Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Notices 22599 

FEMA grant are included in the 

calculation (since these are the cases 

assumed to have insufficient insurance 

coverage). Furthermore, the FEMA grant 

amount and all SBA loans are 

subtracted out of the total estimated 

damage to obtain a final unmet needs 

estimate. 

Calculating Infrastructure Needs 

To best proxy unmet infrastructure 

needs, HUD uses data from FEMA’s 

Public Assistance program on the state 

match requirement (usually 25 percent 

of the estimated public assistance 

needs). This allocation uses only a 

subset of the Public Assistance damage 

estimates reflecting the categories of 

activities most likely to require CDBG 

funding above the Public Assistance and 

state match requirement. Those 

activities are categories: C–Roads and 

Bridges; D–Water Control Facilities; E– 

Public Buildings; F–Public Utilities; and 

G–Recreational-Other. Categories A 

(Debris Removal) and B (Protective 

Measures) are largely expended 

immediately after a disaster and reflect 

interim recovery measures rather than 

the long-term recovery measures for 

which CDBG funds are generally used. 

Because Public Assistance damage 

estimates are available only statewide 

(and not county), CDBG funding 

allocated by the estimate of unmet 

infrastructure needs are sub-allocated to 

counties and local jurisdictions based 

on each jurisdiction’s proportion of 

unmet housing needs (categories minorhigh to severe). 

Calculating Economic Revitalization 

Needs 

Based on SBA disaster loans to 

businesses, HUD used the sum of real 

property and real content loss of small 

businesses not receiving an SBA 

disaster loan. This is adjusted upward 

by the proportion of applications that 

were received for a disaster that content 

and real property loss were not 

calculated because the applicant had 

inadequate credit or income. For 

example, if a state had 160 applications 

for assistance, 150 had calculated needs 

and 10 were denied in the preprocessing stage for not enough income 

or poor credit, the estimated unmet 

need calculation would be increased as 

(1 + 10/160) * calculated unmet real 

content loss. 

Because applications denied for poor 

credit or income are the most likely 

measure of requiring the type of 

assistance available with CDBG recovery 

funds, the calculated unmet business 

needs for each state are adjusted 

upwards by the proportion of total 

applications that were denied at the preprocess stage because of poor credit or 

inability to show repayment ability. 

Similar to housing, estimated damage is 

used to determine what unmet needs 

will be counted as severe unmet needs. 

Only properties with total real estate 

and content loss in excess of $65,000 are 

considered severe damage for purposes 

of identifying the most impacted areas. 

Category 1: real estate + content loss = 

below 12,000 

Category 2: real estate + content loss = 

12,000–30,000 

Category 3: real estate + content loss = 

30,000–65,000 

Category 4: real estate + content loss = 

65,000–150,000 

Category 5: real estate + content loss = 

above 150,000 

To obtain unmet business needs, the 

amount for approved SBA loans is 

subtracted out of the total estimated 

damage. Since SBA business needs are 

best measured at the county level, HUD 

estimates the distribution of needs to 

local entitlement jurisdictions based on 

the distribution of all unmet housing 

needs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9094 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5580–N–03] 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Summary of Public 

Comments, Response to Public 

Comments, and Final 2012–2015 

Environmental Justice Strategy 

AGENCY: Office of Sustainable Housing 

and Communities, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2011, HUD 

posted its draft environmental justice 

strategy and requested public comment. 

This notice summarizes public 

comments submitted in response to 

HUD’s draft environmental justice 

strategy, offers response to comments, 

and announces the release of HUD’s 

final Environmental Justice Strategy. 

The changes in the final strategy reflect 

HUD’s consideration of the public 

comments received and HUD’s effort to 

improve and expand its commitment to 

avoiding disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income 

populations, as well as creating 

geographies of opportunity. The final 

strategy is posted at http:// 

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ 

program_offices/ 

sustainable_housing_communities. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sunaree Marshall, Office of Sustainable 

Housing and Communities, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10180, 

Washington, DC 20410, telephone 

number 202–402–6011 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access these 

numbers through TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800– 

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 30, 2011, HUD 

published for public comment a draft 

Environmental Justice Strategy for 2012 

through 2015. HUD is committed to 

meeting the goals of Executive Order 

12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,’’ which states that each 

federal agency, with the law as its guide, 

should make environmental justice part 

of its mission. In this regard, HUD has 

developed its Environmental Justice 

Strategy (EJ Strategy). HUD’s EJ Strategy 

is a four-year plan to address 

environmental justice concerns and 

increase access to environmental 

benefits through HUD policies, 

programs, and activities. 

The release of HUD’s EJ Strategy is 

part of the latest step in a larger 

Administration-wide effort to ensure 

strong protection from environmental 

and health hazards for all. In August 

2011, federal agencies signed the 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding on 

Environmental Justice and Executive 

Order 12898’’ (EJ MOU), which 

committed each agency to, among other 

things, finalizing an EJ strategy and 

releasing annual implementation 

reports. Links to the other federal EJ 

Strategies are available on the 

Environmental Justice Interagency 

Workgroup (IWG) Web page at http:// 

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

interagency/index.html. 

Now that its strategy is final, HUD 

will continue to work with the IWG and 

other federal partners to engage 

stakeholders through outreach, 

education, and stakeholder events and 

respond to public comments through its 

annual implementation reports. 

II. Final Strategy: Changes to the 

September 30, 2011 Draft EJ Strategy 

This final strategy follows publication 

of the September 30, 2011 draft strategy 

and takes into consideration the public 

comments received. The public 

comment period on the draft strategy 

closed on November 23, 2011, after 

HUD extended the deadline from the 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
22600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Notices 

original November 14, 2011 date. HUD 

received relevant input from a total of 

36 commenters representing a wide 

variety of stakeholders, some of whom 

submitted multiple comments, in 

response to the draft strategy. Comments 

were submitted by private citizens, 

local, regional, and state agencies, and 

advocacy groups. The comments were 

on a wide variety of issues from many 

different sections of the draft strategy. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments 

Received on the September 30, 2011 

Draft Strategy 

This section presents a summary of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

September 30, 2011 Draft EJ Strategy 

and HUD’s responses to these issues. 

Comment: HUD should expand the 

definition of ‘‘Colonias’’ to include rural 

communities with similar 

characteristics but not located on the 

southern border of the U.S. to increase 

assistance to farmworker and rural 

communities. 

Response: For the purposes of the 

colonia set-aside in the CDBG program, 

HUD must follow the requirements of 

§ 916(e)(1) of the 1990 CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing 

Act, which defines colonia as: ‘‘Any 

identifiable community * * * in the 

State of Arizona, California, New 

Mexico, or Texas * * * in the United 

States-Mexico border region * * * [and] 

is determined to be a colonia on the 

basis of objective criteria, including lack 

of potable water supply, lack of 

adequate sewage systems, and lack of 

decent, safe and sanitary housing.’’ 

Because the geography of the colonia is 

defined in statute, expanding the 

definition would require a statutory 

change by Congress. 

Comment: HUD should include clear 

and specific requirements and 

incentives for energy and water 

efficiency in all HUD housing 

rehabilitation and construction 

programs. 

Response: HUD values energy 

efficiency and is committed to efficient, 

green, and healthy homes. Subgoal 4B of 

HUD’s Strategic Plan for FY 2010–2015 

calls on HUD to ‘‘support and promote 

an energy-efficient, green, and healthy 

housing market by retrofitting existing 

housing, supporting energy-efficient 

new construction, improving home 

energy labeling, and promoting 

financing products that reduce the 

carbon footprint of non-HUD-supported 

residential buildings.’’ Furthermore, for 

the past several Fiscal Years, HUD has 

offered policy priority points to 

applicants that plan to use HUD 

discretionary grant program funding to 

build or rehabilitate to a recognized 

green building rating standard (see 

section I.B.2. of HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 

2012 Notice of Funding Availability 

(NOFA) Policy Requirements and 

General Section to HUD’s FY2012 

NOFAs for Discretionary Programs). 

Comment: HUD should add to 

selection criteria of all NOFAs a 

discussion of the impact a project would 

have on homeless populations and 

planned mitigation strategies, where 

appropriate. 

Response: One of the goals outlined in 

HUD’s Strategic Plan for FY 2010–2015 

is ending homelessness by reducing the 

number of homeless families, 

chronically homeless individuals, and 

homeless veterans. To achieve this goal, 

HUD has partnered with local, state, and 

Federal organizations, including the 

U.S. Interagency Council on 

Homelessness, to deploy evidence-based 

interventions, such as supportive 

housing, housing first, homelessness 

prevention, and rapid rehousing, to 

more effectively and efficiently use the 

Nation’s limited resources to bring an 

end to homelessness. While a criterion 

described in the comment is not 

included in all of the NOFAs for HUD’s 

discretionary programs, HUD is working 

proactively to end homelessness 

through strategies such as: providing 

additional individuals and families with 

rental housing subsidies; increasing 

service-enriched housing; working with 

state and local governments to expand 

rental assistance and prevent 

homelessness; and improving access to 

HUD-funded housing assistance by 

eliminating administrative barriers and 

encouraging prioritization of 

households most at risk for 

homelessness. 

Comment: Two commenters noted 

that the strategy was broad in scope and 

lacked benchmarks and goals that 

would quantify performance and aid in 

implementation. 

Response: HUD is eager to make 

headway on the myriad departmentwide and program office-specific policy 

priorities outlined in the EJ Strategy in 

the pursuit of environmental justice— 

defined by HUD as equal access to safe 

and healthy housing for all Americans, 

mitigating risks to communities in 

disaster-prone areas, access to 

affordable, quality housing free of 

hazards to residents’ health, and 

working to achieve inclusive, 

sustainable communities free from 

discrimination. The next step in the 

process is finalizing the EJ Strategy to 

comply with Executive Order 12898. 

This strategy lays out the general 

principles of HUD’s approach to 

Environmental Justice but is not 

intended to be HUD’s last word on the 

subject. Beginning in 2012, HUD will 

provide an annual report on progress in 

carrying out this strategy and Executive 

Order 12898, with meaningful 

opportunities for public comment and 

recommendations. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

wanted to know more about the EJ 

training, progress reports, potential new 

reporting requirements, and policies 

that were mentioned in the draft EJ 

Strategy. One commenter further noted 

that HUD should expand the training 

materials it is planning to provide to 

include seminars, webinars, handouts, 

and in-person training. 

Response: Finalizing and releasing the 

2012–2015 EJ Strategy is the first step 

toward working toward the priorities 

outlined in the Strategy, including 

offering EJ training and reporting HUD’s 

annual progress. Now that HUD has 

finalized its Strategy, HUD’s EJ Working 

Group and other staff will continue to 

work to develop training materials, as 

well as a timeline for progress reports, 

and will make details available to the 

public. HUD’s Web site will continue to 

be the best place to find information on 

training, progress reports, and any 

relevant guidance. 

Comment: HUD should issue the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)-related guidance on how it will 

consider environmental justice impacts 

of major federal actions affecting the 

environment. 

Response: In Section A.3 of the 

Strategy, HUD commits to reviewing 

and evaluating environmental review 

requirements and delivering special 

training materials to HUD and grantee 

staff on environmental justice. 

Comment: HUD needs to change the 

definition of what constitutes affordable 

housing to include energy and water 

efficiency standards. 

Response: HUD understands that both 

transportation and utility costs have a 

significant impact on the overall 

affordability of housing for individuals. 

Several initiatives are underway to 

improve our understanding of the 

combined cost of housing, energy, and 

transportation for American households. 

HUD took unprecedented actions in 

FY2010 and FY2011 to increase energy 

efficiency in affordable housing. 

Through an interagency Rental Policy 

Working Group, HUD, the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 

other federal agencies adopted a 

framework for common energy 

efficiency standards in federallyassisted affordable rental housing, as 

published on December 31, 2011 in the 

Federal Alignment Report (http://www.

huduser.org/portal/aff_rental_hsg/


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Notices 22601 

RPWG_Conceptual_Proposals_Fall_

2011.pdf). 

In addition, as part of a joint effort 

with the Department of Energy (DOE), 

HUD established and exceeded a twoyear goal for energy efficient, healthy 

retrofits and new construction of 

affordable units. Through HUD’s core 

programs, HUD has expanded financing, 

increased technical assistance, and 

strengthened basic energy requirements 

to advance greater energy efficiency. 

Many of HUD’s competitive grant 

programs provide bonus points for 

projects that comply with standards 

including EnergyStar, WaterSense, and 

Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED). The 

competitive nature of these programs 

often ensures that only proposals that 

achieve these points are funded. HUD 

also acknowledges successful 

sustainable projects of various types 

through national award programs as an 

additional incentive to achieve these 

and other goals. Through a partnership 

with DOE to break down interagency 

barriers, more than 1.5 million units of 

HUD-assisted housing have increased 

access to funding under DOE’s 

Weatherization Assistance Program. 

In FY2011, HUD continued existing 

innovative energy-efficiency financing 

programs such as the Mark-to-Market 

green initiative, and launched new 

financing programs such as the 

PowerSaver pilot program to provide 

FHA-insured loans for homeowners to 

invest in home energy improvements 

and the Fannie Mae-FHA Green 

Refinance Plus that allows for 

refinancing of existing affordable 

multifamily rental properties into new 

mortgages that include funds for energy 

saving improvements. HUD is also 

working to improve its data collection 

and reporting systems on energy 

efficiency. For example, HUD 

strengthened the Integrated 

Disbursement & Information System 

(IDIS) reporting for Recovery Act 

reporting through HOME, the 

Community Development Block Grant 

Program (CDBG), and the Neighborhood 

Stabilization Program (NSP), as well as 

energy improvements funded through 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111–5) 

(Recovery Act) Capital Fund in public 

housing. The Administration’s FY2013 

Budget proposal for the Office of 

Sustainable Housing and Communities 

builds on this progress and requests 

funding to support energy efficiency 

and green building initiatives which 

will allow HUD to further develop 

uniform energy efficiency guidelines for 

HUD-assisted properties. 

Comment: HUD should set standards 

for making spatially referenced housing 

information available to local agencies. 

(Example: Assigning multi-family units 

to their actual location versus the 

address of a management office.) Also, 

HUD could provide funding and/or 

leadership in creating agreements with 

private vendors (like RealtyTrac) to 

make standardized, geo-coded 

foreclosure information accessible to 

local jurisdictions and to the public. 

Response: HUD is currently investing 

in a project called Enterprise Geospatial 

Services that includes establishing 

geocoding standards for the agency and 

conducting an agency-wide geospatial 

needs assessment. The geospatial needs 

assessment will include a summation of 

the agency’s geospatial environment as 

is and recommendations for an 

enterprise geospatial architecture for 

HUD. In recent years, HUD has made 

great strides toward expanding our 

geospatial mapping capacity and tools 

for the public. Thirteen mapping tools 

for various HUD programs are available 

at: http://egis.hud.gov. This page will 

soon be rebuilt using portal technology 

that will allow users to search or browse 

for data, services, and applications. In 

addition to supporting these specific 

applications, HUD is also designing a 

public map services program that will 

make core data sets available to Federal 

and local partners and the general 

public. HUD projects that these map 

services will be available in starting in 

2012 in a variety of standard formats, 

such as WMS, REST, and KML. At this 

point, HUD is unable to reach a 

licensing agreement that would allow 

the agency to make foreclosure data 

publicly available that would not be 

prohibitively expensive. 

Comment: With close to half of the 

Tribes recognized by the United States 

of America located in Alaska, and the 

known communication issues between 

many of these Villages and Federal 

Agencies, HUD is not doing enough to 

make it possible for the Alaska Tribes to 

participate in a meaningful way. In 

addition, HUD is not doing enough to 

stop pollution from entering Alaska’s 

natural environment, which has adverse 

effects for many indigenous peoples. 

Finally, with almost half the federally 

recognized tribes located in Alaska, 

HUD should pursue budget equity with 

the funds designated as tribal funds. 

The majority of funds should be 

directed to Alaska’s Tribes. 

Response: HUD and its Office of 

Native American Programs recognize 

and support the sovereignty of federally 

recognized Tribes through the unique 

government-to-government relationship 

formally established between the Tribes 

and the United States government. This 

relationship is reflected in HUD’s 

Government-to-Government Tribal 

Consultation Policy which was 

established pursuant to Executive Order 

13175 which required federal agencies 

to: (1) Establish regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with 

Indian Tribal officials in the 

development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications; (2) strengthen 

the United States government-togovernment relationships with Indian 

Tribes; and (3) reduce the imposition of 

unfunded mandates upon Indian Tribes. 

HUD’s Government-to-Government 

Tribal Consultation Policy applies to all 

HUD programs that have substantial 

direct effects on federally recognized 

Indian Tribal governments. 

Regarding environmental impacts, 

recipients of HUD grant funds, 

including the Office of Native American 

Programs’ NAHASDA Indian Housing 

Block Grant and Indian Community 

Development Block Grant programs, 

must meet the statutory and regulatory 

provisions of NEPA and other 

environmental laws and authorities. 

HUD environmental regulations 

establish a policy that properties 

proposed for use in HUD programs be 

free of hazardous materials and 

contamination that could affect the 

health and safety of occupants or 

conflict with the intended use of the 

property. 

Finally, regarding the allocation of 

funds to federally recognized Tribes, 

HUD’s Government-to-Government 

Tribal Consultation Policy clearly 

establishes the methodologies HUD will 

follow to affect meaningful Tribal 

Consultation and Collaboration at the 

local, regional, and national levels. 

Consistent with HUD’s Tribal 

Consultation Policy and in accordance 

with the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

of 1996, HUD has established a number 

of negotiated rulemaking committees in 

the past to develop and regularly review 

program regulations governing the 

allocation of Indian Housing Block 

Grant (IHBG) to Indian tribes. In doing 

so, HUD ensured that each committee, 

as a whole, reflected a geographically 

diverse cross-section of small, medium, 

and large Indian tribes, including 

representatives of Alaska tribes. All 

decisions made by these committees 

have historically been made on a 

consensus basis. HUD intends to 

establish negotiated rulemaking 

committees in the future to review the 

method by which IHBG funds are 

allocated to Indian tribes and remains 

committed to ensuring continued tribal 

participation. This process has been 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
22602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Notices 

effective in the past in ensuring the fair 

and equitable distribution of IHBG grant 

funds among all program recipients. 

Comment: HUD should apply a public 

health framework to all offices and 

programs. 

Response: HUD knows that stable, 

healthy housing is inextricably tied to 

individual health and has made 

improving health outcomes a priority in 

its Strategic Plan. Improving health 

outcomes starts by increasing health 

knowledge and access to health 

services. Strategies HUD is committed to 

pursuing in 2010–2015 include: 

Increasing information about and access 

to health services, including veterans’ 

health benefits, through partnerships 

with health organizations and 

healthcare delivery systems; increasing 

coordination of HUD programs with 

healthcare resources administered by 

other federal, state, and local programs; 

providing physical space to co-locate 

healthcare and wellness services with 

housing (for example, onsite health 

clinics); and promoting housing 

management practices that protect the 

health of residents (for example, 

smoking cessation, pest management, 

and green cleaning). 

HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and 

Lead Hazard Control administers lead 

hazard and healthy homes programs, 

enforces lead paint regulations, and sets 

policies to reduce health and safety 

hazards in housing. Its comprehensive 

approach to healthy homes takes into 

account a variety of hazards in the home 

that can affect health, especially the 

presence of lead; these hazards often 

disproportionately impact EJ 

communities. 

Health is embedded in many other 

HUD programs as well. For instance, a 

goal of the Choice Neighborhoods 

program is to convert some of the worst 

of the nation’s public housing into 

higher-quality, mixed-income, mixedtenure developments. The vision is to 

help communities transform into 

walkable neighborhoods with amenities 

and health services that allow residents 

to lead healthier lives. The Housing 

Choice Voucher program allows 

recipients of HUD assistance the 

mobility and freedom to choose the 

neighborhood they live in, allowing 

some people to leave neighborhoods 

that were less healthy, from a stress, 

safety, or walkability standpoint, to one 

that is more healthy. 

Comment: HUD should make public 

safety a priority in all its programs, as 

it does in the Choice Neighborhoods 

program. 

Response: Public safety is a key 

priority for HUD and a component of its 

Strategic Plan (Subgoal 3E). HUD knows 

that safety and the perception of safety 

are necessary factors for quality of life 

and that enhancing physical safety and 

reducing crime are essential to 

improving health, education, and 

economic outcomes. HUD’s Strategic 

Plan describes HUD’s strategies for 

improving actual safety and perceptions 

of safety, including: encouraging 

housing managers to use incentives to 

promote safety awareness and crime 

prevention programs; maintaining or 

improving the physical environment 

and design of HUD-assisted residences, 

giving attention to physical safety and 

crime prevention; and promoting a high 

level of coordination with law 

enforcement agencies to prevent and 

reduce crime. The new Choice 

Neighborhoods program is one example 

of how HUD is beginning to realize this 

strategic goal. 

Comment: The Fair Housing Equity 

Assessment component of the 

Sustainable Communities grant 

programs should require mapping 

health variables to evaluate the impact 

of healthy and unhealthy community 

assets. 

Response: The Fair Housing Equity 

Assessment requirement for HUD 

Sustainable Communities Regional 

Planning Grant Program grantees 

includes an identification and 

assessment of segregated areas and areas 

of increasing diversity and/or racial/ 

ethnic integration, racially/ethnically 

concentrated areas of poverty, access to 

existing areas of high opportunity, major 

public investments, and fair housing 

issues, services, and activities. During 

the course of their work, Regional 

Planning grantees are required to engage 

stakeholders and create planning 

priorities around positive community 

health outcomes. 

Comment: HUD should prioritize 

housing mobility programs to work 

toward the goal of environmental 

justice. 

Response: HUD is committed to 

providing choices and mobility to 

residents of public and assisted housing. 

Through HUD’s Transforming Rental 

Assistance Initiative, HUD will work 

with partners at the state and local 

levels to regionalize rental assistance 

administration and to offer residents the 

option to receive tenant-based Section 8 

vouchers, giving families access to a 

wider range of choices and 

opportunities when it comes to 

choosing a place to live. 

Comment: HUD should use its Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 

authority to create a National Equitable 

Development Advisory Council. 

Response: HUD is exploring the most 

effective ways to bring Federal, state, 

and local partners and stakeholder 

expertise to bear on its Environmental 

Justice work. Establishing an Advisory 

Council is an option that HUD will look 

into going forward. 

Dated: April 10, 2012. 

Shelley Poticha, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Housing and 

Communities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9092 Filed 4–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) 

[Docket ID No. BSEE–2012–0006; OMB 

Number 1014–0008] 

Information Collection Activities: Well 

Control and Production Safety 

Training, Submitted for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice. 

SUMMARY: To comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), BSEE is inviting comments on a 

collection of information that we will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and approval. 

The information collection request (ICR) 

concerns an extension to the paperwork 

requirements in the regulations under 

Subpart O, ‘‘Well Control and 

Production Safety Training.’’ 

DATES: You must submit comments by 

June 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods listed 

below. 

• Electronically: go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled, 

‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter BSEE– 

2012–0006 then click search. Follow the 

instructions to submit public comments 

and view all related materials. We will 

post all comments. 

• Email: nicole.mason@bsee.gov. Mail 

or hand-carry comments to the 

Department of the Interior; Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement; 

Regulations and Development Branch; 

Attention: Nicole Mason; 381 Elden 

Street, HE3313; Herndon, Virginia 

20170–4817. Please reference ICR 1014– 

0008 in your comment and include your 

name and return address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Mason, Regulations and 

Development Branch, (703) 787–1605, 

to request additional information about 

this ICR. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES