The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies information collections that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-8435.

Title: Request for Approval to Sell Capital Assets.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0020.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: A borrower's assets provide the security for a government loan. The selling of assets reduces the security and increases the risk to the government. RUS Form 369 allows the borrower to seek agency permission to sell some of its assets. The form collects detailed information regarding the proposed sales of a portion of the borrower's systems. USDA Rural Development electric utility borrowers complete this form to request USDA Rural Development approval in order to sell capital assets when the fair market value exceeds 10 percent of the borrower's net utility plant.

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

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 15 hours.

On November 3, 2011, notice was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 213) that a request for permits to conduct research on marine mammals had been submitted by the above-named applicants. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

File No. 16163: Authorizes take of forty-two species of marine mammals in all U.S. and international waters in the Pacific Ocean, including waters of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. Harassment of all species of cetaceans will occur through vessel approach for sighting surveys, photographic identification, behavioral research, opportunistic sampling (breath, sloughed skin, fecal material, and prey remains), acoustic imaging with echosounders, and aerial surveys. Twenty seven cetacean species and unidentified mesoplodon species will be biopsied, dart, and/or suction-cup tagged. Ultrasound sampling will be directed at killer whales including the Southern Resident stock. Active acoustic playback studies will be directed at Southern Resident killer whales. Import and export of marine mammal prey specimens, skin and blubber, sloughed skin, fecal and breath samples obtained is authorized. The permit is valid until June 6, 2017.

File No. 16160: Authorizes take of eight species of cetaceans in the inland waters of Washington State. Harassment of all species will occur through close vessel approach for photo-identification, behavioral observation, and monitoring. The permit is valid until June 6, 2017.

File No. 15569: Authorizes take of twenty-two species of marine mammals in the coastal eastern North Pacific from the southern boundary of California to Alaskan waters east of Kodiak Island, including all territorial waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore. Harassment of all species of cetaceans will occur through vessel approach for photographic identification, behavioral research, opportunistic sampling (fecal material and prey remains), remote measuring (aerial and laser techniques), and passive acoustic recording. The permit is valid until June 6, 2017.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Based on the analyses in the EA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permits will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on June 4, 2012.

As required by the ESA, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:

Title: Generic Clearance for Collection of Information on Compliance Costs and Other Effects of Regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau has the responsibility for rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement with respect to various Federal consumer financial protection laws. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to promulgate rules regulating various aspects of consumer financial protection and establishing supervisory authority over certain non-depository providers of consumer financial products and services. For many of these directives there is a corresponding statutory deadline for a proposed or final rule.

A number of Federal laws require agencies to consider the benefits, costs, and impacts of rulemaking actions, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Furthermore, Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of certain rules to consumers and “covered persons,” including depository and non-depository providers of consumer financial products and services (“providers.”) This consideration includes an assessment of the impacts of rules on consumers in rural areas and on depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act. As part of its analysis of benefits and costs of certain rulemakings, the Bureau will consider, among other things, the potential ongoing costs for a provider as well as the implementation costs the provider may incur in order to comply with a regulation.

In order to fulfill the Bureau's rulemaking mandates, the Bureau seeks to collect qualitative information from industry participants regarding the compliance costs and other effects on providers and consumers, both as to existing regulations in force as well as to proposed new regulations. Through the collections under this generic clearance, the Bureau aims to understand the effects of potential regulations on providers and consumers, the ways in which providers may comply with potential regulations, and the costs associated with compliance.

The Bureau has already begun to review existing regulations through a request for public comment on streamlining inherited regulations. The information gathered on compliance costs and other effects through this generic information collection will further enhance the Bureau's understanding of how existing regulations are affecting providers.

In order to gather the information indicated above, the Bureau intends to use structured interviews, focus groups, conference calls, and written questionnaires—delivered via email or administered through an online survey. The Bureau will seek different providers' estimates of compliance burdens on their respective institutions. The Bureau recognizes that burdens vary depending on the size and type of the institution, as well as on the products and services offered. Therefore, the collections of information will seek to sample providers that are representative of markets affected by a proposed rule, or are already under the authority of existing regulations.

Type of Review: New Generic Collection.

Affected Public: U.S. depository and non-depository financial institutions.

Annual Burden Estimates: Below is a preliminary estimate of the aggregate burden hours.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500 institutions.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 90 minutes for questions administered via focus groups, structured interviews, and conference calls. 60 minutes for questions delivered via email or administered through online survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,950 hours.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a Private Education Loan Ombudsman (Ombudsman) within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). Section 1035(c)(3) requires the Ombudsman to compile and analyze data on borrower complaints regarding private education loans. Sections 1035(d) and 1035(c)(4) further require the Ombudsman to prepare an annual report to Congress and make appropriate recommendations to the Director of the Bureau, to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Education, and to Congress.

In support of the duties of the Ombudsman under section 1035 of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau seeks information on borrower complaints about private education loans. 1 To supplement the data that the Ombudsman will receive through the Bureau's consumer complaint intake function and to capture qualitative information that may help to inform the Ombudsman's recommendations, this notice and request for information therefore seeks responses from the public, including:

• Institutions of higher education's financial aid offices;

• State attorneys general;

• State and local banking and consumer protection agencies;

• Borrower advocates and legal aid entities; or

• Complaint resolution departments of lenders and servicers;

• Other interested parties.

To assist the Bureau in satisfying the requirement that the Ombudsman shall “compile and analyze data on borrower complaints” mandated by Section 1035, the Bureau is interested in receiving comments that could bear on its analysis of data regarding borrower complaints. The Bureau is therefore interested in responses to the questions outlined below, including, where known, information on the volume of complaints received and complaint outcomes. Please note that the Bureau is not soliciting individual borrower complaints in response to this notice and request for information. Nor is the Bureau seeking personally identifiable information (PII) regarding borrower complaints, from the parties to the complaint or any third party. Responses to this subsection should not contain account numbers, Social Security numbers or other personal information that could be used to identify the complainant or another party identified in a complaint, or in any way otherwise reveal personally identifiable information. Below are some general areas for which information is being sought. Please feel free to respond to any or all of the questions below:

1. What complaints are submitted by borrowers of private student loans? Among other things, responses can address topics that relate to some or all of following areas:

a. Whether the complainant is the primary borrower, co-signer, school, or other party;

b. The topic or topics featured in complaints (e.g., credit reporting, debt collection, billing disputes);

c. The types of institutions of higher education that complainants attended; or

d. Generalized descriptions or summaries of individual private education loan borrower complaints that do not include personally identifiable information.

2. What processes do institutions have in place to respond to complaints from private education loan borrowers? Among other things, the Bureau invites comments on topics such as:

a. How institutions receive complaints from private student loan borrowers; and

b. How institutions respond to complaints from private student loan borrowers.

Summary of Information Collection

The completed form will document requests for reasonable accommodation(s) (regardless of type of accommodation) and the outcome of such requests. Respondents are employees of WHS serviced components or applicants for employment of WHS serviced components.

Respondents are LRAs that have executed EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by Public Law 101-510 such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale or lease of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. No specific form is required.

Offers submitted in response to Government solicitations must be evaluated and awards made on the basis of the lowest laid down cost to the Government at the overseas port of discharge, via methods and ports compatible with required delivery dates and conditions affecting transportation known at the time of evaluation. FAR provision 52.247-51, “Evaluation of Export Offers,” is required for insertion in Government solicitations when supplies are to be exported through Contiguous United States (CONUS) ports and offers are solicited on a free onboard (f.o.b.) origin or f.o.b. destination basis. The provision has three alternates, to be used (1) when the CONUS ports of export are DoD water terminals, (2) when offers are solicited on an f.o.b. origin only basis, and (3) when offers are solicited on an f.o.b. destination only basis. The provision collects information regarding the vendor's preference for delivery ports. The information is used to evaluate offers [on the basis of shipment through the port resulting in the lowest cost to the Government].

Respondents: 100.

Responses per Respondent: 4.

Annual Responses: 400.

Hours per Response: 0.25.

Total Burden Hours: 100.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0057, Evaluation of Export Offers in all correspondence.

1. Authority: Investigation and justification of the proposed action was conducted under the authority of United States Senate, Committee on Public Works resolution dated May 16, 1955; and, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works and Transportation resolution dated March 11, 1982. Construction of the project was authorized by Section 101(b) (15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

2. Background: a. The primary concern at Greenup Locks and Dam involves traffic delays. Greenup is one of the most heavily used locks on the Ohio River. When the main 1200 ft chamber is closed, all traffic must lock through the smaller, land-side 600 ft chamber resulting in long delays for all lockages. Reducing delays could save millions of dollars in transportation costs and reduce the impacts of waiting-tows on aquatic resources adjacent to the locks and dam. The Feasibility Report and EIS completed in 2000 considered various alternatives to either minimize maintenance closure time and/or to increase traffic throughput when one or the other chamber is closed to traffic.

b. In 2000, the Chief of Engineers recommended that the Greenup Locks and Dam be modified for the purposes of navigation efficiency and reliability. The Greenup plan of improvement included a 600 ft extension of the existing auxiliary lock chamber to a length of 1200 ft, extension of the downstream guidewall, filling and emptying system improvements, installation of a miter gate quick changeout system for faster repairs to the lock miter gates, an off-site dry dock to minimize transportation impacts during construction, and environmental mitigation measures.

c. The District is currently utilizing Operation and Maintenance funds to replace the miter gates in the main chamber. Replacement of the miter gates is expected to increase the reliability of main chamber operation, resulting in fewer traffic delays at the lock. In addition, barge traffic at the lock has decreased in recent years and future traffic forecasts are expected to reflect a continuation of that trend.

d. The without project conditions developed in the 2000 Feasibility Report and EIS have changed for the Greenup Locks due to the length of time since the report was completed, changes in the reliability of the main chamber, and a potential for decreased traffic at the project. Therefore, the Corps will complete a study to reevaluate the feasibility of project alternatives including their economic and environmental effects to identify federal interest.

3. Public Participation: a. The Corps will conduct a public scoping meeting (see DATES and ADDRESSES ) to gain input from interested agencies, organizations, and the general public concerning the content of the SEIS, issues and impacts to be addressed in the document, and alternatives that should be analyzed.

b. The Corps invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision-making. All persons and organizations that have an interest in the Greenup Lock improvements and its potential effects on the environment are urged to participate in this NEPA evaluation process. Assistance will be provided upon request to anyone having difficulty with learning how to participate.

c. Public comments are welcomed anytime throughout the NEPA process. Formal opportunities for public participation include: (1) Public meeting to be held in the community of Ashland; (2) Anytime during the NEPA process via mail, telephone or email; (3) During Review and Comment on the Draft SEIS; and (4) Review of the Final SEIS. Schedules and locations will be announced in local news media. Interested parties should submit contact information to be included on the mailing list for public distribution of meeting announcements and documents. Please address all written comments and suggestions concerning this proposed project to Natalie McKinley, CELRH-PM-PD-F, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: 304-399-5842. Email: Natalie.J.Mckinley@usace.army.mil.

4. Schedule: The GRR and Draft SEIS are scheduled to be released for public review and comment in June 2014. The Final GRR and SEIS are scheduled to be completed in September 2014.

The operation of the MRRIC is in the public interest and provides support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Sec. 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Public Law 99-662; Sec. 334(a) of WRDA 1999, Public Law 106-53, and Sec. 5018 of WRDA 2007, Public Law 110-114. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, does not apply to the MRRIC.

A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter, operating procedures, and stakeholder application forms are available electronically at www.MRRIC.org.

Purpose and Scope of the Committee. The duties of the MRRIC cover two areas:

1. The Committee provides guidance to the Corps, and affected Federal agencies, State agencies, or Native American Indian Tribes on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine the actions required to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, to recover federally listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act, and to restore the river's ecosystem to prevent further declines among other native species. This study is identified in Section 5018 (a) of the WRDA. It will result in a single, comprehensive plan to guide the implementation of mitigation, recovery, and restoration activities in the Missouri River Basin. This plan is referred to as the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP). For more information about the MRERP go to www.MRERP.org.

2. The MRRIC also provides guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at www.MoRiverRecovery.org.

3. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests.

Administrative Support. To the extent authorized by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Corps provides funding and administrative support for the Committee.

Committee Membership. Federal agencies with programs affecting the Missouri River may be members of the MRRIC through a separate process with the Corps. States and Federally recognized Native American Indian tribes, as described in the Charter, are eligible for Committee membership through an appointment process. Interested State and Tribal government representatives should contact the Corps for information about the appointment process.

This Notice is for individuals interested in serving as a stakeholder member on the Committee. In accordance with the Charter for the MRRIC, stakeholder membership is limited to 28 people, with each member having an alternate. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Applications are currently being accepted for representation in the stakeholder interest categories listed below:

a. Environmental/Conservation Organizations;

b. Hydropower;

c. Irrigation;

d. Local Government;

e. Navigation;

f. Thermal Power;

g. Water Quality;

h. Water Supply;

i. Waterway Industries; and

j. At Large.

Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Incumbent Committee members seeking reappointment do not need to re-submit an application. However, they must submit a renewal letter and related materials as outlined in the “Streamlined Process for Existing Members” portion of the document Process for Filling MRRIC Stakeholder Vacancies ( www.MRRIC.org ).

Members and alternates of the Committee will not receive any compensation from the federal government for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee will not be reimbursed by the federal government.

Application for Stakeholder Membership. Persons who believe that they are or will be affected by the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities and are not employees of federal agencies, tribes, or state agencies, may apply for stakeholder membership on the MRRIC. Applications for stakeholder membership may be obtained electronically at www.MRRIC.org. Applications may be emailed or mailed to the location listed (see ADDRESSES ). In order to be considered, each application must include:

1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person is qualified to represent;

2. A written statement describing the applicant's area of expertise and why the applicant believes he or she should be appointed to represent that area of expertise on the MRRIC;

3. A written statement describing how the applicant's participation as a Stakeholder Representative will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC;

4. A written description of the applicant's past experience(s) working collaboratively with a group of individuals representing varied interests towards achieving a mutual goal, and the outcome of the effort(s);

5. A written description of the communication network that the applicant plans to use to inform his or her constituents and to gather their feedback, and

6. A written endorsement letter from an organization, local government body, or formal constituency, which demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest group(s) in the Missouri River basin.

To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on July 16, 2012, at the location indicated (see ADDRESSES ). Applications must include an endorsement letter to be considered complete. Full consideration will be given to all complete applications received by the specified due date.

Application Review Process. Committee stakeholder applications will be forwarded to the current members of the MRRIC. The MRRIC will provide membership recommendations to the Corps as described in Attachment A of the Process for Filling MRRIC Stakeholder Vacancies document ( www.MRRIC.org ). The Corps is responsible for appointing stakeholder members. The Corps will consider applications using the following criteria:

• Ability to commit the time required.

• Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns.

• Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures.

• Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative.

• Demonstrations of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed.

• Agreement to participate in collaboration training as a condition of membership.

All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application.

Certification. I hereby certify that the establishment of the MRRIC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Corps by the Endangered Species Act and other statutes.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Study of Strategies for Improving the Quality of Local Grantee Program Evaluation.

OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

Type of Review: New.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education provides support to states, districts and schools through a number of competitive and formula grant programs. Through these programs, the federal government funds a wide array of activities, from professional development for teachers to turnaround efforts for failing schools. High-quality evaluation plays an essential role informing policy makers about program performance, outcomes and impact. Performance reporting with high-quality data can indicate whether a funded project is meeting its goals and taking place as planned. Project evaluations can explore how best to implement a particular educational practice, whether positive student outcomes were attained, or whether a particular educational intervention actually caused the outcomes observed.

To date, the Department lacks comprehensive information about the quality or rigor of the performance reporting and evaluation activities its grantees are undertaking and whether the technical assistance provided has been useful in improving the quality of the performance reporting or evaluations. Accordingly, the focus of this study is to examine the influence of Department-funded technical assistance practices on the quality and rigor of grantee evaluations and performance reporting in two Department programs (described below). It will describe the technical assistance provided by the Department to support grantee performance reporting and evaluation; explore how grantees perceive the technical assistance has influenced their activities; assess the quality of performance reporting and evaluations undertaken; and determine how the findings from performance reporting and evaluations were used both by grantees and by the Department.

This study will be based upon a systematic review of existing documentation as well as interviews with selected grantees and with federal staff and federal contractors involved in grant monitoring and in the provision of technical assistance to grantees. The interviews with selected grantees are the subject of this OMB clearance request.

This study will focus on two grant programs within the Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement: the Charter Schools Program: State Educational Agencies (CSP SEA) program and the Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) program. A brief description of each program is provided below.

1. Voluntary Public School Choice (authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title V, Part B, Subpart 3, (20 U.S.C. 7225-7225g)). The goal of the VPSC program is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging state performance standards, and are open to all students. The program was first enacted as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425) to support the emergence and growth of choice initiatives across the country. VPSC's goal is to assist states and local school districts in creating, expanding, and implementing public school choice programs. The program has awarded two cycles of competitive grants to states, local education agencies, and partnerships that include public, nonprofit and for-profit organizations. In 2007, the most recent award year, the program awarded a total of 14 competitive grants to two states, eight school districts, a charter school, an intermediate school district, and KIPP schools in Texas.

2. Charter Schools Program: State Educational Agencies (authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 5201-5211 (20 U.S.C. 7221a)). Federal support for charter schools began in 1995 with the authorization of the CSP. The CSP SEA program awards competitive grants to state education agencies to plan, design, and implement new charter schools, as well as to disseminate information on successful charter schools. The key goals of the CSP SEA program are to increase the number of charter schools in operation across the nation and to increase the number of students who are achieving proficiency on state assessments of math and reading. The CSP statute also addresses expanding the number of high-quality charter schools and encouraging states to provide support for facilities financing equal to what states provide for traditional public schools. Grants have been awarded to 40 states, including awards to 33 states since 2005. Grants are typically awarded for three years and may be renewed.

This study will review all technical assistance provided to CSP SEA and VPSC grantees on performance reporting and evaluations and how grantees conduct these activities. All CSP SEA and VPSC grantees are required by the Department to conduct performance reporting. Although grantees are not required to conduct any particular type of evaluation, the study will review both impact evaluations and non-impact evaluations conducted by grantees. The study approach, with respect to the review of performance reporting, impact evaluations, and non-impact evaluations, is described below.

The goal of performance reporting is to measure performance and track outcomes of the project's stated goals and objectives. The collection of accurate data on program performance is necessary for the reporting required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which was passed by Congress in 1993 and updated through the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. The latter will require even more frequent reporting—quarterly instead of annually.

In addition to requiring grantees to collect annual data in support of GPRA reporting, the CSP SEA and VPSC programs encourage grantees to develop implementation and outcome measures in support of other program goals. Throughout this document, when we refer to grantee performance measures, we are referring to the measures grantees use not only for GPRA reporting, but also for reporting on other activities and outcomes.

The CSP and VPSC programs provide technical assistance to grantees on developing appropriate objectives and performance measures and on obtaining quality data in support of those measures. Because all grantees conduct some kind of performance reporting, this study's examination of performance reporting encompasses all grantees. It will describe the type of technical assistance provided, categorize the types of performance measures that grantees address, determine whether the measures are responsive to the GPRA indicators defined for each program, review whether the initial set of performance measures changed as a result of the technical assistance received, and examine the quality and appropriateness of data collection for those measures.

While documenting implementation activities and outcomes can be useful to school and district administrators, it does not provide information on the effectiveness of funded interventions. The only evaluation designs that provide credible evidence about the impacts of interventions are rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Impact evaluations can provide guidance about what interventions should be considered for future funding and replication.

This study will review the quality and rigor of all impact evaluations being conducted of higher-order outcomes, particularly student achievement, using criteria that were adapted from the What Works Clearinghouse review standards for grantees as part of the Department's Data Quality Initiative. These criteria were revised by Abt Associates as part of its annual review of Mathematics and Science Partnership final-year evaluations. The criteria are listed in Appendix A. The study will also examine the completeness and clarity of evaluation reports submitted as part of an impact evaluation.

Grantees may choose to conduct non-impact evaluations to examine program outcomes and implementation processes. Non-impact evaluations may include both formative implementation and process evaluations that evaluate a program as it is unfolding, and summative descriptive evaluations that examine changes in final outcomes in a non-causal manner. A full framework of formative and summative evaluations is included in Appendix B.

The main focus of the review of non-impact evaluations will be on those that focus on a change in higher-order outcomes using a one-group pre-post design. For these evaluations, the study will examine the appropriateness of data collection strategies for the design chosen and whether the findings of the study are described appropriately based on the design. The study will also describe other non-impact evaluations that grantees have undertaken, without commenting on their quality.

Data collection, including conducting interviews and reviewing extant documents, is required to complete this study. Part A of this request discusses the justification for these data collection activities, while Part B describes the data collection and analysis procedures.

The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established in Title VII, Part B, Section 742 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The Board is authorized to advise the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education on (1) priorities for the improvement of postsecondary education, including recommendations for the improvement of postsecondary education and for the evaluation, dissemination, and adaptation of demonstrated improvements in postsecondary educational practice; and (2) the operation of the Fund, including advice on planning documents, guidelines, and procedures for grant competitions prepared by the Fund.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, the Board will conduct business in an open teleconference. The agenda for the meeting will include discussion of the Fund's programs and special initiatives.

Teleconference calling instructions are as follows: Please call 1-877-952-3216 and use participant code 1826857. The maximum number of members of the public that can access the teleconference meeting (listen only) is 50. Callers will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to participate in the teleconference (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Sarah T. Beaton at (202)502-7621, no later than June 18, 2012. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability.

Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments related to the FIPSE Program or the Board to the attention of Sarah T. Beaton, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6154, Washington, DC 20006-8544, or by email at sarah.beaton@ed.gov.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, Sixth Floor, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544, from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specially, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Title: FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0005.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-567 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission uses the information from the FERC-567 to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and the peak capacity of these facilities. Additionally, the Commission validates the need for new facilities proposed by pipelines in certificate applications. By modeling a applicant's pipeline system, Commission staff utilizes the FERC-567 data to determine configuration and location of installed pipeline facilities; verify and determine the receipt and delivery points between shippers, producers and pipeline companies; determine the location of receipt and delivery points and emergency interconnections on a pipeline system; determine the location of pipeline segments, laterals and compressor stations on a pipeline system; verify pipeline segment lengths and pipeline diameters; justify the maximum allowable operating pressures and suction and discharge pressures at compressor stations; verify the installed horsepower and volumes compressed at each compressor station; determine the existing shippers and producers currently using each pipeline company; verify peak capacity on the system; and develop and evaluate alternatives to the proposed facilities as a means to mitigate environmental impact of new pipeline construction.

18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf per day to submit by June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ended December 31. These physical/engineering data are not included as part of any other data collection requirement.

Type of Respondents: Applicants proposing hydropower projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the United States.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   1 The Commission proposed an erroneous burden estimate on the 60-day notice  2 for this information collection. The Commission estimates the corrected total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

The Commission revised the erroneous figures (presented within the 60-day notice for this information collection  2 ) based on an improved internal analysis. We were remiss in our previous analysis that resulted in the underestimated burden calculation.

The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $ [5,665 hours ÷ 2,080  3 hours/year = 2.72355 * $143,540/year  4 = $390,938.37]

The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-567 per response is $3,795.52 [$390,938.37 ÷ 103 responses = $3,795.52/response].

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The BCP was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (Act) (43 U.S.C. 617). Under Section 5 of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior marketed the capacity and energy from the BCP under electric service contracts effective through May 31, 1987. On December 28, 1984, Western published the 1984 Conformed Criteria (49 FR 50582) to implement applicable provisions of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619) for the marketing of BCP power through September 30, 2017. On December 20, 2011, Congress enacted the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72), which provides direction and guidance in several key aspects of marketing BCP power after the existing contracts expire in 2017.

Section 2(f) of the HPAA provides that Subdivision C of the 1984 Conformed Criteria shall be deemed to have been modified to conform to the HPAA, and the Secretary of Energy shall cause to be included in the Federal Register notice conforming the text of the regulations to such modifications. This FRN conforms the text of the 1984 Conformed Criteria, as appropriate, to the HPAA.

A reference to HPAA has been integrated into the purpose and scope section.

The HPAA has been added to the listed authorities.

The section has been updated to incorporate the following provisions of HPAA:

(1) Section 2(d)(2)(E) that requires each contract offered pursuant to Schedule D shall include a provision requiring the new allottee to pay a proportionate share of its State's respective contribution (determined in accordance with each State's applicable funding agreement) to the cost of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (as defined in Section 9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11; 123 Stat.1327)), and to execute the Boulder Canyon Project Implementation Agreement Contract No. 95-PAO-10616 (Implementation Agreement).

(2) Section 2(g)(1)(A) that requires each contract offered shall expire on September 30, 2067.

(3) Section 2(g)(2)(A) that prescribes the contract offered to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) will not restrict use of capacity and energy, provided that to the extent practicable and consistent with sound water management and conservation practice, MWD shall allocate such capacity and energy to pump available Colorado River water prior to using such capacity and energy to pump California State project water.

(4) Section 2(g)(4) that requires each contract offered shall (i) authorize and require Western to collect from new allottees a pro rata share of Hoover Dam repayable advances paid for by contractors prior to October 1, 2017, and remit such amounts to the contractors that paid such advances in proportion to the amounts paid by such contractors as specified in Section 6.4 of the Implementation Agreement; (ii) permit transactions with an independent system operator; and (iii) contain the same material terms included in Section 5.6 of the current BCP firm electric service power sales contracts in existence on December 20, 2011, the date of enactment of the HPAA.

Part VI of the 1984 Conformed Criteria is replaced in its entirety in order to conform to and facilitate the following provisions of Section 2 of the HPAA:

(1) Section 2(a) that provides for contract offers to existing Schedule A contractors in predefined contract quantities for delivery commencing October 1, 2017.

(2) Section 2(b) that provides for contract offers to existing Schedule B contractors in predefined contract quantities for delivery commencing October 1, 2017.

(3) Section 2(c) that provides for excess energy provisions for deliveries commencing October 1, 2017.

(4) Section 2(d)(2) that provides for the following:

(i) The creation of a resource pool equal to 5 percent of BCP's full rated capacity of 2,074,000 kilowatts, and associated firm energy, as depicted in Schedule D. Western shall offer prescribed portions of Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy to entities not receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule A and/or Schedule B for deliveries commencing October 1, 2017.

(ii) Additional guidance related to the disposition of contingent capacity and firm energy to existing contractors and potential new allottees as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.

(iii) Guidance related to the disposition Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy that is not allocated and contracted for prior to October 1, 2017, as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.

(5) Section 2(i) that provides guidance in the event any existing contractor fails to accept an offered contract as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.

(6) Section 2(j) that provides guidance regarding Western's obligations in the event water is not available to produce the contingent capacity and firm energy set forth in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule D, as described in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

In accordance with the DOE National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021), Western has determined that these actions fit within a class of action B4.1 Contracts, policies, and marketing and allocation plans for electric power, in Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021—Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Specific Agency Actions.

Part I and Part VI of Section C of the 1984 Conformed Criteria are amended to read as follows:

Parts II through V remain unchanged.

Parts VII through VIII remain unchanged.

I. Background

Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974, which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase “substantially similar” at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded gasoline that are likely to be considered “substantially similar” to the unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA's certification program by placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition as well as its physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Fuels that are found to be “substantially similar” to EPA's certification fuels may be registered and introduced into commerce. The current “substantially similar” interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows no more than 2.7 percent oxygen by weight for certain ethers and alcohols.

Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that the fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. The statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to grant or deny an application after public notice and comment, within 270 days of receipt of the application.

The Texas Methanol Corporation received a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel blend, known as OCTAMIX, 1 provided that the resultant fuel is composed of a maximum of 3.7 percent by weight oxygen, a maximum of 5 percent by volume methanol, a minimum of 2.5 percent by volume co-solvents  2 and 42.7 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of Petrolite TOLAD MFA-10 corrosion inhibitor. 3 In the OCTAMIX waiver, the Agency invited other corrosion inhibitor manufacturers to submit test data to establish, on a case-by-case basis, whether their fuel additive formulations are acceptable as alternatives to TOLAD MFA-10. 4

On October 14, 2011, Baker Hughes requested EPA allow the use of its alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD TM MFA-10A, in the OCTAMIX gasoline-alcohol fuel blend which otherwise would not be allowed under the waiver. 5 TOLAD TM MFA-10A is a fuel additive formulation consisting of a corrosion inhibitor.

On January 20, 2012, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 2979) announcing receipt of Baker Hughes's request and inviting comment on it. The comment period closed on February 21, 2012. EPA received comments from four commenters (discussed below).

One of the major areas of concern to EPA in reviewing any waiver request is the problem of materials compatibility. Materials compatibility data could show a potential failure of fuel systems, emissions related parts and emission control parts from use of the fuel or fuel additive. Any failure could result in greater emissions that would cause or contribute to the engines or vehicles exceeding their emissions standards. Initially, Texas Methanol requested the use of TOLAD MFA-10 or an appropriate concentration of any other corrosion inhibitor such that the fuel will pass the National Association of Corrosion Engineer's TM-01-72 (NACE RUST TEST). However, EPA concluded that compliance with the NACE Rust Test alone was not adequate in determining suitability of a corrosion inhibitor for use under the OCTAMIX waiver. 6 The Agency decided, therefore, to look at corrosion inhibitors on a case-by-case basis to establish whether each formulation would be acceptable as an alternative to the formulation of the original corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10, used in the OCTAMIX waiver. 7

In order to determine whether the OCTAMIX waiver would meet the criteria of section 211(f) if TOLAD MFA-10A were to be used an alternative corrosion inhibitor, EPA reviewed all data submitted with or referenced by the Baker Hughes application. Baker Hughes provided data showing their corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10A, met the NACE corrosion test. 8 EPA also considered the information received from the public during the public comment period. There were four public comments submitted to the Agency in response to the notice published on January 20, 2012. Carbon Recycling International, 9 Methanex, 10 Methanol Institute  11 and TEIR Associates Incorporated  12 submitted comments in support of allowing TOLAD MFA-10A as an alternative corrosion inhibitor for use in the OCTAMIX fuel. Two of these commenters noted that the original corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10, had been used successfully by several refiners on a commercial basis as an effective corrosion inhibitor. Two commenters, in addition to Baker Hughes, stated that the active ingredients for corrosion inhibitor efficacy are the same for both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A, while one commenter in addition to Baker Hughes noted that the only difference between these two corrosion inhibitor formulations is a solvent to improve additive handling in commerce. Three commenters noted that the Baker Hughes' evaluation of both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A resulted in equivalent passing performance with regards to the NACE corrosion test. 13

TOLAD MFA-10A is a fuel additive containing the same active ingredients for corrosion inhibitor efficacy with OCTAMIX gasoline-alcohol fuels as the original corrosion inhibitor approved in the OCTAMIX waiver, TOLAD MFA-10. The only difference between TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A is a solvent formulation change to improve additive handling in commerce. Both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A were evaluated under the most aggressive fuel formulation of alcohols allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver that included only methanol at 5 volume percent and ethanol at 2.5 volume percent. The use of higher molecular weight cosolvent alcohols, such as propanols or butanols, would tend to be less corrosive. Both TOLAD MFA-10 and TOLAD MFA-10A passed the NACE corrosion test with the most aggressive fuel allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver. Since TOLAD MFA-10A passed the NACE corrosion test using the most aggressive fuel formulation allowed under the OCTAMIX waiver, the Agency believes that Baker Hughes has demonstrated that TOLAD MFA-10A is an effective corrosion inhibitor for use under the OCTAMIX waiver.

With regard to the question of the emissions impacts of TOLAD MFA-10A, its minimum treat rate of 25 mg/l is about 40 percent less than TOLAD MFA-10. The chemical composition and treat rate of TOLAD MFA-10A, which is less than 0.01 mass percent by weight, is such that it is a fuel additive falling under the baseline gasoline fuel grouping category  14 under our fuel and fuel additive registration regulations. In addition, the chemical composition and treat rate of TOLAD MFA-10A is such that it is a fuel additive that meets our gasoline substantially similar definition. 15 Given that TOLAD MFA-10A is a fuel additive that is both substantially similar to the fuel additives used in our certification program and a fuel additive falling under our baseline gasoline fuel category, one would not expect significant emissions changes from the use of TOLAD MFA-10A compared to other fuel additives that fall under the baseline gasoline fuel category, which also includes TOLAD MFA-10 and DMA-67. Therefore, as long as the other conditions of the OCTAMIX waiver are met, which include applicable gasoline volatility specifications, 16 gasoline phase separation specifications  17 and alcohol purity conditions, 18 the Agency believes the that the use of TOLAD MFA-10A in place of TOLAD MFA-10 will allow engines and vehicles to remain compliant with their emissions standards when using fuels made as approved under the original conditions granted for the OCTAMIX waiver.

Based on the information submitted by Baker Hughes in its application, and the additional information received during the public comment period, I conclude that the performance of TOLAD MFA-10A in OCTAMIX would be comparable to TOLAD MFA-10, the original corrosion inhibitor approved under the OCTAMIX waiver. Therefore, I am modifying condition (3) of the OCTAMIX waiver to read as follows:

(3) Any one of the following four corrosion inhibitors must be included:

(a) Petrolite's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TOLAD MFA-10, blended in the final fuel at 42.7 mg/l;

OR

(b) DuPont's corrosion inhibitor formulation, DMA-67, blended in the final fuel at 31.4 mg/l;

OR

(c) Spirit of 21st Century LLC's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TXCeed, blended in the final fuel at 3.9 ml/gal (987.6 mg/l);

OR

(d) Baker Hughes's corrosion inhibitor formulation, TOLAD MFA-10A, blended in the final fuel at 25 mg/l.

This action should provide additional flexibility to any manufacturer wishing to produce the OCTAMIX blend. At the same time, any manufacturer wishing to use a corrosion inhibitor other than the four permitted by the OCTAMIX waiver must apply for a further modification of the waiver. Since EPA is still unaware of any basis for extrapolating findings in the emissions impact of one corrosion inhibitor to other corrosion inhibitors, the Agency will continue to examine the emissions impact of specific corrosion inhibitor formulations on a case-by-case basis.

This waiver modification decision is final agency action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final agency action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by August 13, 2012. Judicial review of this final agency action may not be obtained in subsequent proceedings, pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2). This action is not a rulemaking and is not subject to the various statutory and other provisions applicable to a rulemaking.

Titles and Form Number: EIB 09-01 Payment Default Report.

OMB Number: 3048-0028.

Type of Review: Regular.

Need and Use: the information requested enables insured/guaranteed parties and insurance brokers to report overdue payments from the borrower and/or guarantor.

Affected Public: Insured/guaranteed parties and brokers.

Annual Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

Government Review Time: 50 hours.

Cost to the Government: $2,000.

Titles and Form Number: EIB 94-08 Notification and Assignment by Insured to Financial Institution of Medium Term Export Credit Insurance Policy.

OMB Number: 3048-xxx.

Type of Review: Regular.

Need and Use: The form transfers the duties and obligations of the insured exporter to the financial institution. It also provides certifications to the financial institution and Ex-Im Bank that the financed export transaction results in a valid, enforceable, and performing debt obligation. Exporter policy holders need this form to obtain financing for their medium term export sales.

Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S goods and services.

Annual Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.

Government Annual Burden Hours: 5 hours.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for Community Living (Formerly the Administration for Aging) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The data collection associated with the Evaluation for the Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) Program is necessary to determine the overall effect of ADRCs on both long term support and service systems and individuals. ACL will gather information about how ADRCs provide services and whether consumers, who access ADRCs, as compared to consumers who access other systems, report that the experience is more personalized, consumer-friendly, streamlined, and efficient. Staff of the Administration for Community Living's Administration on Aging's Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs will use the information and recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the Aging and Disability Resource Centers to both determine the value of the ADRC model and to improve program operations. In response to the 60-day Federal Register notice related to this proposed data collection and published on October 14, 2011, one set of comments was received. The majority of the comments focused on the practical utility of the proposed collection of information. The remaining comments provided suggestions for enhancing the quality and clarity of the information to be collected. Many of the latter comments resulted in revisions to the proposed data collection tools. The originally proposed data collection tools, the comments with responses and a revised set of data collection tools may be found on the AoA Web site: http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/ Tools_Resources/docs/ADRC_Eval_Data_Collection.pdf . ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows 1,118 hours for individuals and 463 hours for organizations—Total Burden for Study 1581 hours.

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: (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.

The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ). The PHS guideline recommends procedures to diminish the risk of transmission of infectious agents to the xenotransplantation product recipient and to the general public. The PHS guideline is intended to address public health issues raised by xenotransplantation, through identification of general principles of prevention and control of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation that may pose a hazard to the public health. The collection of information described in this guideline is intended to provide general guidance on the following topics: (1) The development of xenotransplantation clinical protocols, (2) the preparation of submissions to FDA, and (3) the conduct of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Also, the collection of information will help ensure that the sponsor maintains important information in a cross-referenced system that links the relevant records of the xenotransplantation product recipient, xenotransplantation product, source animal(s), animal procurement center, and significant nosocomial exposures. The PHS guideline describes an occupational health service program for the protection of health care workers involved in xenotransplantation procedures, caring for xenotransplantation product recipients, and performing associated laboratory testing. The PHS guideline is intended to protect the public health and to help ensure the safety of using xenotransplantation products in humans by preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation.

The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) Records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (3.7.1), animal health records (3.7.2), including necropsy results (3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.

The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These characteristics include long latency periods and the ability to establish persistent infections. Several also share the possibility of transmission among individuals through intimate contact with human body fluids. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human T-lymphotropic virus are human retroviruses. Retroviruses contain ribonucleic acid that is reverse-transcribed into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) using an enzyme provided by the virus and the human cell machinery. That viral DNA can then be integrated into the human cellular DNA. Both viruses establish persistent infections and have long latency periods before the onset of disease, 10 years, and 40 to 60 years, respectively. The human hepatitis viruses are not retroviruses, but several share with HIV the characteristic that they can be transmitted through body fluids, can establish persistent infections, and have long latency periods, e.g., approximately 30 years for hepatitis C.

In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and nosocomial exposures.

Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated 2 respondents who are sponsors of INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated four source animal facilities, which provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These four source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is estimated to be approximately 45 hours. The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.

FDA is requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:

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

Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.

Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through 312.160, approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and; (3) information included in a biologics license application, 21 CFR 601.2, approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. (Although it is possible that a xenotransplantation product may not be regulated as a biological product (e.g., it may be regulated as a medical device), FDA believes, based on its knowledge and experience with xenotransplantation, that any xenotransplantation product subject to FDA regulation within the next 3 years will most likely be regulated as a biological product.) However, FDA recognized that some of the information collections go beyond approved collections; assessments for these burdens are included in tables 1 through 6.

In table 7 of this document, FDA identifies those collection of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.

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.

In 2006, the DSNDCPA (Pub. L. 109-462, 120 Stat. 3469) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application. The DSNDCPA also amended the FD&C Act to add section 403(y) (21 U.S.C. 343(y)), which requires the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States to include a domestic address or domestic telephone number through which the product's manufacturer, packer, or distributor may receive a report of a serious adverse event associated with the dietary supplement.

In the Federal Register of September 1, 2009 (74 FR 45221), FDA announced the availability of a guidance document entitled, “Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling of Dietary Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.” The guidance document contains questions and answers related to the labeling requirements in section 403(y) of the FD&C Act and provides guidance to industry on the use of an explanatory statement before the domestic address or telephone number. The guidance document provides the Agency's interpretation of the labeling requirements for section 403(y) of the FD&C Act and the Agency's views on the information that should be included on the label. The Agency believes that the guidance will enable persons to meet the criteria for labeling that are established in section 403(y) of the FD&C Act.

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

The labeling requirements of section 403(y) of the FD&C Act became effective on December 22, 2007, although FDA exercised enforcement discretion until September 30, 2010, to enable all firms to meet the labeling requirements for dietary supplements. FDA estimates that all labels required to include the domestic address or telephone number pursuant to section 403(y) of the FD&C Act have been revised by the effective date. Thus, in succeeding years, the Agency estimates that the burden hours associated with the labeling requirements of section 403(y) of the FD&C Act and the Agency's recommendations on the use of an explanatory statement will apply only to new product labels. Based on the A.C. Nielsen Sales Scanner Data, FDA estimated that the number of dietary supplement SKUs for which sales of the products are greater than zero is 55,600. Assuming that the flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then approximately 5,560 new dietary supplement products will come on the market each year. FDA also estimates that there are about 1,460 dietary supplement manufacturers, re-packagers, re-labelers, and holders of dietary supplements. Assuming the approximately 5,560 new products are split equally among the firms, then each firm would prepare labels for close to four new products per year (5,560 new products/1,460 firms is approximately 3.8 labels per firm). Thus, the estimated total annual disclosures are 5,560 (1,460 firms × 3.8 labels per year = 5,560).

The Agency expects that firms prepare the required labeling for their products in a manner that takes into account at one time all information required to be disclosed on their product labels. Based upon its knowledge of food and dietary supplement labeling, FDA estimates that firms would require less than 0.5 hour per product to comply with the requirement to include the domestic address or telephone number pursuant to section 403(y) of the FD&C Act. The total hour burden of this task is shown in row 1 of table 1.

FDA estimates that all firms will include an explanatory statement on the label, which lets consumers know the purpose of the domestic address or telephone number on the label of the dietary supplement product. Based upon its knowledge of food and dietary supplement labeling, FDA estimates that firms would require less than 0.5 hour per product to comply with the Agency's recommendations on the use of an explanatory statement. The total hour burden of this task is shown in row 2 of table 1.

The total reporting hour burden is 5,560 hours, which equals the burden for the required domestic address or telephone (2,780) plus the burden for the explanatory statement before the domestic address or telephone number (2,780).

In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010, FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific Products,” which explained the process that would be used to make product-specific BE recommendations available to the public on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific BE recommendations and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those recommendations. Under that process, draft recommendations are posted on FDA's Web site and announced periodically in the Federal Register. The public is encouraged to submit comments on those recommendations within 60 days of their announcement in the Federal Register. FDA considers any comments received and either publishes final recommendations or publishes revised draft recommendations for comment. Recommendations were last announced in the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18827). This notice announces draft product-specific recommendations, either new or revised, that are being posted on FDA's Web site concurrently with publication of this notice.

FDA is announcing new draft product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:

FDA is announcing revised draft product-specific BE recommendations for drug products containing the following active ingredients:

For a complete history of previously published Federal Register notices related to product-specific BE recommendations, please go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter docket number FDA-2007-D-0369.

These draft and revised draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These guidances represent the Agency's current thinking on product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not create or confer any rights for or on any person and do 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 ) either electronic or written comments on any of the specific BE recommendations posted on FDA's Web site. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidances, notices, and received comments 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 document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

In FR Doc. 2012-13143, appearing on page 32124 in the Federal Register of Thursday, May 31, 2012, the following correction is made:

1. On page 32124, in the first column, in the headings section of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0146]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0146]”.

I. Background

In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.

The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from January 1, 2012, through March 31, 2012. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/default.htm and http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/HDEApprovals/ucm161827.htm.

The eCTD is an International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) standard based on specifications developed by ICH and its member parties. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) have been receiving submissions in the eCTD format since 2003, and the eCTD has been the standard for electronic submissions to CDER and CBER since January 1, 2008. In fact, the majority of new electronic submissions are now received in eCTD format. Since adoption of the eCTD standard, it has become necessary to update the administrative portion of the eCTD Module 1 to reflect regulatory changes; to provide clarification of business rules for submission, processing, and review; to refine the characterization of promotional labeling and advertising material; and to facilitate automated processing of submissions. In the process of considering these changes, FDA has previously made available for comment versions of documents that support making regulatory submissions in electronic format using the (eCTD) specifications. These draft documents represented FDA's major updates to Module 1 of the eCTD based on previous comments. FDA will make available revised versions of these documents in preparation for this meeting. These documents will be posted at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm253101.htm.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Julie Quinonez (see Contact ) at least 7 days in advance.

FDA has identified 364 ANDAs for which FDA has not received any communication from the ANDA applicant since July 8, 1991, or earlier (Inactive ANDAs). (See section IV of this document for the list of Inactive ANDAs). For purposes of this document, the term “applicant” includes any successor in interest. FDA's regulations provide that the Agency will consider withdrawn any application for which the applicant has not contacted the Agency about its intention regarding such application within 1 year after issuance of a complete response letter to the applicant (see 21 CFR 314.110(c)). The Inactive ANDAs, however, predate, and consequently are not subject to this regulation. Therefore, the Inactive ANDAs have not been deemed withdrawn although there has been no communication from the applicants since July 8, 1991, or earlier.

At this time, the Agency is announcing its intention to deem all Inactive ANDAs to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the respective applicants as of August 13, 2012, unless the applicant informs the Agency in writing by the date set forth under DATES in this document of its intent to actively pursue approval of the application. Therefore, in the absence of a written notice with respect to an Inactive ANDA by the date specified in this notice, the ANDA will be considered to have been withdrawn by the applicant. No further notice of the withdrawal of Inactive ANDAs will be provided. Withdrawal of an unapproved application is without prejudice to resubmission of that application (21 CFR 314.65). Because of the length of time that has passed since these applications were submitted, FDA strongly recommends that any applicant intending to actively pursue approval review the application carefully to determine whether it satisfies current ANDA requirements (21 CFR part 314).

If the applicant wishes to actively pursue approval of an Inactive ANDA and does not wish the application to be deemed by FDA to have been voluntarily withdrawn, the applicant must inform the Agency in writing within the time specified in this document. Written notice should be provided to Thomas Hinchliffe and the Office of Generic Drugs (see ADDRESSES ).

FDA also asks any applicant that agrees to consider its application to be voluntarily withdrawn to send a written notice to Thomas Hinchliffe and the Office of Generic Drugs (see ADDRESSES ) to confirm that agreement. However, applicants of Inactive ANDAs covered by this notice who wish their applications to be withdrawn are not required to provide written notice to FDA.

Information about the Inactive ANDAs is listed in this section of the document. To protect applicant confidentiality, this notice lists the application number and drug name for each Inactive ANDA and separately lists the name of the applicant as shown in the information on file with FDA, without linking identified applicants with specific applications or drug names. In some cases, the identified applicants may no longer exist as ongoing business entities. If an identified applicant is unsure which application(s) belong to it (if any), it may contact Thomas Hinchliffe (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The SACHDNC is directed to review and report regularly on newborn and childhood screening practices for heritable disorders and recommend improvements in the national newborn and childhood heritable screening programs.

The SACHDNC provides the Secretary with recommendations, advice, and technical information regarding the application of technologies, policies, guidelines, and standards for: (a) Effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders; and (b) enhancing the ability of the State and local health agencies to provide for newborn and child screening, counseling, and health care services for newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders.

Specifically, HRSA is requesting applications for three (3) non-voting organizational representatives to serve on the SACHDNC: Two (2) at large representatives of a public health constituency, medical professional society or national advocacy organization and one (1) representative of a public health professional organization. Non-voting representatives provide a perspective unique to the SACHDNC based on their organizations' or interest groups' subject area of expertise, and each nominee selection is based on the organization's/interest group's mission and relevancy to the SACHDNC's purpose (e.g., primary care, pediatrics, newborn screening, genetics and other relevant specialty expertise). Eligible organizations should represent broad constituencies affected or impacted by the work of the SACHDNC, as noted in the SACHDNC Charter.

Applicants eligible for consideration include representatives of the following organizations: (a) Medical, technical, public health, or scientific organizations with special expertise in the field of heritable disorders or (b) organizations that provide screening, counseling, testing, or specialty services for newborns and children at risk for heritable disorders. Organizations will also be chosen based on perspectives and expertise not currently represented, or with expiring terms, that serve to increase the knowledge base of the SACHDNC.

Applicants are requested to submit a written application to the DFO. Applications must contain the following:

• Letter of nomination stating the organization's:

○ Name and mission statement;

○ Outline of the perspective and expertise provided by the nominated organization and why this perspective and expertise would benefit the SACHDNC; and

○ Description of how the SACHDNC's work affects and/or impacts the nominated organization and its constituency.

• Contact information: Point of contact name, address, telephone number, and Web site of the organization;

• Portfolio of organizational projects, programs and products that are of importance to the SACHDNC's work;

• Organization's commitment to provide expert input into the decision-making process of the SACHDNC;

• Organization's detailed information concerning any possible conflicts of interest relative to both the organization and the proposed organizational representative (e.g., current or anticipated employment, consultancies, research grants, or contracts);

• Organization's commitment to support a representative to attend all SACHDNC meetings;

• Organization's commitment to ensure active contribution to and dissemination of SACHDNC activities and recommendations to its representative constituencies;

• Statement affirming that the organization: (a) Wishes to serve as a representative to the SACHDNC, and (b) has no conflict of interest that would preclude informing the SACHDNC in a fair and balanced manner;

• Organization's description clearly identifying how the organizational perspective and expertise would serve to increase the knowledge base of the SACHDNC; and

• SACHDNC's professional impact on the organization and its stakeholders.

Whenever possible, organizational representatives to the SACHDNC shall have expertise in dealing with heritable disorders and genetic diseases affecting racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse populations of newborns served by State newborn screening programs. HHS will ensure that SACHDNC members equitably reflect geographical location and gender distribution, provided that Committee effectiveness would not be impaired. Appointments shall be made without regard to age, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.

The Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program was created according to the Critical Infrastructure Information (CII) Act of 2002 for DHS to encourage voluntary information sharing by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and protected systems. The PCII Program provides standardized training for stakeholders to become PCII Authorized Users and PCII Officer/PCII Program Manager Designees. To further its mission, the PCII Program requires supporting information from these stakeholders regarding its training programs. The information collected by this survey serves this purpose. The survey data collected is for internal PCII Program, IICD, and NPPD/IP use only.OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Information Collection Division, Protected Critical Infrastructure Information Program.

Title: Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program Survey.

OMB Number: 1670-0012.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Federal, state, and local entities, and stakeholders or private sector.

Number of Respondents: 3,060 respondents (estimate).

Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 408 annual burden hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $15,224.00.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012-0082], and must be received by July 16, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2012-0082], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov , it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES , but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov , and type “USCG-2012-0082” in the “Keyword” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8½ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments 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 and material received during the comment period and will address them accordingly.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0082” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0012 and 1625-0040.

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

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 17081, March 23, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

1. Title: Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0012.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Shipping companies, masters or individuals in charge of a vessel.

Abstract: Title 46, United States Code, 10311 requires each master or individual in charge of a vessel, for each merchant mariner being discharged from the vessel to prepare a Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners and two copies. These documents are used to establish evidence of sea service aboard U.S. flagged merchant vessels for merchant mariners to upgrade their credentials, establish proof of eligibility for union and other benefits, and in litigation where vessel service is an issue.

Forms: CG-718A.

Burden Estimate The estimated burden has decreased from 2,443 hours to 1,478 hours.

2. Title: Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, Merchant Mariner Evaluation of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings, Merchant Mariner Credential, Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Recognition of Foreign Certificate.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0040.

Type of Request Revision of a currently approved collection

Respondents: Applicants for Merchant Mariner Credentials (MMC), whether original, renewal, duplicate, raise of grade, or a new endorsement on a previously issued MMC. Applicants for Medical Certificates to include Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) endorsed credentialed mariners, and first-class pilots as defined in the proposed rules, Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on STCW for Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to Domestic Endorsements (Docket No. USCG-2004-17914).

Abstract: The Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, and Merchant Mariner Evaluation of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings, contains the following information: signature of applicant and supplementary material required to show that the mariner meets the mandatory requirements for the credential or medical certificate sought; proof of applicant passing all applicable vision, hearing, medical, and/or physical exams; negative chemical test for dangerous drugs; discharges or other documentary evidence of sea service indicating the name, tonnage, and propulsion power of the vessels, dates of service, capacity in which the applicant served, and on what waters.

Forms: CG-719B, CG-719K, CG-719S, CG-719P, CG-719K/E, CG-4610, CG-4610A, and CG-4610B.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 54,416 hours to 57,083 hours a year.

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012-0173], and must be received by July 16, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2012-0173], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES , but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov , and type “USCG-2012-0173” in the “Keyword” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8½ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments 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 and material received during the comment period and will address them accordingly.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0173” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMai n after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.

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

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 18253, March 27, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Title: Vessel Reporting Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for profit organizations.

Abstract: Owners, Charterers, Managing Operators, or Agents of U.S. vessels must immediately notify the Coast Guard if they believe the vessel may be lost or in danger. The Coast Guard uses this information to investigate the situation and, when necessary, plan appropriate search and rescue operations.

Forms: None.

Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 137 hours per year.

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 Termination of Multifamily Mortgage Insurance.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0416.

Form Numbers: HUD-9807.

The information collection is used to notify HUD that the mortgagor and mortgagee mutually agree to terminate the HUD multifamily mortgage insurance.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 368.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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: Supplement to Application for Federally Assisted Housing.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0581.

Form Numbers: HUD-92006.

Section 644 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.13604) imposed on HUD the obligation to require housing providers participating in HUD's assisted housing programs to provide any individual or family applying for occupancy in HUD assisted housing with the option to include in the application for occupancy the name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information of a family member, friend, or person associated with a social, health, advocacy, or similar organization. The objective of providing such information, if this information is provided, and if the applicant becomes a tenant, is to facilitate contact by the housing provider with the person or organization identified by the tenant, to assist in providing any delivery of services or special care to the tenant and assist with resolving any tenancy issues arising during the tenancy of such tenant. This supplemental application information is to be maintained by the housing provider and maintained as confidential information.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 91,196.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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: Mark-to-Market Program; Requirements for Community-Based Non-Profit Organizations and Public Agencies.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0563.

Form Numbers: None.

Provides proof of tenant endorsement of entity proposing to purchase restructured property and obtain modification, assignment, or forgiveness of second mortgage debt.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 3,680.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing for Performing Loans; MIP Processing, Escrow Administration, Customer Service, Servicing Fees and 235 Loans

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0583.

Form Numbers: HUD-300, HUD-93100, HUD-93114, HUD-93101a, HUD-93102, HUD-93101.

FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods.

Providing assistance, as needed, to enable families to cure their delinquencies and retain their homes stabilizes neighborhoods that might otherwise suffer from deterioration and problems associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Avoidance of foreclosure and the resultant costs also serve to further stabilize the mortgage insurance premiums charged by FHA and the Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums. This information co

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: Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Counseling Standardization and Roster.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0586.

Form Numbers: HUD 92904.

This PRA package provides reporting burden for individuals to apply to be placed on the HECM counselor roster and to maintain their name on the HECM counseling roster. For initial application, individuals are required to successfully pass a standardized HECM exam, have received HECM-related education within the past two years and provide information collected on form HUD 92904. HUD uses the information provided to determine the applicants' eligibility to be placed on the HECM counselor roster. To remain on the HECM counselor roster, a counselor must complete continuing education on a HECM related topic every two years and pass the HECM exam every three years.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 851.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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: Builder's Certification of Plans, Specifications, and Site.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0496.

Form Numbers: HUD-92541.

This is a revision of a current collection and reflects recent statutory and policy changes but does not increase the paperwork burden previously approved. HUD requires the builder to complete the certification (form HUD-92541) noting adverse site/location factor(s) of the property, including Floodplains. This certification is necessary so that HUD does not insure a mortgage on property that poses a risk to health or safety of the occupant.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 4,500.

Status: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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: Personal Financial and Credit Statement.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0001.

Form Numbers: HUD-92417.

The information collection is legally required to collect information to evaluate the character, ability, and capital or the sponsor, mortgagor, and general contractor for mortgage insurance.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 16,000.

Status: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.