34112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 

93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention 

Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 

Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 

Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology 

Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 

93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 

Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS) 

Dated: May 31, 2013. 

Melanie J. Gray, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13371 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Request for Expressions of 

Interest (EOI) To Perform a Chemical 

Defense Demonstration Project 

AGENCY: Office of Health Affairs, 

Chemical Defense Program, DHS. 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for 

comments; New Collection, 1601—NEW 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Health Affairs, 

Chemical Defense Program will submit 

the following information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 

35). DHS previously published this 

information collection request (ICR) in 

the Federal Register on February 8, 

2013, at FR 9405 for a 60-day public 

comment period. No comments were 

received by DHS. The purpose of this 

notice is to allow additional 30-days for 

public comments. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted until July 8, 2013. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments on 

the proposed information collection to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget. Comments should be addressed 

to OMB Desk Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security and sent via 

electronic mail to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or faxed 

to (202) 395–5806. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

additional information is required 

contact: The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), Office of Health Affairs, 

Chemical Defense Program, Attn.: CAPT 

Joselito Ignacio, 

joselito.ignacio@hq.dhs.gov, 202–254– 

5738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Chemical Defense Program seeks to 

obtain information from respondents 

interested in hosting a demonstration 

project aimed at developing a 

comprehensive chemical defense 

framework. The authority for the 

Chemical Defense Program to collect 

this information can be found in Public 

Law 112–74, Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012 and 

Conference Report 112–331. 

The information requested on the 

form includes: Name of state, local, 

tribal, or territorial government agency; 

address; submitter’s name, position and 

contact information; identified venue 

for demonstration project; interest in 

developing a chemical defense 

capability; specific reasons for the 

communities interest and needs for a 

chemical defense capability; community 

chemical threat assessed risks if 

applicable; any additional information 

respondent requests for consideration. 

As identified in Public Law 112–74 and 

Conference Report 112–331, the 

Chemical Defense Program must 

competitively select the locations for 

conducting the chemical defense 

demonstration projects. The Chemical 

Defense Program will use the provided 

information for the selection process. 

Analysis 

Agency: Office of Health Affairs 

Chemical Defense Program, DHS. 

Title: Request for Expressions of 

Interest (EOI) To Perform a Chemical 

Defense Demonstration Project. 

OMB Number: 1601—NEW. 

Frequency: Once. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. 

Number of Respondents: 25. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 20 

hours. 

Total Burden Hours: 500 Hours. 

Dated: May 23, 2013. 

Margaret H. Graves, 

Acting Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13324 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[Docket No. DHS–2013–0024] 

Review and Revision of the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan 

AGENCY: National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public 

that the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD) Office of 

Infrastructure Protection (IP) is 

currently reviewing the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) to 

conform to the requirements of 

Presidential Policy Directive 21, Critical 

Infrastructure Security and Resilience, 

and, as part of a comprehensive national 

review process, solicits public comment 

on issues or language in the NIPP that 

need to be updated. 

DATES: Written comments are 

encouraged and will be accepted until 

July 8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

questions about the NIPP should be 

forwarded to Lisa Barr, DHS/NPPD/IP/ 

Office of Strategy and Policy, 245 

Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 8530, 

Arlington, VA 20598–8530. Written 

comments should reach the contact 

person listed no later than July 8, 2013. 

Comments must be identified by ‘‘DHS– 

2013–0024’’ and may be submitted by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Email: EO-PPDTaskForce@ 

hq.dhs.gov. Include the docket number 

in the subject line of the message. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the words ‘‘Department of 

Homeland Security’’ and the docket 

number for this action. All comments 

received (via any of the identified 

methods) will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. You 

may submit your comments and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 34113 

1PPD–21 can be found at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/ 

presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructuresecurity-and-resil. 

2EO 13636 can be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf. 

material by one of the methods specified 

in the ADDRESSES section. Please submit 

your comments and material by only 

one means to avoid the adjudication of 

duplicate submissions. If you submit 

comments by mail, your submission 

should be an unbound document and no 

larger than 8.5 by 11 inches to enable 

copying and electronic document 

management. If you want DHS to 

acknowledge receipt of comments by 

mail, include with your comments a 

self-addressed, stamped postcard that 

includes the docket number for this 

action. We will date your postcard and 

return it to you via regular mail. For 

purposes of review, the 2009 NIPP can 

be found at http://www.dhs.gov/nipp. 

Docket: Background documents and 

comments can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Barr, DHS/NPPD/IP/Office of Strategy 

and Policy; 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail 

Stop 8530, Washington, DC 20528–8530 

or 703–235–9542. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) invites interested 

persons to contribute suggestions and 

comments for the rewrite of the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) by 

submitting written data, views, or ideas. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to DHS in updating the NIPP 

will explain the reason for any 

recommended changes to the NIPP and 

include data, information, or authority 

that supports such recommended 

change. Linking changes to specific 

sections of the NIPP would also be 

helpful. There will be an opportunity to 

review a revised document reflecting 

the various changes sometime this 

summer. 

II. Background 

On February 12, 2013, President 

Obama signed Presidential Policy 

Directive 21 1 (PPD–21), Critical 

Infrastructure Security and Resilience, 

which builds on the extensive work 

done to date to protect and enhance the 

resilience of the Nation’s critical 

infrastructure. This directive aims to 

clarify roles and responsibilities across 

the Federal Government and establish a 

more effective partnership with owners 

and operators and state, local, tribal, 

and territorial entities to enhance the 

security and resilience of critical 

infrastructure. 

President Obama also signed 

Executive Order (EO) 13636 2 on 

February 12, 2013, entitled Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. By 

issuing the EO and PPD together, the 

Administration is taking an integrated 

approach to strengthening the security 

and resilience of critical infrastructure 

against all hazards, through an updated 

and overarching national framework 

that acknowledges the increased role of 

cybersecurity in securing physical 

assets. 

PPD–21 sets forth several actions that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security 

shall take to implement the directive. 

One of these is to develop a successor 

to the NIPP to address the 

implementation of PPD–21; the 

requirements of Title II of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, as amended; and 

alignment with the National 

Preparedness Goal and System required 

by Presidential Policy Directive 8 

(PPD–8). 

The 2009 NIPP set forth a 

comprehensive risk management 

framework and defined roles and 

responsibilities for DHS; the SectorSpecific Agencies (SSAs); other Federal 

departments and agencies; state, local, 

tribal, and territorial governments; 

critical infrastructure owners and 

operators; and other stakeholders in 

industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. The NIPP 

provides a coordinated approach for 

establishing national priorities, goals, 

and requirements so that resources can 

be applied in the most effective manner. 

The NIPP risk management framework 

responds to an evolving risk landscape; 

as such, there will always be changes to 

the NIPP—from relatively minor to more 

significant—to ensure it remains 

relevant to the critical infrastructure 

mission over time. 

III. Initial List of Issues To Be Updated 

in the NIPP 

PPD–21 specifies the following 

elements that shall be included in the 

successor to the NIPP: 

• Identification of a risk management 

framework to be used to strengthen the 

security and resilience of critical 

infrastructure; 

• Protocols to synchronize 

communication and actions within the 

Federal Government; and 

• A metrics process to be used to 

measure the Nation’s ability to manage 

and reduce risks to critical 

infrastructure. 

Some other actions required of the 

Secretary for Homeland Security under 

PPD–21 also must be addressed in the 

successor to the NIPP, including a 

description of functional relationships 

within DHS and across the Federal 

Government related to critical 

infrastructure security and resilience; 

and any changes to the sector 

partnership resulting from the 

evaluation of the existing public-private 

partnership model. Finally, the plan 

must consider sector dependencies on 

energy and communications systems, 

and identify pre-event and mitigation 

measures or alternate capabilities during 

disruptions to those systems. 

The NIPP review will be coordinated 

with a broad range of critical 

infrastructure partners and other 

stakeholders. This notice extends an 

invitation to the public to provide 

feedback on the 2009 NIPP and those 

changes that should or should not be 

made. To assist the reviewer, DHS has 

conducted a review of expected changes 

to the NIPP and an initial list of 

potential changes is included in this 

notice. The purpose of this notice is to 

request public comment on additional 

changes that would help fulfill the 

mandate of PPD–21 to make the 

successor to the NIPP more relevant and 

useful in strengthening the security and 

resilience of the Nation’s critical 

physical and cyber infrastructure. Some 

of the known changes that will be 

addressed in the successor to the NIPP 

are: 

• Changes to the sectors and 

designated SSAs; 

• Changes in terminology based on 

recent directives; 

• Alignment with PPD–8 on National 

Preparedness; 

• Updates to information-sharing 

tools and mechanisms; 

• Critical infrastructure security and 

resilience regulatory programs; 

• Updates on measurement and 

reporting and risk-informed resource 

allocation; 

• Review and update cycles for the 

NIPP and Sector-Specific Plans (SSPs); 

• Closer integration of physical and 

cybersecurity, including increased 

coordination of research and 

development efforts; 

• Review of the risk management 

approach; 

• Sector dependencies on energy and 

communications systems; 

• Increased regional emphasis of 

critical infrastructure security and 

resilience; and 

• Other issues, such as aging 

infrastructure and climate change 

adaptation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 

These changes are discussed further 

below. 

IV. Discussion of Issues To Be 

Addressed in the Successor to the NIPP 

Implementing PPD–21 will require 

DHS to address a number of specific 

issues in reviewing and updating the 

NIPP. However, since the NIPP was last 

issued in 2009, critical infrastructure 

programs across the Nation have 

matured and produced lessons learned 

and best practices from day-to-day 

operations, exercises, and actual 

incidents that should be incorporated in 

any successor to the plan. The new 

document must incorporate 

developments including new laws, EOs, 

Presidential directives, and regulations, 

and procedural changes to critical 

infrastructure security and resilience 

activities based on real-world events 

and emerging risks. 

Some of the known changes that will 

be addressed in this review of the NIPP 

are described below. DHS welcomes 

comments and ideas on areas that 

should be updated, expanded, changed, 

added, or deleted as appropriate. 

Changes to the Sectors and SSAs 

PPD–21 reduces the number of sectors 

from 18 to 16 by designating two 

previously existing sectors as new 

subsectors. National Monuments and 

Icons is now a subsector of the 

Government Facilities Sector and Postal 

and Shipping is a subsector of the 

Transportation Systems Sector. In 

addition, the PPD changed the names of 

two sectors to better reflect their scope: 

• The Banking and Finance Sector is 

now the Financial Services Sector; and 

• The Water Sector is now the Water 

and Wastewater Systems Sector. 

Finally, PPD–21 designates new coSSAs for two sectors, as follows: The 

General Services Administration joins 

DHS as a co-SSA of the Government 

Facilities Sector and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation joins DHS 

as a co-SSA for the Transportation 

Systems Sector. 

Changes in Terminology and Alignment 

With Presidential Policy Directive 8, 

National Preparedness 

PPD–21 changes the lexicon by using 

critical infrastructure security and 

resilience in place of critical 

infrastructure protection. The new 

terminology is consistent with the 

national preparedness construct 

established by PPD–8. The five mission 

areas under PPD–8—prevention, 

protection, mitigation, response, and 

recovery—link to the two major 

outcomes that preparedness seeks to 

achieve: Security, which closely aligns 

with prevention and protection; and 

resilience, which more closely aligns 

with mitigation, response, and recovery. 

There is overlap among all of the PPD– 

8 mission areas and between those 

mission areas and the concepts of 

security and resilience. The new 

terminology supports the move toward 

a more comprehensive approach to 

overall national preparedness, of which 

critical infrastructure security and 

resilience are major components. The 

use of the term ‘‘security’’ in this 

context applies to all hazards and not 

simply threats from terrorism. 

Updates to Information-Sharing Tools 

and Mechanisms 

PPD–21 sets forth the following 

strategic imperative: ‘‘A secure, 

functioning, and resilient critical 

infrastructure requires the efficient 

exchange of information, including 

intelligence, between all levels of 

government and critical infrastructure 

owners and operators.’’ To that end, 

several of the actions required of DHS 

in the PPD are designed to improve and 

streamline information sharing between 

the Federal Government and critical 

infrastructure partners and stakeholders. 

DHS requests comments and input on 

ways that the current NIPP informationsharing approach and mechanisms 

could be changed and improved. 

Critical Infrastructure Security and 

Resilience Regulatory Programs 

Through existing regulations, the 

Federal Government can mandate 

security-related activities and protocols, 

as appropriate and authorized by 

Congress, to better ensure that a baseline 

level of security is being maintained at 

various types of critical infrastructure 

facilities. An example of currently 

existing regulatory regimes that enhance 

critical infrastructure security and 

resilience include regulations pursuant 

to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Maritime 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA), 33 

CFR Parts 101–107, which requires 

certain critical infrastructure located 

adjacent to a U.S. port or waterway to 

conduct facility security assessments 

and develop and implement facility 

security plans. DHS is not proposing 

new regulatory authority through this 

notice, but is requesting input on ways 

to better integrate existing regulatory 

programs into the NIPP framework. 

Updates on Measurement and Reporting 

Processes and Risk-Informed Resource 

Allocation 

DHS has been working to improve 

metrics and reporting processes to 

assess national critical infrastructure 

security and resilience efforts and 

identify opportunities for improvement. 

Over the last year, DHS and the SSAs 

have worked to streamline data 

collection processes, and identify links 

between the National Preparedness Goal 

core capabilities and the national 

critical infrastructure protection 

outcomes. The successor to the NIPP 

will reflect the maturation of metrics 

processes, and efforts to use those 

metrics to inform resource allocation 

decisions. 

Review and Update Cycles for the NIPP 

and SSPs 

The revision cycle for the SSPs 

follows the NIPP revision cycle by one 

year, to ensure that the concepts and 

strategic direction provided in the NIPP 

are captured in the next edition of the 

SSPs. In 2010, government and private 

sector partners agreed that a four-year 

review cycle was sufficient to keep the 

NIPP and SSPs current and would 

provide better alignment with the 

Quadrennial Homeland Security 

Review. This change took effect in July 

2011, placing the next review and 

rewrite of the NIPP in 2013 and the next 

reissue of the SSPs in 2014. 

Following development of the 

successor to the NIPP in late 2013, DHS 

will issue guidance to the SSAs for 

revising the SSPs. This guidance will 

cover the major updates and changes to 

the NIPP to address implementation of 

PPD–21 so the sectors can incorporate 

these updates into the SSPs as 

appropriate. 

Closer Integration of Physical and Cyber 

Security 

DHS leads an Interagency Task Force 

charged with accomplishing the 

integrated implementation of PPD–21 

and EO 13636. The task force includes 

representatives from DHS, the SSAs, 

and other Federal departments and 

agencies with a role in critical 

infrastructure security and resilience 

and/or cybersecurity. The task force 

established various working groups to 

address the deliverables required for 

implementation of the EO and PPD. 

Many of these deliverables will 

influence and be reflected in the 

successor to the NIPP and the document 

will address physical and cybersecurity 

in a more integrated and holistic 

manner. 

A key part of this approach includes 

greater integration and coordination of 

research and development efforts for 

physical and cybersecurity and strategic 

planning to support the development 

and use of incentives to facilitate this 

integration. DHS requests comments on 

the timeframe and requirements for 

research, development, and incentives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Notices 34115 

for increased cyber-physical integration 

and how the successor to the NIPP can 

integrate the concepts and 

implementation of physical and 

cybersecurity. 

Review of the Risk Management 

Approach 

The NIPP’s risk management 

framework establishes an approach for 

setting goals; identifying infrastructure; 

combining consequence, vulnerability, 

and threat information to produce a 

comprehensive, systematic, and rational 

assessment of national or sector risk; 

developing security measures and 

resilience strategies; and measuring 

effectiveness. 

It is designed to respond to an everchanging risk environment and, as such, 

it provides an adaptable framework to 

address evolving and emerging risks to 

critical infrastructure. DHS is not 

seeking to make significant changes to 

the basic structure and concept of the 

risk management framework but rather 

to review how PPD–21 and other recent 

directives and events will influence the 

context and application of the risk 

management framework going forward. 

Sector Dependencies on Energy and 

Communications Systems 

PPD–21 acknowledges the 

dependency of all critical infrastructure 

sectors on energy and communications 

systems and functions and requires that 

these dependencies be specifically 

considered in reviewing the NIPP. The 

updated document will consider preevent and mitigation measures or 

alternate capabilities that communities 

and critical infrastructure owners and 

operators may bring to bear during 

disruptions to those systems and 

functions. This aligns with 

implementation of the National 

Preparedness Goal under PPD–8. 

Increased Regional Emphasis 

As DHS has sought to improve the 

efficacy of the delivery of critical 

infrastructure protection and resilience 

support and assistance to state, local, 

tribal, territorial, and private sector 

partners, it has moved toward a more 

decentralized regional model that 

leverages field-based employees. The 

regional model synchronizes with 

DHS’s effort to provide more tailored 

support to specific geographic regions to 

more closely address their unique 

challenges, such as region-specific 

hazards (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), 

and operating environments. 

Other Issues—Aging Infrastructure and 

Climate Change Adaptation 

The areas of aging infrastructure and 

climate change are appreciated as risks 

of concern to critical infrastructure 

security and resilience. As a result, 

these issues will be considered as part 

of the all-hazards approach in reviewing 

and rewriting the NIPP. 

Dated: May 31, 2013. 

Robert Kolasky, 

Director for Strategy and Policy, Office of 

Infrastructure Protection, National Protection 

and Programs Directorate, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13427 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0461] 

National Offshore Safety Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: United States Coast Guard, 

DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of teleconference 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety 

Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will meet 

via teleconference to receive a Final 

Report from the Subcommittee on the 

Implementation of Standards from the 

International Labor Organization— 

Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, a 

task statement presented at the 17–18 

April, 2013 NOSAC meeting. Upon 

committee approval, the final report 

will be presented to the Coast Guard for 

acceptance. Additionally the committee 

will reconvene the Subcommittee on 

commercial diving safety to consider 

recommendations for commercial diving 

operational standards. This 

teleconference meeting will be open to 

the public. 

DATES: The teleconference meeting will 

take place on Tuesday June 25, 2013, 

from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. EST. This 

teleconference meeting may end early if 

all business is finished before 2 p.m. If 

you wish to make oral comments at the 

teleconference meeting, simply notify 

Mr. Scott Hartley before the 

teleconference, as specified in the 

ADDRESSES section, or the designated 

Coast Guard staff at the meeting. If you 

wish to submit written comments or 

make a presentation, submit your 

comments or request to make a 

presentation by June 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet 

via teleconference. To participate by 

phone, contact the Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer (ADFO) listed below in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section to obtain teleconference 

information. Note the number of 

teleconference lines is limited and will 

be available on a first-come, first-served 

basis. To join those participating in this 

teleconference from U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters, come to Room 5–1222, 

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters 

Building, 2100 Second Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20593. You must 

present a valid, government-issued 

photo identification to gain entrance to 

the Coast Guard Headquarters building. 

If you want to make a presentation, 

send your request by June 7, 2013, to 

Mr. Scott Hartley, NOSAC ADFO, 

telephone 202–372–1437, Commandant 

(CG–OES–2), 2100 Second Street SW., 

Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593–7126 

or by fax to 202–372–1926. To facilitate 

public participation we are inviting 

public comment on the issues to be 

considered by the committee as listed in 

the ‘‘AGENDA’’ section below. You may 

submit a written comment on or before 

June 7, 2013 or make an oral comment 

during the public comment portion of 

the teleconference. 

To submit a comment in writing, use 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Scott.E.Hartley@uscg.mil. 

Include the docket number (USCG– 

2013–0461) on the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 372–1925. Include the 

docket number (USCG–2010–0164) on 

the subject line of the fax. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. We encourage use of electronic 

submissions because security screening 

may delay the delivery of mail. 

• Hand Delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

• To avoid duplication, please use 

only one of the above methods. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the words ‘‘Department of 

Homeland Security’’ and the docket 

number for this action. Comments 

received will be posted without 

alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. You may review a Privacy Act 

notice regarding our public dockets in 

the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES