Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.

AMS is establishing voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Mixed Commodities using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

AMS previously published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 3816-3817), on January 24, 2006, soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Mixed Commodities. The proposed standards contained the U.S. Mixed grade. In addition, there were “Sample Basis,” “Tolerances,” and “Application of Tolerances” sections. AMS also defined “Mixed,” “Injury,” “Damage,” and “Serious Damage.”

In response to the notice, a comment was received from an individual asking “ * * * how would commodities with tolerances of less than 10% be handled?” The total tolerance in the United States Standards for Grades of Mixed Commodities would be 10 percent. Therefore, when commodities are being certified under the mixed commodities standards the 10 percent tolerance would apply regardless of the tolerances in the individual standards. Additionally, the commenter asked, “Can commodities under a Marketing Order (with less than 10% tolerance, i.e. onions from Idaho and Eastern Oregon) be packed under this standard?” Marketing orders are issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-608) and commodities regulated under such orders must meet handling requirements that may include tolerances that differ from the 10 percent tolerance that appears in the mixed commodities standards. The voluntary mixed commodities standards are issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and the 10 percent total tolerance for such mixed commodities would be applicable to grading and certification under this program. Certification under the U.S. mixed commodities standard would not meet the requirements of the marketing order program.

The adoption of the U.S. grade standards will provide the mixed commodity industry with U.S. grade standards similar to those extensively in use by the fresh produce industry to assist in orderly marketing of other commodities.

The official grade of a lot of mixed commodities covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61).

The United States Standards for Grades of Mixed Commodities will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The project area consists of the entire Selway Bitterroot Wilderness (1,348,000 acres) as well as key areas adjacent to the wilderness on the Nez Perce, Clearwater, Bitterroot, and Lolo National Forests in western Montana and north central Idaho. Non-wilderness areas involve portions of the road and trail network leading into or passing through the wilderness and other specifically identified priority area. The project area is approximately 1,398,000 acres in size.

Non-native invasive plants are a growing problem in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness and surrounding areas. Without efforts to control these weeds, they will continue to expand into new areas and the number of new weed species will increase. The purpose of this project is to prevent the establishment of new invaders and reduce the impacts of established invasive plants on native plant community stability, sustainability and diversity within the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness.

Inside the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, approximately 111,000 acres are currently occupied to some degree by spotted knapweek sulfur cinquefoil, St. Johnswort (goatweed) and oxeye daisy. Spotted knapweek accounts for approximately 90 percent of the occupied acres. Newer invaders such as Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle, and meadow hawkweed occupy very small acreages at the present time. Outside the Wilderness but within the project area, approximately 5,000 acres are occupied by invasive species with the potential to expand into new areas of the Wilderness.

The National Forests of the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness propose to apply integrated and adaptive approaches to reduce the effects of non-native invasive plant species on natural plant communities and ecosystems within the project area. Approximately 500 to 1500 acres a year are proposed for physical treatments including: chemical treatments, hand pulling, and revegetation with native plants. Biological control organisms would be applied to approximately 10,000 additional acres within the project area. Aerial spray application is not proposed. Grazing of domestic animals to reduce weeds within the Wilderness is not proposed. All treatments and applications would be ground-based. The emphasis of the treatments would be to eradicate new invaders as they are discovered and to contain the spread of established non-native plants.

The Forest Service will consider alternatives to the proposed action including a “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives being considered examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's purpose and need, as well as respond to issues and other resource concerns.

The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, Idaho 83544. The Responsible Official will decide if the proposed project will be implemented and will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations. The responsibility for preparing the DEIS and FEIS has been delegated to the District Ranger, Powell Ranger Station, Lolo, MT 59847.

The decision would specify methods and materials to be used or applied to contain and control unwanted plant species within the project area. The decision would specify the areas to be treated as well as the terms and conditions under which treatment methods and materials would be applied. Administrative actions to monitor effects and effectiveness as well as promote prevention through public awareness and education would also be specified. The anticipated life of the decision would be 10 to 15 years.

Each of the National Forests managing a portion of the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness maintains a listing of individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in being informed of and providing input to projects including these types of activities or in this specific location. All of these contacts will be sent the initial scoping document. A legal notice describing the scoping process will be published in the paper of record for each of the National Forests.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage it is important to give reviewers notice of several court ruling related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning the AAQTF may be found on the Internet at http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/ .

A. Welcome to Washington, DC.

B. Discussion of Minutes from Previous Meeting.

C. Discussion of Objectives for the Task Force and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA Rules and Responsibilities).

D. Scientific Updates and Presentations.

E. Policy Discussions—USDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Officials.

F. USDA Update.

G. EPA Update.

H. Next Meeting, Time and Place.

I. Public Comments.

This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may give oral presentations during the meeting. Those persons wishing to make oral presentations should register in person at the meeting site. Those wishing to distribute written materials at the meeting (in conjunction with spoken comments) must bring 50 copies of the materials with them. Written materials for distribution to AAQTF members prior to the meeting must be received by Dr. Gelburd no later than Friday, November 3, 2006.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Dr. Gelburd. USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

White abalone ( Haliotis sorenseni ) was listed as the first federally endangered marine invertebrate under the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) in May 2001. The ESA (15 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species under its jurisdiction, unless it is determined that such plans would not promote the conservation of the species. Accordingly, during the summer of 2002, NMFS appointed a recovery team comprised of experts in the fields of abalone biology and ecology, conservation biology, genetics, population dynamics and modeling, pathology, aquaculture, and marine policy to develop a recovery plan as mandated by the ESA.

The purposes of this Recovery Plan are to: (1) delineate those aspects of white abalone biology, life history, and threats that are pertinent to its endangerment and recovery; (2) outline and justify a strategy to achieve recovery; (3) identify the actions necessary to achieve recovery; (4) identify goals and criteria by which to measure the achievement of recovery; (5) serve as an outreach tool by articulating the reasons for white abalone's endangerment, and by explaining why the particular suite of recovery actions described is the most effective and efficient approach to achieving recovery; (6) help potential cooperators and partners understand the rationale behind the recovery actions identified, and assist them in identifying how they can facilitate recovery; (7) serve as a tool for monitoring recovery activities; and (8) be used to obtain funding for NMFS and its partners by identifying necessary recovery actions and their relative priority in the recovery process. NMFS' ultimate goal is to increase white abalone abundance to viable and self-sustaining levels such that the species can be downlisted to threatened status and eventually removed from the Endangered Species List.

NMFS sought a scientific review of the draft Plan by 12 experts in October 2005. NMFS requested that the scientific reviewers consider: (1) issues and assumptions relating to the biological and ecological information of the draft Plan, and (2) scientific data relating to the tasks in the proposed recovery program. Four reviewers responded to NMFS' request. The recovery team reconvened in June 2006 to consider the reviewer's comments and incorporate changes to the draft Plan accordingly. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period in the course of finalizing this Plan.

On October 27, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 64432) that a request for a scientific research permit to take seven species of baleen whale, 21 species of odontocetes, and four species of pinnipeds had been submitted by the above-named organization. Permit No. 775-1600-00 was issued on March 6, 2001 (66 FR 14135) and subsequently amended ten times for various purposes. Amendment No. 7 of the permit, named Permit No. 775-1600-07 (69 FR 10680; March 8, 2004), and subsequent amendments allowed biopsy sampling of up to 15 right whale calves less than six months old per year. The Permit Holder has requested that the number of right whale calves less than six months old that may be biopsy sampled, including on the Southeastern US calving grounds, be increased to 30 per year to account for inter-annual variation in the number of calves born each year. The purpose of this amendment is consistent with the objectives in the original application related to genetically identifying (via biopsy sampling) northern right whales.

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

The Department of the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Purpose of Conference Call: To complete agenda items not fully addressed at the meeting on October 2-3, 2006. The Committee is chartered to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary on the program authorized by Title VIII, Hydrogen, of EPACT.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda items will include discussion: HTAC structure, subcommittees, work plan for FY 2007, and other Committee business.

Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to listen in on the business of HTAC and to make oral statements during the specific public comment period. To attend the conference call and/or to make oral statements, e-mail HTAC.Committee@ee.doe.gov no later than November 7, 2006. (Please indicate if you will be making an oral statement.) Members of the public will be permitted to participate on a first come/first serve basis. Oral comments should be limited to two minutes in length. Reasonable provision will be made to include all scheduled oral statements. The Chair of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties and to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do at any time (electronic and hard copy).

Minutes: The minutes of Committee meetings will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-0426, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: NSPS for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1052.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0026.

ICR Status: This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that will expire on November 30, 2006. Under the 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 number 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, and 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: Owners or operators of steam generating units subject to Subpart D must make one-time-only notifications of construction/reconstruction, anticipated and actual startup, initial performance test, physical or operational changes, and demonstration of a continuous monitoring system. They must also submit reports on initial performance test results, monitoring system performance, and excess emissions. Records must be maintained of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and periods when the continuous monitoring system is inoperative.

The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The monitoring and excess emissions reports (which are semiannual) are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements are used for targeting inspections, and for other uses in compliance and enforcement programs.

Responses to this information collection are deemed to be mandatory, per section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 46.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of fossil-fuel-fired steam generating units.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 660.

Frequency of Response: Semiannual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 61,545 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $13,415,450, which includes $0 annualized capital start up costs, $9,900,000 Operations & Maintenance (O & M) annual costs, and $3,515,450 annual labor costs.

Changes in Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006, (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR 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 number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0427, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov , or, in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1927.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov .

Title: NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1084.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0050.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006. 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, and 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: The Administrator has judged that PM emissions from nonmetallic mineral processing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. This standard applies to owners or operators of new, modified, or reconstructed facilities at nonmetallic mineral processing plants that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 1, 1985. Nonmetallic mineral processing includes the following affected facilities: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, and enclosed truck or railcar loading station. This standard does not apply to facilities located in underground mines; stand-alone screening operations; operations that only involve recycled asphalt; fixed sand gravel, or crushed stone plants with capacities of 25 tons per hour or less; portable sand, gravel, or crushed stone plants with capacities of 150 tons per hour or less; common clay or pumice plants with capacities of 10 tons per hour or less. Additionally, when an existing facility is replaced by a piece of equipment of equal or smaller size it is not subject to the standard until all facilities in a production line are replaced. Affected facilities in the plant process that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, for Portland Cement NSPS, or subpart I, Asphalt Concrete Plants NSPS, are not subject to this NSPS.

Respondents must submit the following one-time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction, notification of the actual date of initial startup, notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate, notification of demonstration of the continuous emission monitor system (CMS) where the CMS is required (wet scrubber), notification of the date of the initial performance test, and the results of the initial performance test. Wet mining/screening operations are exempt from all requirements of the regulation, except an initial report and record describing the location of these operations. The general provision requirement to submit a notification of the anticipated date of initial startup is being waived for respondents subject to this standard. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard.

Respondents are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Owners or operators of facilities using a wet scrubber must record the measurements of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate and submit semiannual reports for occurrences when the measurements of the scrubber pressure loss (or gain) and liquid flow rate differ by more than ±30 percent from the averaged determined during the most recent performance test. All records shall be retained for at least two years. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements are necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Nonmetallic mineral processing plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,825.

Frequency of Response: Initial.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 31,026.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,772,177 which includes $0 annualized capital startup costs, $0 annualized O&M costs, and $1,772,177 annualized labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the estimates from the previous ICR.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41800), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 1 comment during the comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR 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-ORD-2006-0270, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Research and Development Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Research and Development Docket is 202-566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: Contribution of Household Activities to the Health of Urban Ecosystems.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2223.01.

ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the 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: As part of the EPA's Sustainability Initiative, this research focuses on maintaining healthy urban ecosystems for both people and other species. The goal is to better understand whether people recognize how household activities affect the surrounding environment, most notably the wildlife that is dependent on these systems, and whether people are likely to change their behaviors once they learn about household-environment linkages. The specific topic of interest is household rodenticide use, and resident awareness of how inexpert use of rodenticides may result in mortality of non-target species. The two study areas are (1) the southwestern quadrant of Bakersfield, and (2) portions of Thousand Oaks, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and Westlake Village, California. The most effective way to gather detailed information about household rodenticide use is to directly ask residents within the locations of interest. A voluntary mail survey will be used, and all respondent identities and individual responses will remain confidential to the extent allowed by law. This information will provide the EPA with a better understanding about how people relate to their personal impacts on the environment, and will lead to improved communication between members of the general public, environmental regulators, and resource managers. The end result will be more effective and appropriately targeted environmental regulation.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.33 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Frequency of Response: One time response.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,300.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $86,425, which includes $0 in capital or O&M.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR 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 number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0417, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1927.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1093.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0162.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006. 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, and 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: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines were promulgated on January 29, 1988. These standards apply to each spray booth that applies prime coats, color coats, texture coats or touch-up coats in industrial surface coating operations that apply coatings to plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.

Affected sources are required to complete initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 35 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Business machine manufacturers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Frequency of Response: Initially, quarterly, semi-annually, and monthly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 978.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32340), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one public comment during the comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR 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-OW-2005-0019, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC); see “Note” for Docket Center access, highlighted in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of EPA's Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2231.01.

ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 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: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires that the U.S. EPA review existing national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) no less often than every six years. This cyclical evaluation is referred to as the “Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations” or, simply, the “Six-Year Review.” Through the Six-Year Review process, EPA reviews and assesses risks to human health posed by regulated drinking water contaminants. For the first Six-Year Review cycle (1996-2002), EPA reviewed 68 chemical NPDWRs and the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), which were promulgated prior to the 1996 Amendments. The occurrence assessments conducted for the first Six-Year Review were based on compliance monitoring data from 1993 to 1997, which were provided by States. EPA published the results of this review in the July 18, 2003, edition of the Federal Register (68 FR 42907).

To support future Six-Year Reviews, EPA's Office of Water is requesting that States submit, on a voluntary basis, historical compliance monitoring (contaminant occurrence) data for community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). EPA is requesting contaminant occurrence data from 1998 to 2005 for all regulated chemical and radiological contaminants, as well as data from the TCR. EPA anticipates that the compliance monitoring records from this information collection (including all results for analytical detections and non-detections) will provide the data needed to conduct statistical estimates of national occurrence for each regulated contaminant. These national occurrence estimates will be used to support EPA's review of existing regulations, and the Agency's decision on whether any revisions are needed. In addition, the 1996 SDWA section 1445(g) requires the Agency to maintain a national drinking water contaminant occurrence database ( i.e. , the National Contaminant Occurrence Data (NCOD)) using occurrence data for both regulated and unregulated contaminants in public water systems (PWSs). This data collection will provide new occurrence data on regulated contaminants to maintain the NCOD.

Following the first public notice of this proposed data collection rule on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32340), EPA received one public comment. The commenter expressed concerns that EPA should (1) make every effort to minimize the effort it takes States to share these data; (2) not use the data in an enforcement context; and (3) not make future collections mandatory. EPA agrees with the commenter that the Agency should aim to minimize burden on the States and plans to do so by allowing submission of data in virtually any electronic format, and providing States that use the Safe Drinking Water Information System State Version (SDWIS/State) with extraction scripts if States agree with this method of data transfer. In addition, EPA plans not to use the data for occurrence assessments for enforcement actions. Finally, EPA plans to conduct this data collection as a voluntary effort. Any possible future changes regarding the collection of drinking water contaminant occurrence data will be handled through a separate public comment process. The commenter did not suggest that EPA make changes to the data collection format or to the cost and burden estimates.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12.2 hours per State. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State drinking water primacy agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.

Frequency of Response: One time only.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 681.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $30,608, which includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 5, 2006 (70 FR 32342), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC).

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund Program.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1803.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0185.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182) authorized the creation of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program in each State and Puerto Rico to assist public water systems in financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect public health. Section 1452 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to award capitalization grants to the States and Puerto Rico which, in turn, provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible drinking water systems. States can also reserve a portion of their grants to conduct various set-aside activities. The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan; (2) Biennial Report; (3) Annual Audit; and (4) Assistance Application Review. Information collected is needed for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System.

(1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan: The State must prepare a Capitalization Grant Application that includes an Intended Use Plan (IUP), outlining in detail how it will use all the funds covered by the capitalization grant. The State may, as an alternative, develop the IUP in a two part process with one part identifying the distribution and uses of the funds among the various set-asides in the DWSRF program and the other part dealing with project assistance from the Fund.

(2) Biennial Report: The State must agree to complete and submit a Biennial Report on the uses of the capitalization grant. The scope of the report must cover assistance provided by the DWSRF Fund and all other set-aside activities included under the Capital Grant Agreement. States, which jointly administer DWSRF and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs, in accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit reports (according to the schedule specified for each program) that cover both programs.

(3) Annual Audit: A State must comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. Best management practices suggest and EPA recommends that a State conduct an annual independent audit of its DWSRF program. The scope of the report must cover the DWSRF Fund and all other set-aside activities included in the Capitalization Grant Agreement. States which jointly administer DWSRF and CWSRF programs, in accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit audits that cover both programs but which report financial information for each program separately.

(4) Assistance Application Review: Local applicants seeking financial assistance must prepare and submit DWSRF loan applications. States then review completed loan applications and verify that proposed projects will comply with applicable Federal and State requirements.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 131 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State and local governments, businesses, and non-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1505 respondents per year.

Frequency of Response: Annual for State Grant Applications and Audit reports, Biennial for State Annual Reports, once per loan applications for loan applicants.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 196,870 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,862,452, which includes $0 capital and O&M.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,935 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase reflects EPA's calculation of burden for Biennial Reports.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31179), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR 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-OAR-2006-0407, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is 202-566-1742.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov .

Title: Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1772.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0347.

ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006. 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: ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program helping businesses and individuals protect the environment through superior energy efficiency. The Program focuses on reducing utility-generated emissions by reducing the demand for energy. In 1991, EPA launched the Green Lights program to encourage corporations, State and local governments, colleges and universities, and other organizations to adopt energy-efficient lighting as a profitable means of preventing pollution and improving lighting quality. Since then, EPA has rolled Green Lights into ENERGY STAR and expanded ENERGY STAR to encompass organization-wide energy performance improvement, such as building technology upgrades, product purchasing initiatives, and employee training. At the same time, EPA has streamlined the reporting requirements of ENERGY STAR and focused on providing incentives for improvements ( e.g. , ENERGY STAR Awards Program). EPA also makes tools and other resources available over the Web to help the public overcome the barriers to evaluating their energy performance and investing in profitable improvements.

To join ENERGY STAR, organizations are asked to complete a Partnership Letter or Agreement that establishes their commitment to energy efficiency. Partners agree to undertake efforts such as baselining, tracking, and benchmarking their organization's energy performance by using tools such as those offered by ENERGY STAR; developing and implementing a plan to improve energy performance in their facilities and operations by following the energy management strategy provided by ENERGY STAR; and educating staff and the public about their Partnership with ENERGY STAR, and highlighting achievements with the ENERGY STAR, where available.

Partners also may be asked to periodically submit information to EPA as needed to assist in program implementation. For example, EPA maintains the Service and Product Provider Directory to provide the public with easy access to energy efficiency services and products that can help companies lower operating costs and increase their bottom line. Businesses wishing to appear in this directory are asked to submit a completed profile that details their services and products.

Partnership in ENERGY STAR is voluntary and can be terminated by Partners or EPA at any time. EPA does not expect organizations to join the program unless they expect participation to be cost-effective and otherwise beneficial for them.

In addition, Partners and any other interested party can help EPA promote energy-efficient technologies by evaluating the efficiency of their buildings using EPA's on-line tools ( e.g. , Portfolio Manager) and applying for recognition.

If a claim of confidential business information (CBI) is asserted, EPA will manage that information in accordance with EPA's provisions on confidentiality.

Burden Statement: The annual public recordkeeping and reporting burden for joining the ENERGY STAR program and related activities is expected to vary depending on the type of Partner. The burden per Partner is expected to range from about 2 hours for a Commercial and Industrial Sector Partner to prepare/submit a Partnership Letter to 7 hours for an Energy Efficiency Program Sponsor to prepare/submit a Partnership Agreement and related information ( e.g. , a brief plan outlining the key activities it intends to undertake to cooperatively promote ENERGY STAR in the commercial and/or industrial markets). These burden estimates include the time for reading the instructions and requirements, gathering information, and preparing/submitting the information to EPA. The burden for benchmarking in Portfolio Manager is estimated to vary depending on the type of benchmarking method. The burden per respondent for manual benchmarking is estimated to be 30 minutes to read Portfolio Manager instructions, 5 hours to gather and enter building data for a new benchmark, and 1.5 hours to perform a repeat benchmark. The burden per respondent for the import tool is estimated to be 30 minutes for reading the Portfolio Manager instructions and 1 hour for collecting building data, downloading it into the tool, and emailing it to EPA. The burden per respondent for ENERGY STAR Exchange Services is estimated to be 20 hours for the host to set up its account and automated process, 2 hours to collect building data and set up each customer, and 15 minutes per month to submit customer information to EPA and retrieve/relay scores to customers. The burden for entering information into the ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Indicator (EPI) is estimated to range from 10 to 15 minutes per plant. This includes time for reading the EPI's instructions and entering data in order to generate a score. Finally, the burden per respondent for applying to EPA for recognition is estimated to vary depending on the type of recognition. The burden per respondent is estimated to range from 15 minutes for preparing/submitting a plant's energy efficiency score to EPA for recognition ( e.g. , for EPA permission to display a banner or plant flag) to 26.5 hours for preparing/submitting an application to EPA for an ENERGY STAR Award.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Organizations participating in ENERGY STAR in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors.

Approximate Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Frequency of Response: One-time, on occasion, monthly, annually, and/or periodically, depending on the type of respondent and collection.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 54,500.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $5,436,710, including $3,574,491 in labor costs and $1,862,219 in O&M costs. There are no capital/start-up costs to respondents.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 28,843 hours in the total estimated annual burden hours currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The majority of this decrease occurred because EPA adjusted the number of respondents and the burden for some activities based on improved and updated data and analysis. The burden estimates in ICR 1772.04 reflect EPA's program experience gained over the past three years. In addition, EPA modified some of its information collections to address EPA and stakeholder needs.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Infoterra Room, Room 3334,1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

Under Contract Number EP-W-05-052, ASRC of 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 300, Greenbelt, MD, will assist EPA in managing the Non-confidential Information Center (NCIC). ASRC will provide current and historical reports on all TSCA non-CBI submissions received in compliance with TSCA; organize, distribute and prepare records for permanent storage; and handle all docket-related records for OPPT, in accordance with the TSCA Security Manual.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under Contract Number EP-W-05-052, ASRC will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA, to perform successfully the duties specified under this contract.

ASRC personnel will be given information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that the Agency will be providing ASRC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this arrangement will take place at EPA Headquarters.

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under this arrangement may continue until October 18, 2010, unless the underlying contract performance period is extended.

ASRC personnel will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to the CBI.

Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-3(e), Public Law 93-523 of December 16, 1974 states:

On September 16, 2003, EPA received a petition from Peggy Manchester, Mayor, Village of Lacona, New York which petitioned EPA to designate the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer as a sole source aquifer. On July 9, 2006, EPA published a notice in the Watertown Daily News, which served to announce a public comment period and opportunity for a public hearing. The public was permitted to submit comments and information on the petition until August 9, 2006. There was not any request for a public hearing. Public comments received by EPA were considered to be in support of the designation.

Among the factors to be considered by the Regional Administrator in connection with the designation of an area under Section 1424(e) are: (1) Whether the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer is the area's sole or principal source of drinking water and (2) whether contamination of the aquifer would create a significant hazard to public health. On the basis of technical information available to EPA, the Regional Administrator has made the following findings, which are the basis for the determination in favor of designating the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer as a Sole Source Aquifer:

1. The Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer currently serves as the “sole source” of drinking water for approximately 4,970 persons in the defined service area, which includes the Hamlet of Adams Center, Hamlet of Pierrepont Manor, Village of Adams, Village of Lacona, Village of Mannsville, and Village of Sandy Creek.

2. There is no existing alternative drinking water source or combination of sources which provides fifty percent or more of the drinking water to the designated area, nor is there any available cost effective future source capable of supplying the drinking water demands for the population served by the aquifer service area.

3. The Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer, which consists of a crescent shaped glacial outwash and stratified drift deposits of sand and gravel along the west and southwest flanks of the Tug Hill Plateau. As a result of its highly permeable soil characteristics, the aquifer is susceptible to contamination through its recharge zone as the top of the aquifer is at land surface. The primary land use activity in the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer area is agriculture, with agricultural land being fertilized, either with commercial fertilizer or manure, and in some areas excess nitrogen from the fertilizer is carried to the aquifer. Other sources of nitrogen contamination are septic systems and barnyard runoff. Since ground water contamination can be difficult or sometimes impossible to reverse and since the communities noted above rely on the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer for drinking water purposes, contamination of the aquifer would pose a significant public health hazard.

The Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer is delineated by the crescent shaped glacial outwash and stratified drift deposits of sand and gravel along the west and southwest flanks of the Tug Hill Plateau, which covers approximately 21 miles from the Town of Adams in Jefferson County south into the Town in Richland in Oswego County, New York. The area in which Federal financially assisted projects will be subject to review is the portion of the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer in Jefferson, Lewis and Oswego Counties area, the recharge zone and the streamflow source zone.

For purposes of this designation, the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer is considered to include portions of eight towns in Jefferson County (Adams, Champion, Ellisburg, Lorraine, Rodman, Rutland, Watertown, and Worth), portions of towns in Lewis County (Denmark, Montague, and Pinckney), and portions of four towns in Oswego County (Boylston, Redfield, Richland, and Sandy Creek). The recharge zone is considered to be very permeable portions of the aquifer within Jefferson, and Oswego Counties. The streamflow source zone is that portion of the drainage basin composing the upstream headwaters area or watershed area for the losing streams that cross the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer for Jefferson, Lewis and Oswego Counties area.

The information utilized in this determination included the petition, various U.S. Geological Survey reports, information contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency files, and written and verbal comments from public. These materials are available to the public and may be inspected during normal business house at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Freshwater Protection Section, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007.

Publication of this determination requires that EPA review proposed projects with Federal financial assistance in order to ensure that such projects do not have the potential to contaminate the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer through its aquifer and streamflow source areas as to create a significant hazard to public health. In many cases, those projects may also be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). All EISs, as well as any other proposed Federal actions affecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program, are required by Federal law (under the “NEPA/309” process) to be reviewed and commented upon by the EPA Administrator.

In order to streamline the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviews of the possible environmental impacts on designated sole source aquifers, when an action is to be analyzed in an EIS, the two reviews will be consolidated and both authorities cited. The EPA review under Section 1424(e) will be therefore included in the EPA review of the EIS (under NEPA).

Today's action affects the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer system located in Jefferson, Lewis and Oswego Counties, New York. Projects with Federal financial assistance proposed for portions within the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer will be reviewed to ensure that their activities will not endanger public health through contamination of the aquifer. A public notice was published in the Watertown Daily News on Sunday, July 9, 2006, one comment was received which is considered in support of the designation of the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer.

Section 921 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299c) established the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to actions of the Agency to enhance the quality, improve the outcomes, reduce the costs of health care services, improve access to such services through scientific research, and to promote improvements in clinical practice and in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services.

The Council is composed of members of the public appointed by the Secretary and Federal ex-officio members.

On Thursday, November 2, the Council meeting will begin at 4 p.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council minutes. The Director, AHRQ, will present her update on AHRQ's current research, programs, and initiatives. Following the update, the Council will discuss the topic Visioning the Future . The discussion of Visioning the Future will continue Friday morning, November 3. The official agenda will be available on AHRQ's Web site at http://www.ahrq.gov no later than November 1, 2006.

Section 4008(k) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 101-508) required the Secretary to develop a proposal either to modify the then-current system under which SNFs received payment for extended care services under Part A of the Medicare program or to replace such a system with a system under which such payment would be made on the basis of a prospectively determined rate. In developing a proposal for the new system, the Secretary was required to “provide for adjustments to prospectively determined rates to account for changes in a facility's case mix, volume of cases, and the development of new technologies and standards for medical practice.” Section 4432 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) mandated a PPS for all SNFs for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 1998.

Resident drug data may enable CMS to recalibrate the weights associated with the provision of non-therapy ancillary services to residents in SNFs and swing bed hospitals subject to the SNF PPS. In order to adjust the rates to account for changes in a facility's case mix, volume of cases and development of new technologies and standards of medical practice, CMS must recalibrate the weights associated with the amount of time that nursing home staff spend caring for residents, as well as other elements of resident care. To do this, CMS has contracted with the Iowa Foundation for Medicare Care to conduct a study of staff time commonly referred to as STRIVE. This is the first national nursing home time study undertaken in the U.S. since 1997. As part of this process, CMS believes that collecting data on medication utilization in nursing homes is critical to analyzing the impact of the provision of non-therapy ancillary services to residents in SNFs and swing bed hospitals subject to the PPS.

The statutory authority for this system is given under Section 1888(e)(G) of the Social Security Act.

This system will collect and maintain individually identifiable and other data collected by CMS and its contractors on Medicare participants and providers of service who are participating in STRIVE, in order to analyze relevant data to create adjustments based upon a resident classification system established by the Secretary that accounts for the relative resource utilization of different patient types. The collected information will include, but is not limited to: Facility name, Federal provider identification number, facility national provider identifier, beneficiary name, social security number, health insurance claim number, gender, date of birth, NDC Code, drug name, drug strength, dosage form (drops (gtts), gram (gm), etc. ), quantity dispensed or returned, date drug dispensed or returned, dose and frequency, routine or PRN, compound code, and cost data if available.

A. The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The Government will only release STRIVE information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of STRIVE.

CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected; e.g. , to collect and maintain individually identifiable information on selected beneficiaries' medication utilization while in a nursing home, skilled nursing facility, or swing bed hospital.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy, at the earliest time, all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

5. To agency contractors, consultants or grantees, who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this collection and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS function relating to purposes for this system.

CMS believes that the disclosure of medication utilization data may enable CMS to better account for the relative resource utilization of different patient types for the purpose of updating SNF PPS.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor, consultant or grantee to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” ( See 45 CFR 164.512(a) (1)).

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that an individual could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in this system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of information relating to individuals.

The ODR will work in conjunction with the Integrated Data Repository system of records to support the One Program Integrity (PI) Group. While the IDR will initially focus on fee-for-service and some prescription drug data, the ODR will initially focus on supplementary data to support the new Medicare Prescription Drug program along with Medicaid data to support the Medi-Medi contractors. CMS has contracted with Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDICs). The MEDICs are required to perform a myriad of functions including: fraud, waste, and abuse detection; coordination with law enforcement; data analysis to identify fraud, waste, and abuse; fraud, waste, and abuse audits; other audits as required; anti-fraud Part D education and outreach; and the development of a Part D error rate. Due to the complexity of Part D data, to perform the above-mentioned functions, it is imperative that MEDICs have access to a wide variety of CMS data, including Parts A, B, C, D and Medicaid data.

The Office of Financial Management, Program Integrity Group serves as the point of contact for program integrity issues related to Medicare benefits. Major Program Integrity Group program initiatives include the Program Safeguard Contractor Program, Medical Review, Provider and Supplier Enrollment, MMA Integrity, and cross cutting issues between Medicare and Medicaid including the ‘Medi-Medi' program. As part of its program integrity work, the Program Integrity Group works closely with law enforcement ( e.g. , Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General). For example, the Program Integrity Group, and its contractors, refer potential fraud cases and fulfill law enforcement's requests for data. All of these functions can be better served through a comprehensive set of common data structures and modern tools that encourage collaboration and innovation.

Authority for maintenance of this system is given under section 1893 of the Social Security Act.

This system will maintain information on Medicare beneficiaries Parts A, B, C, and D and physicians, providers, employer plans, Medicaid recipients and Medicare secondary payers.

Information maintained in the system include, but are not limited to: standard data for identification such as health insurance claim number, social security number, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, geographic location, Medicare enrollment, entitlement, and utilization information, Medicaid enrollment, entitlement, and utilization information, MSP data necessary for appropriate Medicare claim payment, hospice election, MA plan elections and enrollment, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) entitlement, historic and current listing of residences, and Medicare eligibility and Managed Care institutional status.

A. The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release ODR information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use.

We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of ODR. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. In general, disclosure of information from the system will be approved only for the minimum information necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g. , to establish an enterprise resource that will provide a single source of information for all CMS fraud, waste, and abuse activities.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all individually-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To agency contractors, consultants or grantees who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS function relating to purposes for this system. CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractors, consultants or grantees to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor, consultant or grantee to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' proper payment of Medicare and Medicaid benefits,

b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, and/or

c. Assist Federal/state Medicaid programs within the State.

Other Federal or State agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require ODR information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare and Medicaid claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided. In addition, other state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require ODR information for the purpose of determining, evaluating and/or assessing cost effectiveness, and/or the quality of health care services provided in the State.

Disclosure under this routine use shall be used by state Medicaid agencies pursuant to agreements with HHS for determining Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under Titles IV, XVIII, and XIX of the Act, and for the administration of the Medicaid program. Data will be released to the state only on those individuals who are patients under the services of a Medicaid program within the state who are residents of that State.

3. To Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act, and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.

As established by the Part D Program, QIOs will conduct reviews of prescription drug events data, or in connection with studies or other review activities conducted pursuant to Part D of Title XVIII of the Act.

QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, MA-PD, PDPs, and state agencies, to assist CMS in prescription drug event assessments, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to State agencies. QIOs will assist State agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

4. To insurance companies, underwriters, third party administrators (TPA), employers, self-insurers, group health plans, health maintenance organizations (HMO), health and welfare benefit funds, managed care organizations, other supplemental insurers, non-coordinating insurers, multiple employer trusts, other groups providing protection against medical expenses of their enrollees without the beneficiary's authorization, and any entity having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting: (a) An individual's right to any such benefit or payment, or (b) the initial right to any such benefit or payment, for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and implementation of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y (b). Information to be disclosed shall be limited to Medicare utilization data necessary to perform that specific function. In order to receive the information, they must agree to:

a. Certify that the individual about whom the information is being provided is one of its insured or employees, or is insured and/or employed by another entity for whom they serve as a TPA;

b. Utilize the information solely for the purpose of processing the individual's insurance claims; and

c. Safeguard the confidentiality of the data and prevent unauthorized access.

Other insurers, HMO, and Health Care Prepayment Plans may require ODR information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided.

CMS, using its coordination of benefits contractor, allows this to happen by having payers that will be secondary to part D submit their enrollment data in exchange for enrollment data. The data shared is mainly enrollment information (date of enrollment).

5. To an individual or organization for a research project or in support of an evaluation project related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects.

The ODR data will provide for research or in support of evaluation projects, a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the status of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use this data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and the policy that governs the care.

6. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The agency or any component thereof, or

b. any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, and occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

7. To a CMS contractor (including, but not necessarily limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual relationship or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions and makes grants when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

8. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require ODR information for the purpose of combating fraud, waste, and abuse in such Federally-funded programs.

To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00). Disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” ( See 45 CFR 164-512(a)(1)).

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations may apply but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of information relating to individuals.

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

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

Section 512(d)(1)(E) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(1)(E)) requires FDA to issue an order refusing to approve a New Animal Drug Application (NADA), if there is a lack of substantial evidence that a new animal drug will have the effect it is purported or represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed in the proposed labeling. Therefore, substantial evidence must be submitted to us as part of the NADA to establish effectiveness of a drug. Section 514.4(a) specifies requirements for submitting adequate and well-controlled studies to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness for a new animal drug. This information collection requirement provides for submissions of substantial evidence of effectiveness information via electronic submissions to the Center for Veterinary Medicine.

We are continuously seeking ways through advances in information technology to reduce the burden on the government and sponsors. We are continuing to look at what information can be submitted electronically and will permit electronic submission of data to NADA files as technology and resources permit.

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

The estimate for the annual reporting burden for this collection of information was derived from discussion with industry and agency records.

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

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

Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262), manufacturers of biological products must submit a license application for FDA review and approval before marketing a biological product in interstate commerce. Licenses may be issued only upon showing that the establishment and the products for which a license is desired meets standards prescribed in regulations designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products. All such licenses are issued, suspended, and revoked as prescribed by regulations in part 601 (21 CFR part 601).

Section 130(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (Public Law 105-115) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) by adding a new provision (section 506B of the act (21 U.S.C. 356b)) requiring reports of postmarketing studies for approved human drugs and licensed biological products. Section 506B of the act provides FDA with additional authority to monitor the progress of postmarketing studies that applicants have made a commitment to conduct and requires the agency to make publicly available information that pertains to the status of these studies.

Under section 506B(a) of the act, applicants that have committed to conducting a postmarketing study for an approved human drug or licensed biological product must submit to FDA a status report of the progress of the study or the reasons for the failure of the applicant to conduct the study. This report must be submitted within 1 year after the U.S. approval of the application and then annually until the study is completed or terminated.

Section 601.2(a) requires a manufacturer of a biological product to submit an application with accompanying information, including labeling information, to FDA for approval to market a product in interstate commerce. The container and package labeling requirements are provided under §§ 610.60, 610.61, and 610.62. The estimate for these regulations is included in the estimate under § 601.2(a) in table 1 of this document.Section 601.5(a) requires a licensee to submit to FDA notice of its intention to discontinue manufacture of a product or all products. Section 601.6(a) requires the licensee to notify selling agents and distributors upon suspension of its license, and provide FDA of such notification.

Section 601.12(a)(2) requires, generally, that the holder of an approved BLA must assess the effects of a manufacturing change before distributing a biological product made with the change. Section 601.12(a)(4) requires, generally, that the applicant must promptly review all promotional labeling and advertising to make it consistent with any labeling changes implemented. Section 601.12(a)(5) requires the applicant to include a list of all changes contained in the supplement or annual report; for supplements, this list must be provided in the cover letter. The burden estimates for § 601.12(a)(2) are included in the estimates for supplements (§ 601.12(b) and (c)) and annual reports (§ 601.12(d)). The burden estimates for § 601.12(a)(4) are included in the estimates under 601.12(f)(4) (Form FDA 2567) in table 1 of this document or OMB control number 0910-0001 (expires May 31, 2008) since the required information can also be submitted with Form FDA 2253.

Section 601.12(b)(1) and (b)(3), (c)(1) and (c)(3), (c)(5), and (d)(1) and (d)(3) require applicants to follow specific procedures to inform FDA of each change, in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, facilities, responsible personnel or labeling established in an approved license application. The appropriate procedure depends on the potential for the change to have a substantial, moderate, or minimal adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the products as they may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product. Under § 601.12(b)(4), an applicant may ask FDA to expedite its review of a supplement for public health reasons or if a delay in making the change described in it would impose an extraordinary hardship of the applicant. The burden estimate for § 601.12(b)(4) is minimal and included in the estimate under § 601.12(b)(1) and (b)(3) in table 1 of this document.

Section 601.12(e) requires applicants to submit a protocol, or change to a protocol, as a supplement requiring FDA approval before distributing the product. Section 601.12(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) requires applicants to follow specific procedures to report labeling changes to FDA. Section 601.12(f)(4) requires applicants to report to FDA advertising and promotional labeling and any changes.

The FALCPA (Public Law 108-282) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and requires that the label of a food product that is, or that contains, an ingredient that bears or contains a “major food allergen” declare the presence of the allergen as specified by FALCPA. FALCPA defines a “major food allergen” as one of eight foods or food groups or a food ingredient that contains protein derived from one of those foods or food groups. A food ingredient may be exempt from FALCPA's labeling requirements if it does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health or if it does not contain allergenic protein. FALPCA's labeling requirements apply to products labeled on or after January 1, 2006.

FDA has received numerous questions about the application of FALCPA's requirements to food products. To explain FALCPA's requirements as well as FDA's current thinking on several issues relating to the regulation of food allergens, on October 5, 2005, FDA posted on the agency's Web site the first edition of a guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Food Allergens, including the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004” ( http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrguid.html ). This guidance was subsequently updated in December 2005 (Edition 2) and April 2006 (Edition 3). The guidance that is the subject of this document “Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Food Allergens, including the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (Edition 4),” responds to additional questions about FALCPA and food allergens. The revised guidance is intended to share FDA's current thinking on the additional questions presented in the guidance.

Given the nature of the revisions to the guidance, FDA is issuing the guidance as a level 1 guidance. Consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)), the agency will accept comments, but it is implementing the guidance document immediately, in accordance with § 10.115(g)(2), because the agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate. As noted, FALPCA's labeling requirements apply to products labeled on or after January 1, 2006. Clarifying FDA's current thinking on the additional issues presented by FALCPA's implementation will help facilitate the food industry's compliance with FALCPA's requirements.

FDA expects to continue to receive questions regarding the implementation of FALCPA and the regulation of food allergens generally. The agency intends to respond to these inquires under § 10.115 as promptly as possible, using a question-and-answer format. The agency believes that, at the present time, it is reasonable to maintain all responses to questions concerning food allergens and FALCPA in a single document that is periodically updated as the agency receives and responds to additional questions. The following four indicators will be employed to help users of the guidance identify revisions: (1) The guidance will be identified as a revision of a previously issued document, (2) the revision date of the guidance will appear on its cover, (3) the edition number of the guidance will be included in its title, and (4) questions and answers that have been added to the original guidance will be identified as such in the body of the guidance.

This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on issues related to FALCPA and food allergens generally that are presented in the guidance. The guidance does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this guidance at any time. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments and the guidance may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance document at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has traditionally relied on computerized cargo screening processes to aid the CBP inspection workforce in the cargo release process. Separately, CBP has used the advance submission of traveler information to aid in screening travelers to facilitate its border enforcement mission. The Automated Targeting System (ATS) associates information obtained from CBP's cargo, travelers, and border enforcement systems with a level of risk posed by each item and person as determined through the rule based query of the cargo or personal information accessed by ATS.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and legal permanent residents. ATS involves the collection and creation of information that is maintained in a system of records.

Previously, this information was covered by the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) system of records notice, as ATS is a functional module associated with the environment of TECS. ATS is employed as an analytical tool to enhance CBP screening and targeting capabilities by permitting query-based comparisons of different data modules associated with the TECS system, as well as comparisons with data sets from sources outside of TECS. As part of DHS's updating of its system of records notices and in an effort to provide more detailed information to the traveling public and trade community, CBP has determined that ATS should be noticed as a separate system of records, giving greater visibility into its targeting and screening efforts.

The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description denoting the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist the individual to more easily find such files within the agency.

DHS is hereby publishing a description of the system of records referred to as the Automated Targeting System. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report concerning this record system has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congress.

All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-2005-22732) and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments received during the comment period.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time, click on “Simple Search,” enter the last five digits of the docket number for this rulemaking, and click on “Search.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc. ). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

On April 26, 2006, the Coast Guard published a notice (71 FR 24732) that announced voluntary interim measures for certain domestic vessels to account for increased passenger and vessel weight when determining the number of passengers permitted. The notice included a discussion on the typical restriction to “reasonable operating conditions” placed on the Certificate of Inspection (COI) of vessels that are designed only for operation on protected waters. Under the recommended voluntary measures for prudent operation for all small passenger vessels, the notice advised that reasonable operating conditions do not include conditions associated with a small craft advisory as well as other specific wind and wave conditions.

According to the National Weather Service (NWS), a small craft advisory is issued to alert small craft—generally vessels less than 65 feet in length—to sustained (more than 2 hours) hazardous weather or sea conditions that may be either present or forecasted. Upon learning of such an advisory, the NWS urges mariners to immediately determine the reason and to monitor the latest marine broadcast. See http://www.weather.gov/glossary .

The April notice also discussed increased passenger weight and identified the means by which the Coast Guard typically evaluates a small passenger vessel's stability.

This notice updates the voluntary measures for prudent operation published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2006, by clarifying guidance in the previous notice on reasonable operating conditions and the vessels to which that guidance applies.

The Coast Guard received numerous comments from the public in response to the April 26, 2006, notice.

The recommendation given in the April 26, 2006, notice to owners and operators of all small passenger vessels certificated only for operation on protected waters is amended as follows to further clarify “reasonable operating conditions”:

(1) For passenger pontoon vessels, voluntarily operate in “reasonable operating conditions,” which do not include:

• Wind gusts over 30 knots (35 miles per hour);

• Waves over two feet;

• Sustained winds over 18 knots (21 miles per hour); or

• Conditions associated with a small craft advisory.

(2) For other small passenger, non-sailing vessels certificated to operate only on protected waters and that are less than 65 feet, give special consideration to the “reasonable operating conditions” as set forth in item (1) above while complying with the requirements of 46 CFR 185.304 or 122.304.

The Coast Guard expects that small passenger vessel owners and operators are aware of and follow the guidelines presented in the April 26, 2006 notice as supplemented by this notice. The Coast Guard is in the process of more formally addressing stability issues caused by increases in passenger and vessel weight for all domestic vessels.

In accordance with 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 valid OMB control number. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

TSA is seeking to renew its OMB control number, 1652-0003, Aircraft Operator Security. TSA has implemented aircraft operator security standards at 49 CFR part 1544, which requires each aircraft operator to adopt and implement a security program. As part of these security programs, aircraft operators are required to maintain and update, as necessary, records of compliance with the security program provisions outlined in part 1544. This regulation also requires aircraft operators to make their security programs and associated records available for inspection by TSA to ensure security, safety, and regulatory compliance. Under this regulation, aircraft operators must ensure flightcrew members and employees with unescorted access authority or who perform screening functions submit to a criminal history records check (CHRC); to conduct the CHRC, these individuals must provide identifying information, including fingerprints. The collection requirements associated with aircraft operator security programs remain critical in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The current estimated annual reporting burden for an estimated 80 respondent air carriers is 41,600 hours.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Application and Re-certification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations for FHA Activities.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0540.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information collection is essential to the Department's mission to expand homeownership opportunities and strengthen neighborhoods and communities by standardizing the process throughout the country. The information that nonprofit organizations must submit to be eligible to participate as a mortgagor in HUD's single-family housing programs is in the form of an application, re-certification, or other reporting criteria. Nonprofit organizations are viewed as significant partners in rehabilitating and reselling residential housing to low- and moderate-income families, particularly in the nation's urban centers. Each nonprofit organization seeking to become approved as a mortgagor must submit a completed Application Package for Nonprofit Agency Approval and an Affordable Housing Plan—Format for Narrative to the appropriate HUD Homeownership Center (HOC). The Affordable Housing Plan—Format for Narrative details the nonprofit organization's plan to develop successful homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons. Nonprofit agencies applying for approval to provide secondary financing only do not need to include an Affordable Housing Plan in their submission.

Approvals granted to nonprofit applicants are for a period of two years. An approval letter will be issued setting forth the activities for which the nonprofit was approved to perform, and any conditions associated with the approval. Approvals granted by one HOC would be recognized and accepted by all others, with the exception of the affordable housing plan. The affordable housing plan must be approved by each HOC having jurisdiction over the areas in which the nonprofit agency wishes to do business. Nonprofit agencies must be re-certified by FHA every two years. Re-certification includes an updating of the nonprofit's activites. FHA has also placed a limitation on the number of 203(k) FHA insured mortgages a nonprofit may have at one time in order to ensure that nonprofit agencies do not overextend their financial and management capabilities. Generally, a nonprofit agency will be prohibited from borrowing under the 203(k) program if the agency has 10 or more incomplete 203(k) developments at one time. This limitation may be waived based upon an exceptional performance record.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents are estimated to be 583 generating approximately 583 annual responses; the frequency of response is annually, biennially, and on occasion, the estimated time needed to prepare the responses varies from 3 hours to 24 hours; and the total estimated annual burden hours are 6,156.

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

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD-Owned Real Estate—Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-NEW.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This collection was formerly part of a collection titled Single Family Housing Property Disposition and Acquisition (Conveyance) of Mortgaged Properties. HUD published a Federal Register notice soliciting public comments on April 17, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 73, pages 19746-19746). No comments were received. Since that publication, however, the information collection request for the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program has been disaggregated. This revision now presents only documents related to the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-9548-A, HUD-9549, HUD 9549-A, HUD 9549-B, HUD 9549-C, HUD 9549-D, 9549-E.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 1,249 hours; the number of respondents is approximately 13,136, generating approximately 20,282 annual responses; the frequency of response is “on occasion”; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 2 minutes to 30 minutes per response.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is a request for a new collection to disaggregate only those information collection requirements of the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD-Owned Real Estate—Dollar Home Sales Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-NEW.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This collection was formerly part of a collection titled Single Family Housing Property Disposition and Acquisition (Conveyance) of Mortgaged Properties. HUD published a Federal Register notice soliciting public comments on April 17, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 73, pages 19746-19746). No comments were received. Since that publication, however, the information collection request for the Dollar Home Sales Program has been disaggregated. This revision now presents only documents related to the Dollar Home Sales Program. Among the information collections are a local government's notification to HUD of disposition strategies and public purpose goals; affirmation that all profits from re-sales of these Dollar Homes will go to support local housing/community development initiatives; identification of specific programs or uses any profits will support; identification of an agency of government to act as the local government's agent to purchase Dollar Homes; recordkeeping; and an annual report to HUD.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 688 hours; the number of respondents is approximately 110, generating approximately 825 annual responses; the frequency of response is “on occasion” and annually; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 30 minutes to one hour per response.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is a request for a new collection to disaggregate only those information collection requirements of the Dollar Home Sales Program.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD-Owned Real Estate—Sales Contract and Addendums.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0306.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This collection was formerly titled Single Family Housing Property Disposition and Acquisition (Conveyance) of Mortgaged Properties. HUD published a Federal Register notice soliciting public comments on April 17, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 73, pages 19746-19746). No comments were received. Since that publication, however, the information collection request has been disaggregated into three smaller requests: one for the Good Neighbor Next Door Program, one for the Dollar Home Sales Program, and this request. This revision now presents only documents related to the Sales Contract and related addendums. Among the changes are a revised Form HUD-9548, Sales Contract, which brings the form into conformity with current property disposition program practices, a revised HUD 9548-B, Discount Sales Addendum, used for Sales to Nonprofit Organization and Governmental Entities (formerly the Land Use Restriction Addendum), and other addendums relating to lead-based paint. The Sales Contract and related addendums are used as binding contracts between purchasers and HUD and are necessary for the proper disposition of HUD-owned properties.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-9516-A, HUD-9519, HUD-9519-A, HUD-9544, HUD-9548, HUD-9548-B, HUD-9548-C, HUD-9548-D, HUD-9548-E, HUD-9548-F, HUD-9548-G, HUD-9549-H, HUD-9545-Y, and HUD-9545-Z.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 68,950 hours; the number of respondents is approximately 13,137, generating approximately 165,775 annual responses; the frequency of response is “on occasion”; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 6 minutes to 30 minutes per response.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is a revision of currently approved collection. The revision is necessary to disaggregate information collection related to the Good Neighbor Next Door Program and the Dollar Home Sales Program.

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 Proposal: Request for Occupied Conveyance.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0268.

Form Numbers: HUD-9539.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Prior to acquisition, the mortgagee/loan servicer must provide a notice of acquisition and form HUD-9539 to any occupant of the property. The occupants may submit the form, which provides information on occupation, income, and obligations to HUD requesting to remain in the property. HUD uses the information to determine whether the occupant qualifies, to maintain rental accounts, and to facilitate collection of overdue rents. HUD may provide pertinent information to a local real estate broker who manages the property. Occupants who are accepted must execute a month-to-month lease.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.

The San Diego Bay NWR, which consists of the Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units, is located approximately 10 miles north of the United States Mexico border in southwestern San Diego County, California. Collectively, the two Refuge Units encompass approximately 2,620 acres of land and water in and around the south end of San Diego Bay. The coastal wetlands protected within this Refuge annually provide essential foraging and resting habitat for tens of thousands of migratory shorebirds and wintering waterfowl traveling along the Pacific Flyway. The South San Diego Bay Unit also provides nesting habitat for a variety of colonial nesting seabirds.

The Sweetwater Marsh Unit was established as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1988. Encompassing approximately 316 acres, this Refuge was established to protect federally listed endangered and threatened species. The South San Diego Bay Unit was established in 1999 as a unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge for the purpose of protecting, managing, and restoring habitats for federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds. The Service currently manages approximately 2,300 acres of the 3,940 acres included within the Unit's approved acquisition boundary. The majority of this management area is leased to the Service by the California State Lands Commission.

The Final CCP will provide guidance for how the refuge, its resources, and compatible public uses should be managed over the next 15 years. Three alternatives for the Sweetwater Marsh Unit and four alternatives for the South San Diego Bay Unit, along with the consequences of implementing each alternative, were described in detail in the Draft and Final CCP/EIS. The Draft CCP/EIS was distributed for public review and comment on July 22, 2005 and comments were accepted through September 19, 2005. The Service received 38 written comment letters and four individuals presented verbal comments at a public meeting held on August 30, 2005. All substantive issues raised in these comments were addressed through changes incorporated into the Final CCP/EIS and/or through responses to the comments, which are included in Appendix P, Responses to Comments, of the Final CCP/EIS.

The ROD for the San Diego Bay NWR Final CCP/EIS has been prepared by the Service in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. It documents the decision of the Service, based on the information contained in the San Diego Bay NWR Final CCP/EIS and the entire Administrative Record. The Service adopted and plans to implement Alternative C (Implement Habitat Enhancement and Restoration and Improve Existing Public Uses) for the Sweetwater Marsh Unit and Alternative D (Expand Habitat Management, Enhance Nesting Opportunities, Maximize Habitat Restoration, and Provide Additional Public Use Opportunities) for the South San Diego Bay Unit. These alternatives have been identified by the Service as the alternatives that would best achieve refuge purposes and contribute toward the mission of the NWRS, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife science, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies.

The selected alternatives recognize the need to provide high quality habitat for the Refuge's federally listed species, while also maintaining, and in some cases enhancing, the habitats needed to support the overall biological diversity of the Refuge. The selected alternatives also include expanded opportunities for compatible public use including wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation; provisions to protect cultural resources; recommendations for addressing existing contaminant issues; and proposals for establishing partnerships to address issues such as water quality, the accumulation of discarded fishing line around the bay, and stewardship of Refuge resources.

Alternative C for the Sweetwater Marsh Unit would improve habitat quality and restore intertidal and upland habitats to support six federally listed species, along with the Refuge's other plant and animal resources. The existing trail system on Gunpowder Point would be redesigned and new interpretive elements would be provided to better complement the existing environmental education programs supported by the Refuge.

Alternative D for the South San Diego Bay Unit would enhance nesting opportunities in and around the salt ponds for the California least tern, western snowy plover, and various other colonial seabirds; restore to native coastal habitats the former agricultural lands in the Otay River floodplain; restore 650 acres of commercial solar salt ponds to tidal influence to support intertidal mudflat and coastal salt marsh habitats; and manage the water and salinity levels in an additional 275 acres of salt ponds. Opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and environmental interpretation would be expanded; a pedestrian pathway would be constructed along the southern end of the Refuge to improve wildlife observation opportunities for Refuge visitors; and the other public uses (i.e., fishing, environmental education, and boating) currently provided on the Refuge would be maintained.

The Service considered the environmental and relevant concerns presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals and believes that implementing Alternative C for the Sweetwater Marsh Unit and Alternative D for the South San Diego Bay Unit is the best way to achieve the vision and goals for the Refuge. The selected alternatives are also the most consistent with the purposes of the Refuge, the mission of the NWRS, the recovery actions proposed for those federally listed species that are supported by the Refuge, and the bird conservation recommendations relevant to this part of the Pacific Flyway. These alternatives recognize the need to restore habitat essential to the recovery of listed species, while also protecting those habitats and conditions that currently support a diverse and abundant array of migratory birds. The selected alternatives also balance the need to protect habitat with the need to provide the public with the opportunity to experience and enjoy the resources being protected.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce our decision and the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge in accordance with NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic considerations, which we included in the Final EIS/CCP. We released the Final EIS/CCP to the public and a published a notice of availability in the Federal Register (71 FR 39125, July 11, 2006). The ROD documents the selection of Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS/CCP, with one modification. The ROD was signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, on August 24, 2006.

The CCP for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Refuge) will guide the management and administration of the Refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative E, as described in the Final EIS, is the foundation for the CCP, with one modification. The modification designates 215 acres west of the Rieck's Lake area of Pool 4, in the area between Highway 35 and the railroad tracks, as a No Hunting Zone to avoid impacts to persons using the Buffalo River Access, access to the main river, and anglers desiring to fish in the area.

Four alternatives and their consequences were developed for the Draft EIS and CCP. A fifth alternative, Alternative E, was developed based on extensive public input and comment, and was released as a Supplement to the Draft EIS (71 FR 2561, January 17, 2006).

Alternative A—No Action or Current Direction. Continue current level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Public use programs would remain virtually unchanged.

Alternative B—Wildlife Focus. Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Some public use opportunities and programs would remain the same, others reduced in favor of wildlife and habitat protection.

Alternative C—Public Use Focus. Increase level of effort on public use opportunities and programs. Continue current level of effort on many fish and wildlife and habitat management activities, and decrease effort on others in favor of public use.

Alternative D—Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus. Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Take a more proactive approach to public use management to ensure a diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum of users, both for wildlife-dependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative E—Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative). Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Take a proactive but balanced approach to public use management to ensure a diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum of users, both for wildlife-dependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.

Elements common to all alternatives included interagency coordination, agency access to restricted areas, NEPA compliance for projects (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. and 40 CFR 1500-1508), protection of threatened and endangered species and cultural resources, fire management, a continuation of general water-based recreation, mosquito management in the event of a health emergency, fish and wildlife disease control, and the fostering of volunteers and friends groups.

The Service's Basis for Decision: Based on a review of the environmental consequences of each alternative, we judged Alternative E to be the environmentally preferable alternative. Although all alternatives have positive physical and biological environmental consequences, Alternatives D and E also address a variety of social, economic, and cultural issues. Alternative E is the most positive in terms of addressing human environmental issues, because it reflects input received during scores of public meetings and workshops, and through several thousand written comments. The Final EIS identified three broad needs: (1) Contribute to the Refuge System mission; (2) fulfill the purposes of the Refuge; and (3) achieve Refuge goals for landscape conservation, environmental health, wildlife and habitat health, and recreation. Alternative E meets these needs through the most balanced and integrated approach. Alternative E reflects substantive changes to earlier preferred alternatives. These changes were in response to agency review and comment, 30 public meetings and workshops on the draft documents, and more than 3,000 written comments. Alternative E in the Final EIS is the alternative most responsive to agency and public comment and suggestion. It identifies objectives and strategies for completing land acquisition, habitat improvements, water quality improvements, invasive species control, fish and wildlife monitoring, and forest management, and providing targeted resting and feeding areas for waterfowl and other wildlife. These measures will help ensure the biological health of the Refuge beyond the 15-year scope of the CCP. Alternative E also strikes a balance between the needs of fish and wildlife and needs of people for recreation through reasonable restrictions on a portion of the Refuge. This approach may prove more sustainable, both in terms of resource values and economic values, than the status quo, and help sustain the greatest diversity of opportunity for the greatest number of people. Alternative E reflects a large body of scientific and management knowledge and experience on the river environment and the needs of the system to improve and thrive. It reflects numerous studies and reports from the U.S. Geological Survey, States, interagency teams, and Refuge-specific monitoring and studies. Changes in public use programs reflect numerous studies on wildlife and human interaction and disturbance, and the latest thinking in recreation management. The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) requires that all uses on a national wildlife refuge must be compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. Alternative E, with its various stipulations for certain uses, ensures that these uses remain compatible. All current recreational uses ( e.g. , hunting, fishing, observation and photography, and interpretation and environmental education) and wildlife-dependent economic uses ( e.g. , commercial fishing, guiding, fishing tournaments, and trapping) will continue, and opportunities will remain abundant in terms of the amount of land and water available and seasons of use. Adjustments in time, space, and period of use will help ensure the highest quality experience for the greatest number of users, and ensure each use remains compatible. Recreation is the main economic driver on the Refuge, and Alternative E will continue to have a positive economic impact since all current public use opportunities will continue, and are expected to grow, even though means, timing, and location of recreation will change in some areas to protect wildlife, habitat, and the recreation experience. In the long -term, providing for a greater diversity of recreational opportunities should strengthen local and regional economies. Alternative E identifies staffing needs tied to objectives and strategies to increase the capacity of the Refuge to meet its purpose and the Refuge System mission. Alternative E also addresses infrastructure needs for effective and efficient administration and management of the Refuge while serving the needs of the visiting public. Although differences of opinion will remain, Alternative E is the strongest alternative in terms of fostering cooperative conservation. Virtually every objective and associated strategy in Alternative E stresses a cooperative approach with the States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the public.

Public Comments on Final EIS: During the 30-day waiting period, we received 50 written comments. With one exception, the comments did not raise any issues not addressed in the Final EIS, and the comments did not result in changes to the analysis of environmental consequences or affect our response to similar comments in the Final EIS. The exception was a comment requesting retention of the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area near Rieck's Lake, Pool 4, due to its proximity to residences, school bus stop locations, and a marina. This comment provided new information and resulted in the modification to Alternative E, as noted above. All written comments received during the waiting period are available for review at the Refuge headquarters in Winona, Minnesota ( see ADDRESSES Section).

Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm: We addressed public concerns, potential impacts, and measures and stipulations to mitigate impacts in various sections of the Final EIS. We made 17 major changes to Alternative E between the Draft and Final EIS to mitigate public and agency concerns. Since the focus of the CCP is the improvement of the Refuge environment, there is little mitigation for physical environmental impacts. Also, many objectives in the CCP are programmatic in nature and local impacts unknown. Thus, we will identify mitigation for any project-specific impacts during detailed project planning and design. We prepared a biological assessment to address any impacts to federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The biological assessment concluded that implementation of Alternative E is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of listed species. We also prepared compatibility determinations for all uses identified in Alternative E, and these determinations contain stipulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any environmental impacts from these uses and associated facilities. The Refuge Manager and District Managers will be responsible for ensuring that monitoring and stipulations identified in the CCP are completed or followed.

A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register for this project on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 63065). A second notice was published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53704) because the amount of land included in the proposed MSHCP was modified. The MSHCP described in the 2001 notice included privately-owned, developable lands, and leased land in Lincoln County and Clark County, Nevada. The proposed MSHCP described in this, and the September 12, 2006, notice include private, developable lands in Lincoln County only, and leased lands in both Lincoln and Clark Counties. This notice is being published to allow for an additional 30-day comment period and to correct inaccurate contact information provided in the September 12, 2006 notice. In that notice, an invalid e-mail address was provided as a way to submit comments. For the purposes of this reopening of the scoping period, please submit comments in writing to the contact identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The Applicant has initiated discussions with the Service regarding preparation of an MSHCP and issuance of a Permit for their activities, which include residential and commercial development, construction, and maintenance. The Applicant has also initiated discussions with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding land leases, and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding project wetland permitting. Land leased and owned by the Applicant occupies most of the eastern portion of Coyote Springs Valley straddling the Pahranagat Wash and the Kane Springs Wash in Lincoln County. It consists of approximately 13,800 acres of land leased from the BLM in Lincoln and Clark Counties, and approximately 22,140 acres of developable private land in Lincoln County. The area is bordered by the Delamar Mountains to the north, the Meadow Valley Mountains to the east, and U.S. 93 to the west. The development area extends approximately 9 miles (14.48 kilometers) north of the Lincoln County/Clark County line. Leased land is bordered by SR 168 to the south in Clark County. Accordingly, BLM will be a cooperating agency for the environmental review. These lands are located in portions of Townships 11, 12, and 13 South and Ranges 63 and 64 East. The surrounding land is primarily owned and managed by the BLM and the Service. South of the development area, the Applicant's lands are being developed in Clark County and are not covered under this MSHCP.

Some of the Applicant's future activities have the potential to impact species subject to protection under the Act. Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538) and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of a fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the Act, the following activities are defined as take: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under section 10(a) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for threatened species and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22, respectively. An applicant for a Permit under section 10 must prepare and submit to the Service for approval a Plan containing a multifaceted strategy for minimizing and mitigating all take associated with the proposed activities to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant must also ensure that adequate funding for the Plan will be provided.

The Service will conduct an environmental review of the MSHCP and prepare an EIS. ENTRIX has been selected as the lead consultant to prepare the EIS under the supervision of the Service, which will be responsible for the scope and content of the NEPA document. NEPA requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the human environment. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed projects is developed and considered in the environmental review. Alternatives considered for analysis in an EIS may include: variations in the scope of proposed activities; variations in the location, amount, and types of conservation measures; variations in activity duration; or, a combination of these elements. In addition, the EIS will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources, land use, air quality, water quality, water resources, socioeconomic conditions, and other environmental issues that could occur with implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. For all potentially significant impacts, the EIS identifies avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where feasible, to a level below significance.

The EIS will consider the proposed action, no action, and a reasonable range of alternatives. A detailed description of the impacts of the proposed action and each alternative will be included in the EIS. The alternatives to be considered for analysis in the EIS may address combinations of covered species, different permit effective periods, or a combination of elements.

Written comments from interested parties are welcome to ensure that the issues of public concern related to the proposed action are identified. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and /or homes addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organization or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The Service requests that comments be specific. In particular, the Service is requesting information regarding (1) potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementation of the proposed action; (2) other possible alternatives that meet the purpose and need; (3) potential adaptive management and/or monitoring provisions; (4) existing environmental conditions in the area; (5) other plans or projects that might be relevant to this proposed project; and (6) potential minimization and mitigation efforts.

The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), Council on the Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1518), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, and applicable policies and procedures of the Service. This notice is being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. It is estimated that the draft EIS will be available for public review during the first quarter of 2007.

The specified closures, restrictions, and prohibitions are made in the interest of public and employee safety during the period of heavy construction equipment usage at and around the public lands in an area known as Water Canyon Recreation Area, Zone 1. The temporary closure is needed during the construction phase of the implementation of the “Water Canyon Implementation Plan Amendment” (Decision Record was signed 11/16/05). These lands are closed or restricted during the following times:

• September 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006 inclusive: Restricted entry by the public into Zone 1 of the Water Canyon Recreation Area during certain time periods as outlined in the sections below, to provide for safety of individuals.

1. Public Closure Area: Within the following legally described locations:

Motor vehicle use of any kind by the public is prohibited in Zone 1 of the Water Canyon Recreation Area. The following exceptions apply:

Public entry of any persons or individuals is prohibited in Zone 1, during working hours from Monday through Friday. The following exceptions apply:

Public camping is prohibited in Zone 1 during this period of construction.

Penalty: Any person failing to comply with the closure orders may be subject to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571, or both.

On June 15, 2006, the final decision was signed by an authorized officer of the BLM, permanently closing public lands, managed by the BLM, within one-quarter to one-half mile of Frenchglen, Oregon, to public use for the purpose of discharging firearms. During a temporary closure period, the BLM prepared an Environmental Assessment, OR-06-026-023, to consider a permanent closure. It was determined that the discharging of firearms within the “No Shooting or Safety Zone” is a safety hazard to the residents of the Frenchglen community.

Notice: Pursuant to 43 CFR 8364.1, discharging firearms or other devices capable of firing a projectile into or within the closed area posted “No Shooting or Safety Zone” is prohibited on lands administered by BLM within the closed area of Andrews Resource Area. The public lands, managed by the BLM, closed by this order are described as follows:

Closure signs have been posted at main entry points to the closed area and along the boundary as necessary. Maps of the closure area and information may be obtained from the BLM Burns District Office and at various locations in Burns, Hines, and Frenchglen.

Penalties: The authority of this closure is found under Section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)) and 43 CFR 8364.1. Any person who violates this closure may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both. (43 CFR 8360.0-7) Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.

This survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The lands we surveyed are:

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines; and the subdivision of section 1 Township 38 North, Range 9 West, of the 4th Principal Meridian, in the State of Wisconsin, and was accepted October 12, 2006. We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.