winning and/or losing parties should be required to defray any administrative costs, and if so, how would this be accomplished;

(r) Whether and how to evaluate patent small claims proceedings, including whether evaluations should be periodic and whether the patent small claims proceeding should be launched initially as a pilot program; and

(s) Any other additional pertinent issues not identified above that the USPTO should consider.

3. Please share any concerns you may have regarding any unintended negative consequences of a patent small claims proceeding along with any proposed safeguards that would reduce or eliminate the risk of any potential negative unintended consequences, to the extent any such concerns exist.

The USPTO will make any comments it receives publicly available via the USPTO Internet Web site (address: http://www.uspto.gov ). The USPTO will also make various background materials regarding small claims proceedings available via its Web site.

Section 612(f)(1)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the FCRA) provides that a consumer reporting agency may charge a consumer a reasonable amount for making a disclosure to the consumer pursuant to Section 609 of the FCRA. 1 Section 612(f)(1)(A) of the FCRA provides that, where a consumer reporting agency is permitted to impose a reasonable charge on a consumer for making a disclosure to the consumer pursuant to Section 609 of the FCRA, the charge shall not exceed $8.00 and shall be indicated to the consumer before making the disclosure. Section 612(f)(2) of the FCRA states that the Bureau shall increase the $8.00 maximum amount on January 1 of each year, based proportionally on changes in the Consumer Price Index, with fractional changes rounded to the nearest fifty cents.

In 2011, the responsibility for performing this task was transferred from the Federal Trade Commission to the Bureau pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. 2 Like the Federal Trade Commission, the Bureau's calculations are based on the CPI-U, which is the most general Consumer Price Index and covers all urban consumers and all items.

Section 211(a)(2) of the FACT Act added a new Section 612(a) to the FCRA that gives consumers the right to request free annual disclosures once every 12 months. The maximum allowable charge established by this notice does not apply to requests made under that provision. The charge does apply when a consumer who orders a file disclosure has already received a free annual disclosure and does not otherwise qualify for an additional free disclosure.

The Bureau is using the $8.00 amount set forth in Section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA as the baseline for its calculation of the increase in the ceiling on reasonable charges for certain disclosures made under Section 609 of the FCRA. Since the effective date of the amended FCRA was September 30, 1997, the Bureau calculated the proportional increase in the CPI-U from September 1997 to September 2012. The Bureau then determined what modification, if any, from the original base of $8.00 should be made effective for 2013, given the requirement that fractional changes be rounded to the nearest fifty cents.

Between September 1997 and September 2012, the CPI-U increased by 42.74 percent—from an index value of 161.2 in September 1997 to a value of 230.1 in September 2012. An increase of 42.74 percent in the $8.00 base figure would lead to a new figure of $11.42. However, because the statute directs that the resulting figure be rounded to the nearest $0.50, the maximum allowable charge is $11.50. The Bureau therefore determines that the maximum allowable charge for the year 2013 will remain unchanged at $11.50.

(a) Purpose

The mission of the DAAC is to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, independent advice and recommendations on DoD financial management to include financial reporting processes, systems of internal controls, audit processes, and processes for monitoring compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Below is the agenda for the January 29, 2013, DAAC meeting:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact Ms. Dees at the number listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon on Thursday, January 24, 2013, to arrange a Pentagon escort. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance on January 29, 2013, by 1:30 p.m., and complete outer security screenings by 1:45 p.m. Please meet your arranged escort at the inner Pentagon Metro Entrance Visitors Center no later than 1:50 p.m. to ensure completion of remaining entrance screenings and arrival at the meeting venue on time. Security screenings require two forms of identification: (1) A government-issued photo I.D., and (2) any type of secondary I.D. which verifies the individual's name (i.e. debit card, credit card, work badge, social security card).

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Dees at least five business days prior to the meeting to ensure appropriate arrangements can be made.

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 comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session.

Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, however, written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least five business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee members for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Email submissions should be in Adobe Acrobat or Word formats.

Please note: Because the Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, up to and including being posted on the OUSD(C) Web site.

The Council shall meet at the call of the Council's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), in consultation with Council's Chairperson. The estimated number of meetings by the Council is two per year.

In addition, the DFO is required to be in attendance at all meetings of the Council and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Council's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Council according to DoD policies/procedures, shall attend the entire duration of meetings of the Council or subcommittees.

The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall call all of the Council and its subcommittees; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting, when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies/procedures; and chair meetings when directed to do so by the USD(P&R).

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council membership about the Council's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council's DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

Type of Meeting: Open and Closed.

Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to meet in open session on January 4, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is tentatively scheduled to hear from speakers who will provide information on science and technology innovations that improve the quality and decrease the costs of healthcare and hear from Federal officials on current “Open Government” efforts. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST may hold a closed meeting of approximately one hour with the President on January 4, 2013, which must take place in the White House for the President's scheduling convenience and to maintain Secret Service protection. This meeting will be closed to the public because such portion of the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

The public comment period for this meeting will take place on January 4, 2013, at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. (EST) on December 28, 2012. Phone or email reservations will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the PCAST members.

Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted continuously, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. (EST) on December 28, 2012, so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to this meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Dr. Amber Hartman Scholz at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee (EMS&R): The EMS&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EMS&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

Tentative Agenda:

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of November 14, 2012

3. Old Business

• Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2012

• Consideration and Action on Draft Recommendations from Chairs' Meeting

4. New Business

5. Update from Executive Committee—Carlos Valdez, Chair

6. Update from DOE—Ed Worth, Deputy Designated Federal Officer

7. 2:45 p.m. Presentation by Rich Mirenda, Los Alamos National Security

• Biological and Human Health Assessments

8. 3:45 p.m. Public Comment Period

9. 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

Public Participation: The NNMCAB's EMS&R and WM Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), as prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62232), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). Given the nature of this request, EPA did not consider new public comments. As required by the PRA, EPA is hereby soliciting additional comments on this ICR, which should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0754, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Title: Pesticide Data Call-In Program.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2288.02, OMB Control No. 2070-0174.

ICR Status: EPA is requesting a short renewal of the currently approved ICR. The submitted ICR package is unchanged from that which is currently approved. This extension will provide additional time to allow EPA to finish restructuring the ICR and related improvements to the electronic forms and instructions, as well as to consult with stakeholders and OMB on those changes and the corresponding adjustments to the burden estimates. This extension is necessary because the ICR covers ongoing activities that are required to support the statutorily mandated pesticide reviews.

The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. The existing approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 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 in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), every pesticide product must be registered with EPA. An applicant for registration must supply data to demonstrate that the pesticide product will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects” on humans or to the environment. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA must determine, from data supplied by the applicant or registrant, that the level of pesticide residues in food and feed will be safe for human consumption, defined as “a reasonable certainty that no harm” will result from exposures to pesticide residues. Although data is provided with the initial applications, the Agency issues Data Call-Ins (DCIs) when it has determined that more information is necessary to make the necessary decision pursuant to the mandates in FIFRA and FFDCA.

The programs represented in this proposed ICR renewal and consolidation share a common statutory authority, section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA, which authorizes EPA to require pesticide registrants to generate and submit data to the Agency, when such data are needed to maintain an existing registration of a pesticide. EPA's determination that additional data are needed can occur for various reasons, with the following four reasons being the most common:

1. Reregistration program. Section 4 of FIFRA requires EPA to re-assess the health and safety data for all pesticide active ingredients registered before November 1, 1984, to “reregister” them, i.e., determine whether these “older” pesticides meet the criteria for registration that would be expected of a pesticide being registered today for the first time. FIFRA section 4 directs EPA to use FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) authority to obtain the required data. Although the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions are complete, the Agency may still need to issue DCIs to close out the program.

2. Registration review program. Section 3(g) of FIFRA contains provisions to help achieve the goal of reviewing each pesticide every 15 years to assure that the pesticide continues to pose no risk of unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. FIFRA section 3(g) instructs EPA to use the FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) authority to obtain the required data.

3. Special review program. Though rare, EPA may conduct a Special Review if EPA believes that a pesticide poses risks of unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA provides a means of obtaining any needed data.

4. Anticipated residue/percent crop treated information. Under section 408 of FFDCA, before a pesticide may be used on food or feed crops, the Agency must establish a tolerance for the pesticide residues on that crop or established an exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(E) and (F) of FFDCA authorize the use of anticipated or actual residue (ARs) data and percent crop treated (PCT) data to establish, modify, maintain, or revoke a tolerance for a pesticide. The FFDCA requires that if AR data are used, data must be reviewed five years after a tolerance is initially established. If PCT data are used, the FFDCA affords EPA the discretion to obtain additional data if any or all of several conditions are met.

The Agency issues DCIs when it has determined that more information is necessary to make a decision about pesticides pursuant to the mandates in FIFRA and FFDCA. Agency decisions requiring additional data are based on the data requirements set forth in 40 CFR parts 150 through 180, with the majority of the data requirements captured in 40 CFR parts 158 and 161.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range from 59 to 13,636 hours per response, depending on the review program and type of DCI issued. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The ICR 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, which may be identified by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 32532, pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing.

Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.

Estimated No. of Potential Respondents: 1643.

Estimated No. of Total Annual Responses: 184.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 262,301 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $12,506,726.

Changes in the Estimates: The total estimated burden for this ICR is unchanged from that currently approved by OMB.

Proposal To Revise the Following Currently Approved Collection of Information

Title: Asset Purchaser Eligibility Certification.

OMB Number: 3064-0135.

Form Number: FDIC 7300/06, “Purchaser Eligibility Certification”; 7300/07, “Pre-Qualification Request”; and 7300/08, “Contact Information Form”.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.0 hour ( Purchaser Eligibility Certification, 30 minutes; Pre-Qualification Request, 20 minutes; and Contact Information Form, 10 minutes).

Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

General Description of Collection: The FDIC uses the Purchaser Eligibility Certification form, FDIC Form No. 7300/06, to identify prospective bidders who are not eligible to purchase assets of failed institutions from the FDIC. Specifically, section 11(p) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act prohibits the sale of assets of failed institutions to certain individuals or entities that profited or engaged in wrongdoing at the expense of those failed institutions, or seriously mismanaged those failed institutions. The FDIC is proposing to update the Privacy Act Statement in the Purchaser Eligibility Certification form. In addition, the FDIC is proposing to add two forms to the Purchaser Eligibility Certification information collection: the Pre-Qualification Request form, FDIC Form No. 7300/07, is designed to determine which prospective bidders are qualified to bid on particular types of assets offered by the FDIC ( e.g., securities, mortgage servicing portfolios, shared national credits. Interests in structured transactions, credit card receivables) for which no further qualification criteria are required to be met and to ensure that prospective bidders understand the terms and conditions of asset sales; and the Contact Information Form, FDIC Form No. 7300/08, determines the type of assets a prospective bidder is interested in and facilitates communication with the prospective bidder. A link to copies of the forms can be found directly beneath this notice on the FDIC's Federal Register Citations Web page at: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

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

I. Background

Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1829, (FDI Act) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering (covered offenses), or who has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party (IAP), owning or controlling, directly or indirectly an insured depository institution (insured institution), or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution. In addition, the law forbids an insured institution from permitting such a person to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by Section 19. The FDIC's SOP was published in December 1998 (63 FR 66177) to provide the public with guidance relating to Section 19, and the application thereof.

The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Public Law 109-351, § 710, modified Section 19 to include coverage of IAPs of Bank Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies. In response to this amendment of the statute, the FDIC amended the SOP by including a footnote that noted the authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of Thrift Supervision's in regard to bank and savings and loan holding companies under Section 19. (72 FR 73823, December 28, 2007, with correction issued at 73 FR 5270, January 29, 2008). In May of 2011, the FDIC subsequently eliminated the footnote added in December of 2007 and incorporated the change directly into the text of the SOP. It also noted the coming transfer of authority under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-202, § 312 (2010) (Dodd-Frank) of savings and loan holding company jurisdiction to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the FDIC made certain clarifications regarding the scope of the de minimis exception to filing the requirement to file an application for the FDIC's consent under Section 19. (76 FR 28031, May 13, 2011). The FDIC now proposes to amend the SOP to address two de minimis exception factors regarding the potential fine and the jail time served.

The SOP, as revised herein, will be on the FDIC's Web site at www.fdic.gov.

The SOP will be clarified in the following areas:

The 1998 SOP created a category of covered offenses that it would deem to be de minimis due to the minor nature of the offenses and the low risk that the covered party would pose to an insured institution based on the conviction. Based on its experience in the processing and approving of numerous applications involving such minor crimes, the FDIC has recognized a category of offenses to which it would grant blanket approval under section 19 without the need to file an application. The FDIC is modifying in two ways which offenses fall within the de minimis offenses exception of the SOP.

The FDIC has received a number of Section 19 individual waiver applications where the filing did not meet one of the de minimis factors regarding the maximum potential fine or the jail time served. Experience has shown that a significant number of applications processed by the FDIC for approval involved individuals covered by Section 19 who are usually one-time offenders for minor infractions, who may have served some limited jail time, and for which the jurisdiction could have imposed fines of $2,500 or less. Adjusting the de minimis exceptions to permit an increase in the potential fine to $2,500 or less and a limited number days of actual jail time served for minor infractions appears just and reasonable. Additionally, we have seen numerous cases where minimal, actual jail time was included as part of the sentence, which has not been a significant factor in our decision.

First, currently under that portion of the de minimis exception to filing an application, the maximum potential fine is $1,000 or less. The FDIC is modifying this aspect of the SOP so that this element of the de minimis exception to filing an application will apply if the maximum potential fine is $2,500 or less.

Second, currently, the de minimis exception requires that no jail time was served as part of the sentencing or conviction. The FDIC is modifying this aspect of the SOP so that the de minimis offenses provision will apply if the individual has served three (3) days or less of actual jail time.

The change to the maximum amount of the potential fine will apply to both convictions and program entries. Similarly, the change as to actual jail time will apply to both but is unlikely to impact program entries since no actual jail time is usually involved. These proposed changes should not have a material impact on the Deposit Insurance Fund, provide immediate relief to those currently covered by Section 19, pose no significant additional risk to insured depository intuitions, and maintain the integrity of Section 19.

In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. These modifications to the Statement of Policy for Section 19 of the FDI Act include clarification of reporting requirements in an existing FDIC information collection, entitled Application Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (3064-0018) that should result in a decrease in the number of applications filed. Specifically, the revised policy statement broadens the application of the de minimis exception to filing an application due to the minor nature of the offenses and the low risk that the covered party would pose to an insured institution based on the conviction or program entry. By modifying these provisions, the FDIC believes that there will be a reduction in the submission of applications in situations where blanket approval has been granted by virtue of the de minimis offenses section of the policy statement. If so, this change in burden would be submitted to OMB as a non-significant, nonmaterial change to an existing information collection. The current estimated burden for the information collection is as follows:

Title: “Application Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act”.

Affected Public: Insured depository institutions and individuals.

OMB Number: 3064-0018.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 26.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: 16 hours.

Estimated Annual Burden: 416 hours.

Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;

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

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

All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments may be submitted to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

• http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html

• Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: Gary A. Kuiper (202-898-3877), Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., NYA-5046, Washington, DC 20429.

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

For the reasons set forth above, the entire text of the FDIC Statement of Policy for Section 19 is stated as follows. The revised text, as identified in this notice, is located in

Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering (covered offenses), or who has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party, owning or controlling, directly or indirectly an insured depository institution (insured institution), or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution. In addition, the law forbids an insured institution from permitting such a person to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by section 19. It imposes a ten-year ban against the FDIC's consent for persons convicted of certain crimes enumerated in Title 18 of the United States Code, absent a motion by the FDIC and court approval.

Section 19 imposes a duty upon the insured institution to make a reasonable inquiry regarding an applicant's history, which consists of taking steps appropriate under the circumstances, consistent with applicable law, to avoid hiring or permitting participation in its affairs by a person who has a conviction or program entry for a covered offense. The FDIC believes that at a minimum, each insured institution should establish a screening process that provides the insured institution with information concerning any convictions or program entry pertaining to a job applicant. This would include, for example, the completion of a written employment application that requires a listing of all convictions and program entries. The FDIC will look to the circumstances of each situation to determine whether the inquiry is reasonable. Upon notice of a conviction or program entry, an application seeking the FDIC's consent prior to the person's participation must be filed,

Section 19 applies, by operation of law, as a statutory bar to participation absent the written consent of the FDIC. The purpose of an application is to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the bar, a person is fit to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured institution without posing a risk to its safety and soundness or impairing public confidence in that institution. The burden is upon the applicant to establish that the application warrants approval.

Section 19 covers institution-affiliated parties, as defined by 12 U.S.C. 1813(u) and others who are participants in the conduct of the affairs of an insured institution. This Statement of Policy applies only to insured institutions, their institution-affiliated parties, and those participating in the affairs of an insured depository institution. Therefore, all employees of an insured institution fall within the scope of Section 19. In addition, those deemed to be de facto employees as determined by the FDIC based upon generally applicable standards of employment law, will also be subject to Section 19. Whether other persons who are not institution-affiliated parties are covered depends upon their degree of influence or control over the management or affairs of an insured institution. For example, Section 19 would not apply to persons who are merely employees of an insured institution's holding company, but would apply to its directors and officers to the extent that they have the power to define and direct the policies of the insured institution. Similarly, directors and officers of affiliates, subsidiaries or joint ventures of an insured institution or its holding company will be covered if they are in a position to influence or control the management or affairs of the insured institution. Those who exercise major policymaking functions of an insured institution would be deemed participants in the affairs of that institution and covered by section 19. Typically, an independent contractor does not have a relationship with the insured institution other than the activity for which the insured institution has contracted. Under 12 U.S.C. 1813(u), independent contractors are institution-affiliated parties if they knowingly or recklessly participate in violations, unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty which are likely to cause significant loss to, or a significant adverse effect on, an insured institution. In terms of participation, an independent contractor who influences or controls the management or affairs of the insured institution, would be covered by Section 19. Further, “person” for purposes of Section 19 means an individual, and does not include a corporation, firm or other business entity.

Individuals who file an application with the FDIC under the provisions of Section 19 who are participating in the affairs of a bank or savings and loan holding company may also have to comply with any filing requirements of the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(d) in the case of a bank holding company, and the Office of Thrift Supervision under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(e), in the case of a savings and loan holding company until the Transfer Date as that term is used in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act (Pub. L. 111-203, § 311, July 21 2010). Upon the Transfer Date applications related to savings and loan holding companies should be filed with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Section 19 specifically prohibits a person subject to its coverage from owning or controlling an insured institution. For purposes of defining “control” and “ownership” under Section 19, the FDIC has adopted the definition of “control set forth in the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(8)(B)). A person will be deemed to exercise “control” if that person has the power to vote 25 percent or more of the voting shares of an insured institution (or 10 percent of the voting shares if no other person has more shares) or the ability to direct the management or policies of the insured institution. Under the same standards, person will be deemed to “own” an insured institution if that person owns 25 percent or more of the insured institution's voting stock, or 10 percent of the voting shares if no other person owns more. These standards would also apply to an individual acting in concert with others so as to have such ownership or control. Absent the FDIC's consent, persons subject to the prohibitions of section 19 will be required to divest their ownership of shares above the foregoing limits.

Except as indicated in paragraph (5), below, an application must be filed where there is present a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for a covered offense by any adult or minor treated as an adult, or where such person has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program regarding that offense.

(1) Convictions. There must be present a conviction of record. Section 19 does not cover arrests, pending cases not brought to trial, acquittals, or any conviction that has been reversed on appeal. A conviction with regard to which an appeal is pending will require an application until or unless reversed. A conviction for which a pardon has been granted will require an application. A conviction that has been completely expunged is not considered a conviction of record and will not require an application. For an expungement to be considered complete, no one, including law enforcement, can be permitted access to the record even by court order under the state or federal law that was the basis of the expungement.

(2) Pretrial Diversion or Similar Program. Program entry, whether formal or informal, is characterized by a suspension or eventual dismissal of charges or criminal prosecution upon agreement by the accused to treatment, rehabilitation, restitution, or other noncriminal or nonpunitive alternatives. Whether a program constitutes a pretrial diversion is determined by relevant federal, state or local law, and will be considered by the FDIC on a case-by-case basis. Program entries prior to November 29, 1990, are not covered by Section 19.

(3) Dishonesty or Breach of Trust. The conviction or program entry must be for a criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust or money laundering. “Dishonesty” means directly or indirectly to cheat or defraud; to cheat or defraud for monetary gain or its equivalent; or wrongfully to take property belonging to another in violation of any criminal statute. Dishonesty includes acts involving want of integrity, lack of probity, or a disposition to distort, cheat, or act deceitfully or fraudulently, and may include crimes which federal, state or local laws define as dishonest. “Breach of trust” means a wrongful act, use, misappropriation or omission with respect to any property or fund that has been committed to a person in a fiduciary or official capacity, or the misuse of one's official or fiduciary position to engage in a wrongful act, use, misappropriation or omission.

Whether a crime involves dishonesty or breach of trust will be determined from the statutory elements of the crime itself. All convictions for offenses concerning the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution of or trafficking in controlled substances shall require an application.

(4) Youthful Offender Adjudgments. An adjudgment by a court against a person as a “youthful offender” under any youth offender law, or any adjudgment as a “juvenile delinquent” by any court having jurisdiction over minors as defined by state law does not require an application. Such adjudications are not considered convictions for criminal offenses.

(5) De minimis Offenses. Approval is automatically granted and an application will not be required where the covered offense is considered de minimis, because it meets all of the following criteria:

• There is only one conviction or program entry of record for a covered offense;

• The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or less and/or a fine of $2,500 or less, and the individual served three (3) days or less of actual jail time;

• The conviction or program was entered at least five years prior to the date an application would otherwise be required; and

• The offense did not involve an insured depository institution or insured credit union.

A conviction or program entry of record based on the writing of a “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) shall be considered a de minimis offense under this provision even if it involved an insured depository institution or insured credit union if the following applies:

• All other requirements of the de minimis offense provisions are met;

• The aggregate total face value of the bad or insufficient funds check(s) cited in the conviction was $1000 or less; and

• No insured depository institution or insured credit union was a payee on any of the bad or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction.

Any person who meets the foregoing criteria shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions, and shall disclose the presence of the conviction or program entry to all insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she intends to participate.

When an application is required, forms and instructions should be obtained from, and the application filed with, the appropriate FDIC Regional Director. The application must be filed by an insured institution on behalf of a person unless the FDIC grants a waiver of that requirement. Such waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis where substantial good cause for granting a waiver is shown.

The essential criteria in assessing an application are whether the person has demonstrated his or her fitness to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured institution, and whether the affiliation, ownership, control or participation by the person in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution may constitute a threat to the safety and soundness of the insured institution or the interests of its depositors or threaten to impair public confidence in the insured institution. In determining the degree of risk, the FDIC will consider:

(1) The conviction or program entry and the specific nature and circumstances of the covered offense;

(2) Evidence of rehabilitation including the person's reputation since the conviction or program entry, the person's age at the time of conviction or program entry, and the time that has elapsed since the conviction or program entry;

(3) The position to be held or the level of participation by the person at an insured institution;

(4) The amount of influence and control the person will be able to exercise over the management or affairs of an insured institution;

(5) The ability of management of the insured institution to supervise and control the person's activities;

(6) The degree of ownership the person will have of the insured institution;

(7) The applicability of the insured institution's fidelity bond coverage to the person;

(8) The opinion or position of the primary Federal and/or state regulator; and

(9) Any additional factors in the specific case that appear relevant.

The foregoing criteria will also be applied by the FDIC to determine whether the interests of justice are served in seeking an exception in the appropriate court when an application is made to terminate the ten-year ban prior to its expiration date.

Some applications can be approved without an extensive review because the person will not be in a position to constitute any substantial risk to the safety and soundness of the insured institution. Persons who will occupy clerical, maintenance, service or purely administrative positions, generally fall into this category. A more detailed analysis will be performed in the case of persons who will be in a position to influence or control the management or affairs of the insured institution. Approval orders will be subject to the condition that the person shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions. In cases in which a waiver of the institution filing requirement has been granted to an individual, approval of the application will be conditioned upon that person disclosing the presence of the conviction to all insured institutions in the affairs of which he or she wishes to participate. When deemed appropriate, approval orders may also be subject to the condition that the prior consent of the FDIC will be required for any proposed significant changes in the person's duties and/or responsibilities. Such proposed changes may, in the discretion of the Regional Director, require a new application. In situations in which an approval has been granted for a person to participate in the affairs of a particular insured institution and subsequently seeks to participate at another insured institution, approval does not automatically follow. In such cases, another application must be submitted.

The FDIC deletes its system of records for the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, 76 FR 15309 (March 21, 2011). Section 1100 of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) authority to develop and maintain the national registration system for residential mortgage loan originators required by Section 1507 of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act. The CFPB published its own notice of the establishment of a Privacy Act system of records for the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, 77 FR 35359 (June 13, 2012), effective as of July 23, 2012.

The deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act, which requires submission of a report on a new or altered system of records. The FDIC's systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act have been published in the Federal Register and may be viewed at http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-4000.html on the FDIC's Privacy Web page.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the 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.

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant [Pursuant to Section 212(d)(3)(A(ii) of the INA].

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-192; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 10,448 responses at 0.5 hours (30 minutes) per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 5,224 annual burden hours.

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

Comments

Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

(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.

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Interagency Record of Request A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-566; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection facilitates processing of applications for benefits filed by dependents of diplomats, international organizations, and NATO personnel by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of State.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 5,800 with an estimated hour burden per response of .25 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 1,450.

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov. We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377.

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

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed: OneCPD Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Needs Assessment.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-New.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:

The OneCPD Needs Assessment will enhance a grantee's awareness of their functional capacity to effectively and efficiently administer and manage programs funded by CPD and enable HUD and the TA provider to better understand the scope of assistance needed by each grantee and to target appropriate TA resources to grantees. It will also enable HUD to identify trends in TA needs across grantees and assist in prioritizing the development of tools, products and group learning activities to benefit CPD grantees and subrecipients. Members of the affected public: Grantees and subrecipient organizations receiving funding to operate and manage programs administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD).

Development (CPD). Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: 180 respondents × 176.4 average hours per response = 31,752 hours annually.

Status: New collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

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

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed: Public Housing Operating Budget, Supporting and Related Forms.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0026.

Form Numbers: HUD-52574.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The operating budget and related form are submitted by PHAs for the low-income housing program. The operating budget provides a summary of proposed budget receipts and expenditures by major category, as well as blocks for indicating approval of budget receipts and expenditures by the PHA and HUD. The related form provides a record of PHA Board approval of how the amounts shown on the operating budget were arrived at, as well as justification of certain specified amounts. The information is reviewed by HUD to determine if the plan of operation adopted by the PHA and amounts included therein are reasonable for the efficient and economical operation of the development(s), and the PHA is in compliance with HUD procedures to ensure that sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the development. A small number of PHAs (200) are still required to submit their operating budget packages to HUD, namely those that are troubled, those that are recently out of troubled status or at risk of becoming troubled, or those that are at risk of fiscal insolvency. PHAs are still required to prepare their operating budgets and submit them to their Board for approval prior to their operating subsidy being approved by HUD. The operating budgets must be kept on file for review, if requested.

Total estimated burden hours: 24,034.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council will hold a meeting.

Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:

1. Benefit wildlife resources;

2. Encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, the states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government;

3. Benefit recreational hunting.

The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Director, National Park Service (NPS); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:

1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;

2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Wildlife Restoration Program;

3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;

4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;

5. Fostering communication and coordination among State, tribal, and Federal governments; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;

6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;

7. Providing recommendations to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and

8. When requested by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairperson, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.

Background information on the Council is available at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

The Council will convene to consider:

1. The Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;

2. Wildlife health and wildlife disease; and

3. Other Council business.

The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

Because entry to Federal buildings is restricted, all visitors are required to preregister to be admitted. In order to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business on the dates listed in “Public Input” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to the Council Coordinator (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date above, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), to be placed on the public speaker list for this meeting. Nonregistered public speakers will not be considered during the meeting. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to the Council Coordinator up to 30 days subsequent to the meeting.

Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Coordinator (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) and will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting and will be posted on the Council's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC (SWE), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, applied to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant on public lands to develop a 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility. The ROW application area encompasses approximately 18,790 acres of BLM-administered public lands adjacent to Searchlight, Nevada, about 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada. In connection with the SWE proposal, the Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted a ROW application to the BLM for construction and operation of an electrical interconnection facility/switchyard adjacent to the existing Davis-Mead transmission line. The Western application is also analyzed as part of the EIS. The proposed project is in conformance with the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision.

The proposed wind turbines located on the SWE project would be up to 262-feet tall from the ground to the hub with blades extending an additional 153 feet, for a total turbine height of up to 415 feet. In addition to the wind turbines, the proposed project would require the construction of pad mounted transformers at the base of each turbine, underground collection lines, new access roads, two electrical substations, an overhead transmission line connecting the two substations, an electrical interconnection facility/switchyard owned and operated by Western, an operations and maintenance building, and temporary and long-term laydown areas. Three meteorological towers would remain on the site to measure the wind speed and direction across the site over the life of the project.

The applicant (SWE) has requested to interconnect its proposed project to the electrical transmission grid via Western's Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line. Western, a Federal agency, is participating in the EIS process as a cooperating agency and may use the EIS to support its decision to approve or deny the SWE interconnection request.

Three alternatives are analyzed in the Final EIS—a 96 wind turbine layout, an 87 wind turbine layout, and a no-action alternative. The 87 wind turbine alternative is the BLM's preferred alternative. In identifying the preferred alternative, the BLM considered all information that has been received consistent with its environmental review and ROW permitting responsibilities. The Final EIS describes and analyzes the project's site-specific impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, geological resources, health and human safety, hazardous materials, lands and realty, noise, noxious weeds, paleontological resources, recreation, socioeconomic resources, transportation, visual resources and water resources. On January 20, 2012, the BLM published the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS for this proposal in the Federal Register (77 FR 2999). The BLM accepted public comments at three public meetings in Searchlight, Laughlin, and Boulder City, Nevada and by email, mail, and fax during a 90-day comment period. Seventy nine comment submissions were received from individuals, organizations, and agencies. Comments primarily pertained to the NEPA process, project alternatives, project description, project need, air quality, biological resources (desert tortoise, birds, and plants), cultural resources, cumulative impacts, geology, health and human safety, land use, noise, mitigation measures, recreation, transportation, socioeconomics, visual resources, and water. The BLM also received statements in support of, or opposition to, the proposal.

Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and addressed as appropriate in the Final EIS. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text, but did not significantly change the proposed alternatives.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the New York State Museum that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

The cultural items are eight wampum belts. Seven of the wampum belts are on loan to the Seneca National Museum in Salamanca, NY, and one wampum belt is housed at the New York State Museum in Albany, NY.

The Five Nations Alliance Belt, also known as the Mary Jamison Belt, is composed of seven rows of dark purple beads with three open white diamonds. The belt measures 16 1/4 inches long and two inches wide. It is a portion of an original belt that measured two feet long and contained five diamonds representing the Five Iroquois Nations. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1899 from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37424). Museum records indicate that Mrs. Converse purchased the Five Nations Alliance Belt from descendants of Mary Jemison on the Cattaraugus Reservation in New York. Mary Jemison was adopted by the Seneca as a child and chose to live her life as a Seneca. At the time of collection, the Five Nations Alliance Belt was described as a ransom belt but Mrs. Converse later reported it as a council belt. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Five Nations Alliance Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the civil functions of a Council.

The Cornplanter Condolence Belt, also known as the Red Jacket Belt, is composed of seven rows of purple beads with five areas of loss that originally may have contained white beads. It measures 35 1/2 inches long and 1 3/4 inches wide. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1899 from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37426). In correspondence from the Cornplanter Reservation in Pennsylvania, dated June 26, 1899, Mrs. Converse listed the Cornplanter Condolence Belt with three other belts that she had recently purchased. At the time of collection, Mrs. Converse reported that the wampum belt was associated with the Seneca chief, Red Jacket, but later reported it as condolence wampum that had belonged to the Seneca chief Cornplanter. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Cornplanter Condolence Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the condolence of a leader and installation of a successor.

The Nomination Belt is composed of nine rows of white beads with six purple figures joined by extended arms and a purple square that may represent a council fire between the two central figures. It measures 24 inches long and three inches wide. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in the late nineteenth century from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37427). Museum records indicate that Mrs. Converse obtained the belt in either 1882 or 1885 from Martha Hemlock, a Seneca elder on the Cattaraugus Reservation in New York. At the time of collection, the wampum belt was recorded as a women's nominating belt used to announce the naming of a new chief. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the civil functions of a Council.

The Huron Alliance Belt is composed of ten rows of white beads with three diagonal rows of three open purple squares. It measures 31 1/2 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in the late nineteenth century from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37430). Museum records indicate that Mrs. Converse purchased the wampum belt in 1885 from Chief John Buck on the Grand River Reservation in Ontario, Canada. At the time of collection, Mrs. Converse reported the belt was exchanged during the wars between the Huron and Seneca Nations. According to Chief Buck it originally belonged to the Seneca people of New York prior to the American Revolution. Rev. William M. Beauchamp questioned the reported age and attribution of the belt writing, “The belt, if Huron, may be assigned to their later days.” Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Huron Alliance Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the civil functions of a Council.

The Seneca Condolence Belt is composed of seven rows of purple beads with two white diamonds and a horizontal v-shape near one end. It measures 40 inches long and 2 1/8 inches wide. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1897 from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37431). Museum records indicate that Mrs. Converse obtained the Seneca Condolence Belt through “Salamanca Seneca Indians” in New York. At the time of collection, Mrs. Converse reported that the belt was a condolence belt interpreted to her “by the late Dan'l Two-Guns, an aged Seneca who had memorized it during his childhood.” The wampum belt was reportedly last owned by the Seneca chief Governor Blacksnake of the Allegany Reservation in New York. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Seneca Condolence Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the condolence of a leader and installation of a successor.

The Gyantwaka Treaty Belt is a fragment of a belt composed of ten rows of purple beads and measures 7 1/4 inches long and 2 3/4 inches wide. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1899 from Harriet Maxwell Converse (E-37432). Museum records indicate that Mrs. Converse obtained the wampum belt on the Cornplanter Reservation in Pennsylvania. The belt is said to be a portion of the original which was divided among Cornplanter's heirs at the time of his death. At the time of collection, it was reported that the Gyantwaka Treaty Belt was a record of the treaty affirming the Cornplanter Reservation. A copy of the signed treaty was originally attached to the wampum belt. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Gyantwaka Treaty Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony.

The Ely S. Parker Belt, also known as the Five Fires Belt, or Death Belt, is composed of seven rows of purple beads with five white open hexagons, representing the Five Iroquois Nations, and three short white stripes at each end. It measures 37 1/2 inches long and two inches wide and has traces of red pigment on some of the beads. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1899 from Harriet Maxwell Converse who purchased it from the widow of her long-time friend General Ely S. Parker (E-37434). At the time of collection, Mrs. Converse reported the Ely S. Parker belt was a war belt and a national belt of the Seneca people. The belt was handed down to Ely S. Parker with the title Donehogawah or Keeper of the Western Door. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Ely S. Parker Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the civil functions of a Council.

The Blacksnake Mourning Belt is composed of nine rows of purple beads and measures 6 1/4 inches long. The New York State Museum acquired the wampum belt in 1933 from Willard A. Gibson (E-37962). Museum records indicate that Mr. Gibson purchased the Blacksnake Mourning Belt with the assistance of his Seneca friend, Louis Plummer, from an elder on the Allegany Reservation in New York. At the time of collection, Mr. Plummer reported that the wampum belt was a mourning or condolence belt formerly in the possession of the Seneca chief Governor Blacksnake. Consultation with the Tonawanda Band of Seneca identifies the Blacksnake Mourning Belt as both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony as it relates to the condolence of a leader and installation of a successor.

Officials of the New York State Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the eight cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the eight cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York).

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony should contact Lisa Anderson, NAGPRA Coordinator, New York State Museum, 3122 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020 before January 17, 2013. Repatriation of the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony to the Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York) may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The New York State Museum is responsible for notifying the Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology. The human remains were removed from Florida, most likely Brevard or Indian River counties.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains and available documentation was made by the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina); Cherokee Nation; Chickasaw Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma; Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”). Representatives of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology also contacted and attempted to consult with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe.

In about 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, 64 individuals were excavated from either the area of Melbourne, in Brevard County, FL, or the area of Vero Beach, in Indian River County, FL, by F.B. Loomis, Professor of Geology at Amherst College. In the early 1980s, these remains were transferred from Amherst College to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology for permanent curation. Two additional individuals collected at the same time remained at Amherst College and are currently curated at the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College (formerly the Pratt Museum). These remains are the subject of a separate Notice of Inventory Completion.

Most crania are marked with a red number that corresponds to an entry in a ledger entitled “Catalogue of Skeletal Material, Gilbert Museum of Indian Relics.” Entries in that ledger read: “Seminole from Melbourne Florida.” Although museum records regarding the human remains are fragmentary, provenience information associated with the remains indicates the following proveniences: 56 individuals from the “Grant Burial Heap” or simply from “Grant, Fla.”; five individuals from “Grant Burial Heap Linx, Fla.”; one individual from “Ballard Mound”; and two individuals from “Micco, Fla.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present with the human remains at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Many of the remains have black numbers that resemble the numbering system used by F.B. Loomis in the field. Loomis was engaged in excavating in Florida in 1923 and 1925, at least. No field notes from Loomis's excavations remain, but newspaper reports at the time indicate Loomis collected from “burial mounds” (Melbourne Florida Times, December 5, 1923). The Boston Globe on November 1, 1925, reported Loomis and his coworkers excavated “in Melbourne and on the east coast of Florida” for five weeks and “at Vero Beach” for two, obtaining “50 skulls and about one dozen skeletons.” This article also associates these mounds with Native Americans from southern rather than western Florida, based on the absence of pottery or tools in the mounds. No doubt, this conclusion derived from an interview with Loomis himself. Similarly, the Globe reported, “[t]he skeletons lay in formation around the mound, and when one layer was completed, earth was piled on and another layer begun. In this way the growth of the mound was effected.”

On March 17, 1869, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the area of “Haul Over Canal,” in Brevard County, FL, by unknown collectors. In or around 1939, the remains were donated to Amherst College, and, in the early 1980s, the remains were transferred to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology. The remains bear the collection number 20137 in black ink, which corresponds to an entry in the “Catalogue of the Gilbert Museum of Indian Relics in Amherst College, Volume V” (presently maintained in the Amherst College Archives). The entry states the remains were collected “* * * from a mound near `Haul Over Canal' between Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon, East Florida March 17th, 1869.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present with the human remains at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Multiple lines of evidence—guided by tribal consultations—including geographic, oral tradition, archaeological, linguistic, historical, and aboriginal land claims, demonstrate a shared group identity between these human remains and the modern-day tribes of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Officials of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 65 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Robert Paynter, Repatriation Committee Chair, telephone (413) 545-2221, or Rae Gould, Repatriation Coordinator, telephone (413) 545-2702, University of Massachusetts, Department of Anthropology, 201 Machmer Hall, 240 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, before January 17, 2013. Repatriation of the human remains to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Southern Oregon Historical Society, Medford, OR.

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

This notice corrects the list of tribes consulted and the tribes eligible to receive disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (77 FR 51565-51566, August 24, 2012). Following publication, an additional tribe came forward requesting to be added to the notice.

In the Federal Register (77 FR 51565-51566, August 24, 2012), paragraph six is corrected by substituting the following paragraph:

In the Federal Register (77 FR 51565-51566, August 24, 2012), paragraph eight, bullets three and six are corrected by replacing “the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon” with “the Confederate Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation).”

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Tina Reuwsaat at the Southern Oregon Historical Society, 106 N. Central Avenue, Medford, OR 97520, telephone (541) 858-1724 ext. 1001, before January 17, 2013. Disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation) may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Southern Oregon Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon; and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Fort Sill Museum and in the possession of the Museum of the Great Plains. The human remains were removed from Fort Sill, Comanche County, OK.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fort Sill Museum and the Museum of the Great Plains professional staffs in consultation with representatives the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Chickasaw Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

In March 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site 34CM323 in Comanche County, OK. Staff of the Museum of the Great Plains found the human remains during a reconnaissance survey on Federal property in Fort Sill. The burials were exposed by natural elements on the bank of Crater Creek, were excavated by staff of the Museum of the Great Plains, and were sent to the Osteology Laboratory of the Institute of Applied Sciences at North Texas State University. The burials remained at North Texas State University until January 27, 2012, when, at the request of the Fort Sill Museum, they were returned to the Museum of the Great Plains. The Museum of the Great Plains physically inventoried the remains for NAGPRA purposes and stabilized the remains according to 36 CFR 79 standards. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Barbara H. Butler, Ph.D., of North Texas State University, analyzed the remains in 1977, and concluded that the remains from this site represented two individuals. Human remains from Burial 2, with only a few small occipital pieces, represented one adult. Human remains from Burial 1 consisted of fragmentary remains of a nine-year-old child, based upon dental analysis. The dental remains from Burial 1 were moderately shovel-shaped, and Butler concluded the remains were probably Native American. The human remains were shallowly buried in alluvium deposits, and no pit profile could be detected during excavations. The body positions suggested that the burials were placed in a pit excavated into the alluvium deposits, and are therefore younger than those deposits. A 1978 geologic inspection of the site estimates the age of the alluvium deposits as “late Holocene to early historic.” The lack of soil development, as well as the preservation of bones in acidic soils, suggest but do not confirm a late prehistoric to historic age for the burials.

Prehistorically and historically, Native Americans have inhabited the area near Fort Sill in southwest Oklahoma, based on evidence of archaeology, geology, and historical accounts. The people of the Wichita, Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes are well documented in the area, and their presence was the reason Fort Sill was established.

Officials of the Fort Sill Museum and the Museum of the Great Plains have determined that:

• Based on physical characteristics of the dental analysis, the human remains are Native American.

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

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

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Chickasaw Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, are aboriginal to the area from which the human remains were removed.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Chickasaw Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Scott A. Neel, Ph.D., Director, Fort Sill National Historic Landmark and Museum, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, OK 73503, telephone (580) 442- 6570. Disposition of the human remains to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Chickasaw Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Fort Sill Museum is responsible for notifying the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Chickasaw Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Stevens County, WA.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.

In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from site 45CH235, the “Olds Station Site” located in Stevens County, WA. The remains were disturbed by the excavation of a water line for the city of Wenatchee. The remains came from a single excavator bucket load of sediment. The remains were thought to have come from very near the ground surface and were thought to be less than 100 years old and possibly to represent a single mass interment. The 11 associated funerary objects include one hammerstone, two edge ground cobbles, one net sinker, one stone core, one wooden coffin fragment, one biface, three flakes, and one maul.

The remains were identified by archaeologists from Washington State University who were monitoring the water line excavation work (Galm 1980). At some unknown time after 1980, the remains were transferred to the University of Idaho. In 2000, the remains were returned to the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University.

The site is within the traditional territory of Wenatchee Band of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Historical, archaeological, ethnographic, and linguistic information links this group of people to the area, represented by the present-day Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Archaeological evidence recorded at the site suggests the burials may be as recent as the late 19th century.

Officials of the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 11 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

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

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Mary Collins, Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-4910, telephone (509) 335-4314, before January 17, 2013. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College. The human remains were removed from Florida, most likely Brevard or Indian River counties.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the NAGPRA Coordinator and museum staff of the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College, and their agents, in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina); Cherokee Nation; Chickasaw Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma; Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”). Representatives of the Beneski Museum also contacted and attempted to consult with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe.

In about 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from either the area of Melbourne, in Brevard County, FL, or the area of Vero Beach, in Indian River County, FL, by F.B. Loomis, Professor of Geology at Amherst College. In the early 1980s, other remains collected at the same time were transferred from Amherst College to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Anthropology for permanent curation. These remains are the subject of a separate Notice of Inventory Completion.

Museum records regarding these human remains are fragmentary and only indirectly constrain their provenience. The skull of one individual is marked with a number that corresponds to an entry in the ledger entitled “Catalogue of Skeletal Material, Gilbert Museum of Indian Relics.” The “Gilbert Museum” is an old, informal name for the Gilbert Collection, which is presently housed in the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College. In its entirety, that entry reads: “Seminole from Melbourne Florida. Complete.” No known individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Both individuals are marked with numbers that resemble the numbering system used by F.B. Loomis in the field. Loomis was engaged in excavating in Florida in 1923 and 1925, at least. No field notes from Loomis's excavations remain, but newspaper reports at the time indicate Loomis collected from “burial mounds” (Melbourne Florida Times, December 5, 1923). The Boston Globe on November 1, 1925, reported Loomis and his coworkers excavated “in Melbourne and on the east coast of Florida” for five weeks and “at Vero Beach” for two, obtaining “50 skulls and about one dozen skeletons.” This article also associates these mounds with Native Americans from southern rather than western Florida, based on the absence of pottery or tools in the mounds. No doubt, this conclusion derived from an interview with Loomis himself. Similarly, the Globe reported, “[t]he skeletons lay in formation around the mound, and when one layer was completed, earth was piled on and another layer begun. In this way the growth of the mound was effected.”

Multiple lines of evidence—guided by tribal consultations—including geographic, oral tradition, archaeological, linguistic, historical, and aboriginal land claims, demonstrate a shared group identity between these human remains and the modern-day tribes of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Officials of the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact the NAGPRA Coordinator, Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College, Amherst, MA 01002; telephone (413) 542-2233, before January 17, 2013. Repatriation of the human remains to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Montana, the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, and the University of Wyoming, Department of Anthropology. The human remains were removed from Yellowstone County, MT.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Montana (Campbell & McKeown 2010), the Museum of the Rockies, and the University of Wyoming professional staffs in consultation with representatives of the Crow Tribe of Montana.

Between 1937 and 1941, human remains representing, at minimum, 18 individuals were removed from a complex of sites known as the Pictograph Cave and its Terrace area (24YL1) and the Ghost Cave (24YL2), in Yellowstone County, MT, through an excavation project by the Works Project Administration. Nine burials were reported to have been excavated from the Pictograph Cave, while only five human bones and one tooth were reported from the Ghost Cave (Snodgrasse 1958). These remains from an excavated context are attributed to the Late Prehistoric occupation of the caves, dating between A.D. 500 and 1750 (Mulloy 1958 and Snodgrasse 1958).

The University of Wyoming, Department of Anthropology, acquired human remains from the Pictograph Cave representing, at minimum, three individuals, all sub-adults, sometime in the late 1940s. In 1991, the Museum of the Rockies acquired human teeth from the Pictograph Cave, its Terrace area, and the Ghost Cave representing, at minimum, four individuals, as part of a large donation of unrelated material. The University of Montana acquired human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals at an unknown date from the Pictograph Cave, its Terrace area, and the Ghost Cave. Some of the individuals held by the different institutions may be duplicative, in which case the minimum number would be lower. The human remains in the possession of the University of Montana were found in the faunal collections from these locations, and include fifteen elements from the Pictograph Cave (a left distal femur epiphysis of a sub-adult, a right 4th premolar, two right metatarsals, a right 3rd cuneiform, a left clavicle, a cervical vertebra, two proximal phalanges, a right parietal fragment, a left mandibular canine, a right talus, a right calcaneus, a left calcaneus, and a right cuboid), two elements from the Terrace area (a partial femur and a partial os coxae), and a single element from the Ghost Cave (a fragmentary rib). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the University of Montana, the Museum of the Rockies, and the University of Wyoming have determined that:

• Based on the date of the site, the human remains are Native American.

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

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Crow Tribe of Montana.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human were removed is the aboriginal land of the Crow Tribe of Montana.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 18 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the Crow Tribe of Montana.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Sally Thompson, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, telephone (406) 243-5525 before January 17, 2013. Disposition of the human remains to the Crow Tribe of Montana may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The University of Montana is responsible for notifying the Crow Tribe that this notice has been published.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), of a telephonic meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee). This meeting will be open to the public. The agenda for the meeting will be limited to finalization of the Review Committee Report to Congress for 2012, the appointment of the subcommittee to draft the Review Committee's Report to the Congress for 2013, and discussion of the scope of the Report. The agenda and materials for this meeting will be posted on or before December 24, 2012, on the National NAGPRA Program Web site: http://www.nps.gov/nagpra. A transcript and minutes of the meeting will also appear on the National NAGPRA Program Web site after the meeting has occurred.

Information about NAGPRA, the Review Committee, and Review Committee meetings is available on the National NAGPRA Program Web site. For the Review Committee's meeting procedures, click on “Review Committee,” then click on “Procedures.” Meeting minutes may be accessed by going to the Web site; then clicking on “Review Committee;” and then clicking on “Meeting Minutes.” Approximately fourteen weeks after each Review Committee meeting, the meeting transcript is posted for a limited time on the National NAGPRA Program Web site.

The Review Committee was established in Section 8 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3006. Review Committee members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Review Committee is responsible for monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process; reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items; facilitating the resolution of disputes; compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or control of each Federal agency and museum, and recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition of such human remains; consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters affecting such tribes or organizations lying within the scope of work of the Committee; consulting with the Secretary of the Interior on the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items. The Review Committee's work is carried out during the course of meetings that are open to the public.

The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Since 1924, thirty-eight cataloged objects deriving from the Táx ´ Hit, or Snail House (Snail House), of the T'ak deintaan Clan of Tlingit Indians from Hoonah, Alaska have been in the possession of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The Snail House is also known as Tsalx áan Hit, or the Mt. Fairweather House. In addition, since 1918, a Shakee.át, or Marmot Frontlet (Frontlet) deriving from the Eagle's Nest House of the T'ak deintaan Clan of Tlingit Indians also has been in the possession of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Between 1995 and 2006, the Huna Totem Corporation and (since 2000) Hoonah Indian Association, an Alaska Native village, provided information to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology that, taken together, constituted a joint request for the repatriation of the 39 cataloged objects in question. The request identified each of the objects in question as a “sacred object” and an object of “cultural patrimony,” as these terms are defined in NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C) and (D)). In its June 19, 2009 response to this request, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology acknowledged that one of the objects is a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony; six of the objects are sacred objects, but are not objects of cultural patrimony; and one of the objects is an object of cultural patrimony, but is not a sacred object. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology also stated that, while it had a “right of possession” to these eight cultural items, as defined in the NAGPRA regulations (43 CFR 10.10(a)(2)), nonetheless, it would elect not to assert its right of possession. The June 19, 2009 response also stated that the other 31 cataloged objects “do not meet the specific NAGPRA definitions for cultural patrimony or sacred objects” and, additionally, asserted the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology's right of possession to those 31 objects.

Disputing the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology's determination that only one of the 39 catalogued objects was both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony, as well as the Museum's claim of right of possession to the 39 cataloged objects and assertion of that right with respect to 31 of the objects, the Hoonah Indian Association and the Huna Totem Corporation joined in asking the Review Committee to facilitate the resolution of the dispute between themselves and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The Designated Federal Official for the Review Committee agreed to the request.

At its November 17-19, 2010 meeting, the Review Committee considered the dispute. The issues before the Review Committee were (1) whether, in their request for the repatriation of the 39 catalogued objects in question, the requestors proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all the objects are “sacred objects” and objects of “cultural patrimony,” as these terms are defined in NAGPRA; and (2) whether, in response to the request for repatriation, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology presented evidence proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Museum has a “right of possession” to the objects. As defined in the NAGPRA regulations, “ ‘right of possession' means possession obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation.”

Findings of Fact: Six Review Committee members participated in the fact finding. One member was self-recused. By a vote of six to zero, the Review Committee found that all 39 of the requested cataloged objects are both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, and that the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology does not have a right of possession to any of the requested cultural items.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 provides States with the opportunity to pilot new and innovative strategies to help connect unemployed Americans with work. Extended Benefits, Reemployment, and Program Integrity Improvement Act section 2102 has enacted a new Social Security Act section 305 to allow the Secretary of Labor to enter into agreements with up to 10 States that submit an application for approval to conduct a demonstration project to test and evaluate measures to expedite reemployment of certain individuals found eligible for unemployment compensation or to improve the effectiveness of a State in carrying out its State law with respect to reemployment.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0492. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2013; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57593).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0492. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Title of Collection: Reemployment Demonstration Grants and Projects.

OMB Control Number: 1205-0492.

Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 50.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,600.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

Beneficiaries file a Claim for Medical Reimbursement, Form OWCP-915, to obtain reimbursement for out-of-pocket covered medical expenses paid by a beneficiary. Required billing data elements (prepared by the medical provider) and proof of payment by the beneficiary must accompany the claims form. While not expected to change respondent burden, this ICR has been characterized as a revision because the agency has reformatted elements of Form OWCP-915 (e.g., replaced an obsolete logo with the DOL Seal, provided an additional notice on the rights of respondents with disabilities, and removed references to the no longer existent Employment Standards Administration).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1240-0007. The current approval is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2012 (77 FR 57161).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1240-0007. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-OWCP.

Title of Collection: Claim for Medical Reimbursement.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0007.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,309.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 24,872.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 4,294.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $42,689.

Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0375 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-0375.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ ADAMS Public Documents ” and then select “ Begin Web-based ADAMS Search. ” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

In addition, a copy of the draft supplement to the GEIS is available to local residents near the site at the 1100 7th Street, Bay City, TX 77414.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0375 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

Background Information

The NRC announced the issuance of License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2011-01, “Aging Management of Stainless Steel Structures and Components in Treated Borated Water,” in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 27815). As issued, LR-ISG-2011-01 contained identification numbers for three AMR items which were inconsistent with the GALL Report numbering convention. To ensure consistency, the NRC is issuing Revision 1 to LR-ISG-2011-01 to correct three AMR identification numbers, as follows:

1. GALL Report Item V.A.EP-74 was corrected to read “V.A.E-20”

2. GALL Report Item VII.E1.AP-79 was corrected to read “VII.E1.A-88”

3. GALL Report Item VII.E1.A-102 was corrected to read “VII.E1.AP-79”

This revision is editorial; it does not affect the technical content of the interim staff guidance.

Issuance of this corrected LR-ISG does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), (the Backfit Rule), and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” No substantive changes are being made in this revision. The only changes are the corrections to the identification numbers for three AMRs, which are being made to ensure consistency with the GALL Report's numbering convention.

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

1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Delaware. The Trust will initially offer an actively-managed series, Cambria Shareholder Yield ETF (the “Initial Fund”). The investment objective of the Initial Fund will be to seek to preserve and grow capital by investing in domestic equity securities and in particular in companies that will generate investment returns through the payment of dividends and through the appreciation of their share price.

2. Cambria, a California limited partnership, will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Cambria is and any other Adviser (as defined below) is or will be registered as an “investment adviser” under section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with investment advisers to act as sub-advisers with respect to the Funds (each, a “Subadviser”). Any Subadviser will be registered under the Advisers Act or not subject to such registration. A registered broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which may be an affiliate of the Adviser, will act as the distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds (“Distributor”).

3. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any future series of the Trust or of other existing or future open-end management companies that may utilize active management investment strategies (“Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by Cambria or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Cambria (each such entity and any successor thereto included in the term “Adviser”)  2 , and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application. 3 The Initial Fund and Future Funds together are the “Funds”. Each Fund will operate as an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). In addition to the instruments described above, each Fund reserves the right to invest in other instruments, including short sales (“Short Positions”). Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities (including fixed income securities and/or equity securities) and/or currencies traded in the U.S. or in non-U.S. markets, assets, and other positions (“Portfolio Instruments”). To the extent consistent with other investment limitations, the Funds may invest in ETFs as well as shares of certain exchange-traded products that are not registered investment companies, 4 cash and cash equivalents, mortgage- or asset-backed securities, including “to-be-announced transactions” (“TBA Transactions”)  5 , and may engage in forward commitment transactions, 6 forward foreign currency contracts, options contracts, futures contracts or swap agreements. 7 Funds may also invest in “Depositary Receipts”. 8 A Fund will not invest in any Depositary Receipts that the Adviser, or Subadviser as applicable, deems to be illiquid or for which pricing information is not readily available. The Funds might include one or more ETFs which invest in other open-end and/or closed-end investment companies and/or ETFs. 9

4. Applicants also request that any exemptions under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) apply to: (1) Any Fund that is currently or subsequently part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Initial Fund within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as well as any principal underwriter for the Fund and any Brokers selling Shares of a Fund to an Investing Fund, as defined below; and (2) each management investment company or unit investment trust registered under the Act that is not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Funds, and that enters into a FOF Participation Agreement (as defined below) with a Fund (such management investment companies are referred to herein as “Investing Management Companies,” such unit investment trusts are referred to herein as, “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts together are referred to herein as “Investing Funds”). 10 Investing Funds do not include the Funds.

5. Applicants anticipate that a Creation Unit will consist of at least 25,000 Shares and the price of a Share will range from $20 to $200. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party (“Authorized Participant”) that has entered into a participant agreement with the Distributor and the transfer agent of the Trust with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. An Authorized Participant is either: (a) A broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act (“Broker”) or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the Commission and affiliated with the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”); or (b) a participant in the DTC (such participant, “DTC Participant”). Shares of the Funds will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an “in-kind” basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). 11 On any given Business Day 12 , the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Deposit Instruments and the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Redemption Instruments will be identical, and these instruments may be referred to, in the case of either a purchase or a redemption, as the “In-kind Basket.” In addition, the In-kind Basket will correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions), 13 except: (a) In the case of bonds, for minor differences when it is impossible to break up bonds beyond certain minimum sizes needed for transfer and settlement; (b) for minor differences when rounding is necessary to eliminate fractional shares or lots that are not tradeable round lots; 14 or (c) TBA Transactions, Short Positions 15 or other positions that cannot be transferred in kind 16 will be excluded from the In-kind Basket. 17 If there is a difference between the net asset value attributable to a Creation Unit and the aggregate market value of the In-kind Basket exchanged for the Creation Unit, the party conveying instruments with the lower value will pay to the other an amount in cash equal to that difference (the “Balancing Amount”).

6. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash; 18 (d) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund requires all Authorized Participants purchasing or redeeming Shares on that day to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are not eligible for transfer through either the NSCC Process or DTC Process; or (ii) in the case of Funds holding non-U.S. investments (“Global Funds”), such instruments are not eligible for trading due to local trading restrictions, local restrictions on securities transfers, or other similar circumstances; or (e) if the Fund permits an Authorized Participant to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are, in the case of the purchase of a Creation Unit, not available in sufficient quantity; (ii) such instruments are not eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor on whose behalf the Authorized Participant is acting; or (iii) a holder of Shares of a Global Fund would be subject to unfavorable income tax treatment if the holder receives redemption proceeds in kind. 19

7. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the national securities exchange as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Stock Exchange”) upon which its Shares are listed and traded, the Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the In-kind Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published In-kind Basket will apply until a new In-kind Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the In-kind Basket, except to correct errors in the published In-kind Basket. The Stock Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Portfolio Instruments that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange.

8. An investor purchasing or redeeming a Creation Unit from a Fund may be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to protect existing shareholders of the Funds from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. 20 All orders to purchase Creation Units will be placed with the Distributor by or through an Authorized Participant and the Distributor will transmit all purchase orders to the relevant Fund. The Distributor will be responsible for delivering a prospectus (“Prospectus”) to those persons purchasing Creation Units and for maintaining records of both the orders placed with it and the confirmations of acceptance furnished by it.

9. Shares will be listed and traded at negotiated prices on the Stock Exchange and traded in the secondary market. Applicants expect that the Stock Exchange specialists (“Specialists”) or market makers (“Market Makers”) will be assigned to Shares. The price of Shares trading on the Stock Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the purchases and sales of Shares on the Stock Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.

10. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include arbitrageurs. Specialists or Market Makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities. 21 Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors. 22 Applicants expect that arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to continually purchase or redeem Creation Units at their net asset value per common Share (“NAV”) should ensure that the Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.

11. Shares may be redeemed only if tendered in Creation Units. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. As discussed above, redemptions of Creation Units will generally be made on an in-kind basis, subject to certain specified exceptions under which redemptions may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, and will be subject to a Transaction Fee.

12. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” Any advertising material where features of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units are described or where there is reference to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire Shares from a Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.

13. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include the Prospectus and additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. 23

1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions from any provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust and any Fund to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Units will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.

4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions, to permit Shares to trade at negotiated prices.

5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) assure an orderly distribution system of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from Brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.

6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity should ensure that the differences between the market price of Shares and their NAV remain immaterial.

7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds is contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants have been advised that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process of up to 14 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local markets where transactions in the Portfolio Instruments of each Global Fund customarily clear and settle, but in all cases no later than 14 calendar days following the tender of a Creation Unit. With respect to Future Funds that are Global Funds, applicants seek the same relief from section 22(e) only to the extent that circumstances exist similar to those described in the application. 24

8. Applicants submit that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of 14 calendar days will not lead to unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the redemption process and would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants state the statement of additional information (“SAI”) will disclose those local holidays (over the period of at least one year following the date of the SAI), if any, that are expected to prevent the delivery of redemption proceeds in seven calendar days and the maximum number of days, up to 14 calendar days, needed to deliver the proceeds for each affected Global Fund. Except as disclosed in the SAI for a Fund, deliveries of redemption proceeds for Global Funds are expected to be made within seven days. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Global Funds that do not effect creations or redemptions in-kind.

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

10. Applicants request relief to permit Investing Funds (as defined below) to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Brokers to sell Shares to Investing Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.

11. Applicants submit that their proposed conditions address the concerns regarding the potential for undue influence. To limit the control that an Investing Fund may have over a Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the adviser of an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Advisor”), sponsor of an Investing Trust (“Sponsor”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Advisor or Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(l) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Advisor, the Sponsor, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Advisor or Sponsor (“Investing Fund's Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to any sub-adviser to an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Subadviser”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(l) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Subadviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser (“Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group”).

12. Applicants propose a condition to ensure that no Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate  25 (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, Investing Fund Advisor, Investing Fund Subadviser, employee or Sponsor of the Investing Fund, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, Investing Fund Advisor or Investing Fund Subadviser, employee or Sponsor is an affiliated person. An Underwriting Affiliate does not include any person whose relationship to the Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act.

13. Applicants propose several conditions to address the concerns regarding layering of fees and expenses. Applicants note that the board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will be required to find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, an Investing Fund Advisor, trustee of an Investing Trust (“Trustee”) or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Advisor, Trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Advisor, Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Advisor, Trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Applicants also propose a condition to prevent any sales charges or service fees on shares of an Investing Fund from exceeding the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830. 26

14. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.

15. To ensure that the Investing Funds understand and comply with the terms and conditions of the requested order, any Investing Fund that intends to invest in a Fund in reliance on the requested order will be required to enter into a participation agreement (“FOF Participation Agreement”) with the Fund. The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgment from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.

16. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Each Fund may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).

17. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25% of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds. 27 Applicants also request an exemption in order to permit a Fund to sell its Shares to, and purchase its Shares from, an Investing Fund and to engage in any accompanying in-kind transactions with certain Investing Funds of which the Funds are affiliated persons or a second-tier affiliates. 28

18. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. Absent the circumstances discussed in section I.E.1.a of the application, on each Business Day the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments available for a Fund will be the same for all purchasers and redeemers, respectively, and will correspond pro rata to the Fund's Portfolio Instruments. Applicants state that the method of valuing Portfolio Instruments held by a Fund is the same as that used for calculating the value of in-kind purchases or redemptions and therefore, creates no opportunity for affiliated persons or the Applicants to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares of that Fund. Applicants note that any consideration paid for the purchase or redemption of Shares directly from a Fund (including for any affiliated person and including any Investing Fund) will be based on the NAV of the Fund in accordance with policies and procedures set forth in the Fund's registration statement. 29 Applicants do not believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching of the Fund.

19. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Investing Fund meets the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants also state that the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act and appropriate in the public interest.

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

1. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Fund will be listed on a Stock Exchange.

2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.

3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis, for each Fund the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.

4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.

5. The Adviser or any Subadviser, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.

6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively managed exchange-traded funds.

1. The members of the Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Investing Fund's Subadvisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Investing Fund Subadviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Subadviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.

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

3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to assure that the Investing Fund Advisor and any Investing Fund Subadviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.

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

5. The Investing Fund Advisor, or Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Advisor, or Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Advisor, or Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Advisor, or Trustee, or Sponsor, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Any Investing Fund Subadviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund Subadviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Subadviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Subadviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Subadviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Investing Fund Subadviser. In the event that the Investing Fund Subadviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.

6. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an Affiliated Underwriting.

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

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

9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), an Investing Fund will execute a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund stating that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or Trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.

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

11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.

12. No Fund relying on this section 12(d)(1) relief will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.