Title:Category of Plants for Planting Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis.

OMB Number:0579-xxxx.

Type of Request:Approval of a new information collection.

Abstract:Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to take such actions as may be necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests and noxious weeds within the United States. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests that are not already established in the United States or plant pests that may be established but are under official control to eradicate or contain them within the United States. The regulations in “Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings for planting or propagation. These regulations are intended to ensure that imported nursery stock does not serve as a host for plant pests, such as insects or pathogens, that can cause damage to U.S. agricultural and environmental resources.

On July 23, 2009, we published in theFederal Register(74 FR 36403-36414, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0011) a proposal to amend the nursery stock regulations. We proposed, among other things, to change the nursery stock regulations to refer instead to “plants for planting,” a term that is consistent with the International Plant Protection Convention's Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. In addition, the proposal would add a new category of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending the completion of a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA).

APHIS is in the final rulemaking stage to amend part 319 which, if adopted, will require that requests to remove a taxon from the NAPPRA category be made in accordance with § 319.5, which contains requirements for requests to change the regulations in part 319. The current regulations in § 319.5 will apply, if adopted in the final rule, to the new category of plants for planting. This requirement was not part of the 2009 proposed rule and was added based on commenters' requests to allow only national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) to request that taxa be removed from the NAPPRA list. The final rule will allow any person to request that a taxon be removed from the NAPPRA list, but the regulations in § 319.5 will require the NPPO to be involved in the request, to ensure that APHIS has all the information necessary to evaluate the taxon.

Section 319.5 contains information collection activities for the submission of requests to APHIS that are necessary for us to conduct a PRA, including information about the party making the request, information about the commodity proposed for importation into the United States, shipping information, and a description of pests associated with the commodity.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection for 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden:The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5.6 hours per response.

Respondents:NPPOs and importers of nursery stock into the United States.

Estimated annual number of respondents:5.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:1.

Estimated annual number of responses:5.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents:28 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Title:Application for Inspection, Accreditation of Laboratories, and Exemptions.

OMB Number:0583-0082.

Expiration Date of Approval:07/31/2011.

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

Abstract:FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601,et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451,et seq.). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

FSIS is requesting a revision of an approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements specified in the regulations relating to the application for inspection, accreditation of laboratories, and exemptions.

FSIS requires meat and poultry establishments and import facilities to apply for a grant of inspection before receiving Federal inspection (9 CFR 304.1 & 381.17). FSIS also requires plants that wish to receive voluntary inspection to apply for service (9 CFR 350.5, 351.4, 352.3, & 362.3). Establishments that wish to export or import product must also submit certain documents to the Agency.

The FMIA (21 U.S.C. 642), the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(b)), and the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1040) require certain parties to keep records that fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their businesses related to relevant animal carcasses and parts and egg products.

FSIS requires accredited non-Federal analytical laboratories to maintain certain paperwork and records (9 CFR 439.20 & 590.580). The Agency uses this collected information to ensure that meat and poultry establishments and egg products plants provide safe, wholesome, and not adulterated product, and that non-Federal laboratories act in accordance with FSIS regulations.

In addition, FSIS also requires establishments to keep records to ensure that meat and poultry products exempted from Agency inspection are not commingled with inspected meat and poultry products (9 CFR 303.1(b)(3) & 381.175), and that firms qualifying for a retail store exemption who have violated the provisions of that exemption are no longer in violation (9 CFR 303.1(d)(3) & 381.10(d)(3)).

The Agency is revising the information collection based on a revised estimate of the number of respondents due to an increase in the number of establishments. This increase in the number of establishments supports the finding of a total increase in burden hours (39.4) from that found in the previously approved information collection.

FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:

Estimate of Burden:FSIS estimates that it will take respondents an average of .034 hours per response.

Respondents:Official meat and poultry establishments, official egg plants, and foreign establishments.

Estimated No. of Respondents:27,743.

Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent:122.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:114,339.4 hours.

Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-0345.

Comments are invited on:(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms ofinformation technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located athttp://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp.

FSIS also will make copies of thisFederal Registerpublication available through theFSIS Constituent Update,which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,Federal Registernotices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. TheUpdateis communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. TheUpdatealso is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available athttp://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/.Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

Agenda topics will include, presentation of proposed projects, evaluation of some projects proposals, and approval and recommendation of some projects for Title II funding for 2011 and 2012. Some RAC members may attend the meeting by conference call, telephone, or electronically.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: The RAC will prioritize a list of projects for funding in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The RAC may also be voting to recommend projects for funding. More information will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest Web site athttp://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado.A public comment opportunity will be made available following the business activity. Future meetings will have a formal public input period for those following the yet to be developed public input process.

The following business will be conducted: Review of projects submitted for review. An agenda will be available at the Secure Rural Schools Web site,https://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by May 9, 2011 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Prince of Wales RAC c/o District Ranger P.O. Box 500 Craig, AK 99921, or by e-mail torsakraida@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

The following business will be conducted: A vote to fund 2011 projects. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake, based in Kalispell, Montana. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by May 16, 2011 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 Hwy 2, Libby, Montana, or by e-mail tojturk@fs.fed.us,or via facsimile to 406-283-7709.

The following business will be conducted:project updates and financial status, and presentation and review of new project proposals to be considered by the RAC. The meeting is open to the public. Opportunity for public comment will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time. Alternatively, anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 1, 2011 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to 1312 Fairlane Road Yreka, CA 96097, or by e-mail tokggreene@fs.fed.us,or via facsimile to (530) 841-4571.

The following business will be conducted:project updates and financial status, and presentation and review of new project proposals to be considered by the RAC. The meeting is open to the public. Opportunity for public comment will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time. Alternatively, anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by May 1, 2011 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to 1312 Fairlane Road Yreka, CA 96097, or by e-mail tokggreene@fs.fed.us,or via facsimile to (530) 841-4571.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review of submitted projects. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

This will be the third meeting of the Committee since reauthorization of Public Law 106-393. The meeting will focus on introducing new Committee members, becoming familiar with duties and responsibilities, selecting a chairperson, reviewing and recommending 2009 and 2010 project proposals that meet the intent of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. A public input opportunity will be provided at 1:00 p.m., and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

The Additional Protocol requires the United States to submit declaration forms to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a number of commercial nuclear and nuclear-related items, materials, and activities that may be used for peaceful nuclear purposes, but also would be necessary elements for a nuclear weapons program. These forms provides the IAEA with information about additional aspects of the U.S. commercial nuclear fuel cycle, including: Mining and milling of nuclear materials; buildings on sites of facilities selected by the IAEA from the U.S. Eligible Facilities List; nuclear-related equipment manufacturing, assembly, or construction; import and export of nuclear and nuclear-related items and materials; and research and development. The Protocol also expands IAEA access to locations where these activities occur in order to verify the data on the form.

Submitted electronically or paper format.

OMB Control Number:0694-0135.

Form Number(s): AP-A, AP-B, AP-C, AP-D, AP-E, AP-F, AP-G, AP-H, AP-I, AP-J, AP-K, AP-L, AP-M, AP-N, AP-O, AP-P, and AP-Q.

Type of Review:Regular submission.

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:156.

Estimated Time per Response:22 minutes to 6 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:3,357.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$8,708.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On December 29, 2004, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from India. SeeNotice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India,69 FR 77988 (December 29, 2004). On January 28, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order.See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011). We initiated the review with respect to Meghmani Pigments (Meghmani) based on its request for a review of its sales during the period December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

On April 4, 2011, Meghmani withdrew its request for review of its sales of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order for the period December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” We received a letter from Meghmani withdrawing its request for review within the 90-day time limit. We received no other requests for review of the antidumping duty order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from India.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in theFederal Register.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On January 3, 2011, the Department initiated the third sunset review of the orders on Hand Tools pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review,76 FR 89 (January 3, 2011) (“Initiation”);see also Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China,56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991) (“Orders”). On January 12, 2011, the Department received notices of intent to participate from two domestic parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i): (1) Ames True Temper (“Ames”)1 and (2) Council Tool Company, Inc. (“Council Tool”). These two parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), as domestic manufacturers and producers of the domestic like product. On February 2, 2011, Ames and Council Tool both filed timely and adequate substantive responses within 30 days after the date of publication of theInitiation.The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party in the sunset review. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of theOrders.

The products covered by these orders are Hand Tools comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Hand Tools include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. Hand Tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. Hand Tools are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these orders are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) dated concurrently with this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail if theOrderswere revoked. Parties can obtain a public copy of the Decision Memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete public version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Department determines that revocation of theOrderson Hand Tools would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates listed below.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On May 28, 2010, the Department received timely requests for an NSR from Jining Yifa, Shenzhen Bainong, and Yantai Jinyan in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). On July 7, 2010, the Department determined that the requests submitted by Shenzhen Bainong, Jining Yifa, and Yantai Jinyan met the threshold requirements for initiation of an NSR and initiated the NSRs.See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Reviews,75 FR 38986 (July 7, 2010) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of these reviews, the Department has issued original and supplemental questionnaires to Shenzhen Bainong, Jining Yifa, and Yantai Jinyan, to which each has responded in a timely manner.

On July 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on the surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing factors of production.SeeLetter to All Interested Parties, from the Department, Re: New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (July 20, 2010). On October 26, 2010, the respondents submitted comments on the surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing factors of production.SeeLetter to the Department, from Shenzhen Bainong, Yantai Jinyan, and Jining Yifa, Re: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Surrogate Value Information (October 26, 2010). The Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members (Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.) (collectively, Petitioners) also submitted comments regarding surrogate values for this NSR.SeeLetter to the Department, from Petitioners, Re: 17th New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Rebuttal Submission Concerning Surrogate Values for Factors of Production (November 4, 2010). No other party has submitted surrogate values or surrogate country comments on the record of this proceeding.

On November 23, 2010, the Department placed a copy of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data run on the record of this review, which contains all entries of subject merchandise exported from the PRC to the United States during the PORs.SeeMemorandum to the File, from The Team, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Re: New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Customs Entries from November 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010 (November 23, 2010). On November 30, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of these NSRs to no later than April 26, 2011.See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews,75 FR 74002 (November 30, 2010).

On February 11, 2011, the Department placed on the record of this review, copies of CBP documents pertaining to Shenzhen Bainong's and Jining Yifa's shipments of garlic during the POR. On February 14, 2011, the Department placed on the record of this review, copies of CBP documents pertaining to Yantai Jinyan's shipment of garlic during the POR.SeeMemorandum to the File, from Justin M. Neuman, Analyst, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831): Customs Entry Packages (February 11, 2011) and Memorandum to the File, from Jacqueline Arrowsmith, International Trade Analyst, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (A-570-831): Customs Entry Documents (February 14, 2011).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g), the POR of the NSRs of Shenzhen Bainong and Jining Yifa is the semi-annual period November 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. In its request for a new shipper review, Yantai Jinyan requested that we extend the POR for its NSR to capture the entry of its shipment in early May, after the six-month semi-annual NSR POR. When the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR specified by the Department's regulations, but the entry occurs after the POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations.See19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii). Additionally, the preamble to the Department's regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, but that under “appropriate” circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR.See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,62 FR 27296, 27319-20 (May 19, 1997). Based on the information contained in Yantai Jinyan's request for an NSR, it appeared that the sale of subject merchandise was made during the POR specified by the Department's regulations and that the shipment entered in the subsequent month. Based on information provided by Yantai Jinyan, the Department found that extending the POR to capture this entry would not prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations. Therefore, the Department extended the POR for Yantai Jinyan's NSR by one month,i.e.,through May 31, 2010.See Initiation Notice.

The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen,provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect.

The NSR provisions of the Department's regulations require that the entity making a request for an NSR must document and certify, among other things: (i) The date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States; (ii) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and (iii) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.See19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv). If these provisions are met, the Department will conduct an NSR to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for such new shipper, if the Department has not previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer.Seegenerally 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2).

In its request for an NSR, Yantai Jinyan made a representation and certified that it made a sale on April 19, 2010, to an unaffiliated customer, and that the sale entered the United States on May 25, 2010.SeeLetter from Yantai Jinyan to the Secretary of Commerce, dated May 28, 2010. At the time of Yantai Jinyan's request, the Department determined that the request met the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214 and the Department published itsInitiation Notice.In theInitiation Notice,the Department extended the POR for Yantai Jinyan because the Department considered that extending the POR to capture this entry would not prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations.See Initiation Notice.The Department's determination to initiate the NSR and decision to extend the POR was based on the information provided by Yantai Jinyan in its request for an NSR.

In its Section A response, dated August 18, 2010, however, and its subsequent responses, Yantai Jinyan identified the customer to which its April 19, 2010 sale was made as an affiliated company. Further, the Section A response showed that the sale to the first unaffiliated customer occurred on May 25, 2010, a date outside the original semi-annual POR.

Based on information that Yantai Jinyan submitted after the initiation of the NSR, the Department has now determined that Yantai Jinyan did not meet the minimum requirements in its request for an NSR under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C). The sale that Yantai Jinyan certified in its request as its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States was later identified by Yantai Jinyan as a sale to an affiliated customer. Consequently, the Department has now determined that the initiation and expansion of the POR to capture the entry was based on inaccurate information and that there was neither a sale nor an entry during the original POR.See19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C). In order to qualify for an NSR under 19 CFR 351.214, a company must certify and document, among other things, the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.Id.Because information provided by Yantai Jinyan after the initiation shows that Yantai Jinyan's request for review did not meet this key requirement, Yantai Jinyan is not entitled to an NSR. Further, the preamble to the Department's regulations also explains that “we do not believe it appropriate to base a new shipper review on anything short of a sale.” Because there was neither a sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States nor an entry during the original POR, there was no basis to initiate the NSR. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that it is appropriate to rescind the NSR for Yantai Jinyan.

The Department is currently conducting an antidumping duty administrative review for the POR November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, which includes Yantai Jinyan and its entries.See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010). Therefore, the Department intends to move Yantai Jinyan's separate rate application from the record of this NSR to the record of the administrative review, and consider it in the context of the administrative review.

Consistent with Department practice, we examined thebona fidesof the sales of Jining Yifa and Shenzhen Bainong.1 In evaluating whether a sale in an NSR is commercially reasonable, and thereforebona fide,the Department considers,inter alia,such factors as: (1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arm's-length basis.See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.v.United States,366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (TTPC). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in itsbona fidesanalysis, “all of which may speak to the commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.”See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.v.United States,374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (New Donghua) (citingFresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review,67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum: New Shipper Review of Clipper Manufacturing Ltd.). InTTPC,the court also affirmed the Department's decision that “any factor which indicates that the sale under consideration is not likely to be typical of those which the producer will make in the future is relevant,” (TTPC,366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250), and found that “the weight given to each factor investigated will depend on the circumstances surrounding the sale.”TTPC,366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263. Finally,inNew Donghua,the Court of International Trade affirmed the Department's practice of evaluating the circumstances surrounding an NSR sale, so that a respondent does not unfairly benefit from an atypical sale and obtain a lower dumping margin than the producer's usual commercial practice would dictate.

Based on the totality of circumstances, we preliminarily find that the sale made by Shenzhen Bainong during the POR was not abona fidecommercial transaction. Shenzhen Bainong's POR sales price and quantity were both atypical and aberrational. In addition, we sought information from the importer in order to evaluate the commercial reasonableness of the sale and to consider whether this sale is predictive of future commercial activity. The importer has not substantiated its claims that it is trying to establish a garlic business; the importer has also said that it has no immediate plans to import garlic. Because much of the factual information used in our analysis of thebona fidesof the transactions involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary finding that the sale is notbona fideis set forth in the Memorandum to: Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, From: Dana S. Mermelstein, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration:Bona FidesAnalysis of Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd.'s New Shipper Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Shenzhen BainongBona FidesMemorandum). Because we have found Shenzhen Bainong's sale to not bebona fide,we cannot rely on it to calculate a dumping margin and we are, therefore, preliminarily rescinding Shenzhen Bainong's NSR.SeeShenzhen BainongBona FidesMemorandum;TTPC;andNew Donghua.

Based on the totality of circumstances, we preliminarily find that the sales made by Jining Yifa during the POR are notbona fidecommercial transactions. Jining Yifa's POR sales price and quantity were both atypical and aberrational. In addition, the affiliated importer was not forthcoming with information that would have permitted a full analysis of the commercial reasonableness of the sales. Because much of the factual information used in our analysis of thebona fidesof the transactions involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the bases for our preliminary finding that the sales are notbona fideis set forth in the Memorandum to: Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, From: Dana S. Mermelstein, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration:Bona FidesAnalysis of Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd.'s New Shipper Sales in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Jining YifaBona FidesMemorandum). Because we have found Jining Yifa's sales to not bebona fide,we cannot rely on them to calculate a dumping margin and we are, therefore, preliminarily rescinding Jining Yifa's NSR.SeeJining YifaBona FidesMemorandum;TTPC;andNew Donghua.

For the foregoing reasons, the Department finds that the sales of Shenzhen Bainong and Jining Yifa are notbona fideand that these sales do not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. Because these non-bona fidesales were the only sales of subject merchandise during the POR, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the NSRs of Shenzhen Bainong and Jining Yifa.

If we proceed to a final rescission of Jining Yifa's and Shenzhen Bainong's NSRs, Jining Yifa's and Shenzhen Bainong's entries will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. The Department is currently conducting an administrative review for the POR November 1, 2009, through October 31, 31, 2010, which includes the entries subject to these NSRs. Thus the PRC-wide rate is under review. Upon completion of the administrative review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries for Jining Yifa and Shenzhen Bainong at the appropriate PRC-wide rate.

If we proceed to a final rescission of the NSR of Yantai Jinyan, we will determine, during the course of the ongoing administrative review, if Yantai Jinyan is entitled to a separate rate. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries by Yantai Jinyan in accordance with the final results of the administrative review.

Effective upon publication of the final rescission of these NSRs or the final results of these NSRs, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Jining Yifa, Shenzhen Bainong, and Yantai Jinyan. If we proceed to a final rescission of these NSRs, the cash deposit rate will continue to be for the per-unit PRC wide rate for Jining Yifa, Shenzhen Bainong, and Yantai Jinyan. If we issue a final results of NSR for any of these respondents, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.

We will disclose our analysis to parties to this proceeding not later than five days after the date of public announcement, or if there is no public announcement within five days of the date of publication of this notice.See19 CFR 351.224(b).

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise notified by the Department.See19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Additionally, parties are requested to provide their case and rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g.,preferably in Microsoft Word).

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.See19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this NSR, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs, not later than 90 days after these preliminary results are issued, unless the final results are extended.See19 CFR 351.214(i).

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

With this notice, the Commerce Department, on behalf of the Administration, is seeking public input to help identify divergences in regulatory measures in the transatlantic marketplace, so that the U.S. Government can work cooperatively with the European Union to address them.

President Obama linked trade to job creation when he announced the National Export Initiative (NEI) in his 2010 State of the Union address and set the ambitious goal of doubling U.S. exports in the next five years to support millions of jobs here at home. To help achieve this goal, the U.S. Government is working to remove unnecessary divergences in regulations and in standards used in regulation between the United States and the European Union. The European Union, with its 27 member countries, is our largest trading partner, accounting for 19 percent of U.S. merchandise exports in 2010.

Since 2005, the U.S. Government has worked with officials from the European Commission, within the framework of the U.S.-EU High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum (HLRCF), to strengthen regulatory cooperation, to promote better regulation, and to reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences that hinder trade and reduce competitiveness, when doing so does not compromise those protections Americans expect from their government. In addition, at the conclusion of its December 2010 meeting, the Transatlantic Economic Council, comprised of Cabinet-level officials from the United States and the European Union, endorsed several initiatives aimed at further promoting U.S.-EU regulatory cooperation, including directing the HLRCF to develop a process for identifying, with stakeholder input, sectors in which the United States and the European Union could pursue upstream regulatory cooperation.

In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the NEI to double U.S. exports over five years and support the creation of new jobs. As the President's Export Promotion Cabinet has undertaken to implement the NEI, regional and sectoral plans are being developed to tailor the U.S. Government's NEI efforts based on the realities of trade with key trading partners. For example, bilateral trade between the United States and the European Union was $559.4 billion in 2010. Despite this extensive trade between the United States and the European Union, U.S. exporters indicate that they continue to encounter unnecessary transatlantic divergences in regulatory measures that impede trade.

ITA has developed a Mature Markets Initiative (MMI) to evaluate how best to grow exports, create jobs, and support U.S. business growth in areas where trade is robust. Regulatory cooperation is a key component of the MMI. Accordingly, ITA has identified the European Union as a mature market and will seek ways to ease or eliminate unnecessary differences in regulation and in standards used in regulation that hinder competitiveness and negatively impact trade for U.S. firms, including new-to-market and new-to-export businesses, and particularly for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Trade may be impeded, for example, because countries apply different standards or technical requirements to address common environmental, health, safety, or other concerns with respect to certain products or product categories. In some instances, such divergences may be arbitrary and can lead to delays,additional costs, and burdens on U.S. suppliers, particularly SMEs, and, in some cases, can make it difficult for U.S. suppliers to penetrate foreign markets. These divergences can also increase regulatory burdens for governments and costs for consumers. In other cases, divergences in regulation and in standards used in regulation, despite the burdens they impose, may be necessary to achieve legitimate objectives such as the protection of the environment and public health and safety.

Cooperation with respect to regulation and standards used in regulation can help reduce unjustified divergences and lower costs and burdens for businesses, especially SMEs, as well as for governments and consumers. For example, when regulators in different countries are allowed legally to share full data, studies, and other information on specific regulatory issues, they are more likely to reach similar conclusions, such as on the risks associated with a particular product, appropriate measures to mitigate those risks, and the costs and benefits associated with alternative regulatory approaches. This can lead regulators in these countries to adopt regulatory measures that are more aligned with each other, allow producers to develop economies of scale, reduce compliance costs associated with divergent regulatory measures, and pass on cost savings to consumers. It is important for regulatory cooperation to be transparent and non-discriminatory, reduce unnecessary costs and burdens on producers and consumers, and continue to fulfill each government's public health, safety, environmental, and other legitimate policy objectives.

Regulatory cooperation may include, e.g., equivalency agreements under which a regulator in one country agrees to recognize another country's standards as equivalent to its own, allowing products to be placed on its market that meet the other country's standards, or mutual recognition agreements under which regulators in each country agree to allow products from the other country to be placed on the market based on tests or certifications carried out in that country. The outcome of any such regulatory cooperation must ensure that each government can continue to meet its legitimate policy objectives and advance consumer interests.

In addition, when regulators cooperate with regard to regulatory measures, their cooperation may serve not only to facilitate trade, but may also help to realize common public policy objectives. For example, when regulators in different countries coordinate their efforts in carrying out product recalls, it can help ensure that defective or unsafe products are promptly removed from the market, thereby increasing consumers' confidence in the products they buy and in the global trading system.

Request for Information:ITA invites public comment on the following possible types of cooperative regulatory activities between the United States and the European Union: Information-sharing agreements; technical assistance; memoranda of understanding, mutual recognition agreements; collaboration between regulators before initiating rulemaking proceedings; agreements to align particular regulatory measures; equivalency arrangements; and accreditation of testing laboratories or other conformity assessment bodies. ITA acknowledges that these types of cooperative agreements and activities are not appropriate in all cases, and that many already exist between certain regulatory agencies of the U.S. government and their counterparts in the European Union, so interested parties are asked to provide a rationale for the proposed use of a particular cooperative approach or specific activity. ITA is also seeking recommendations for existing or emerging industry or product sectors that may benefit from regulatory cooperation between the United States and the European Union.

Submitters should be as specific as possible in describing the relevant product or product sector in which they believe there is an opportunity to facilitate trade without undermining U.S. public health, safety, environmental, and other legitimate policy objectives. In addition, each comment should include, where appropriate: (a) A description of the specific measure or measures that the recommendation would address (e.g., laws or regulations setting out safety or testing requirements for the relevant product or product sector); (b) an Internet link to or a copy of the measure in English and documentation that may assist ITA in understanding the measure; (c) identification of the key markets in the European Union for the product or product sector; (d) a description of how and to what degree the regulatory measures are affecting trade and their related costs, including for SMEs; (e) information that may affect the recommendation's feasibility (e.g.,U.S. legal, regulatory, confidentiality, or policy constraints, or any response from stakeholders or U.S. trading partners the recommendation may elicit); (f) estimates of the potential benefits, including for SMEs, that would result from more closely aligning the regulatory measure, as well as a description of the method by which the submitter has calculated the benefits; (g) contact information, if known, for the relevant government and non-government stakeholders in the United States or the European Union; and (h) any other information that may assist ITA in considering the recommendation.

ITA is interested in receiving recommendations concerning any product sector that, due to the volume of trade between the United States and the European Union, is a justifiable focus of enhanced regulatory cooperation. Submitters are encouraged to work with counterparts and other interested stakeholders in the United States and the European Union to submit comments jointly. ITA will give positive consideration to recommendations that demonstrate strong support from stakeholders in both the United States and the European Union.

Requirements for Submissions:In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, ITA strongly encourages commenters to make online submissions, using thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site. Comments should be submitted under ITA-2011-0006. To find this docket, enter the docket number in the “Enter Keyword or ID” window at thehttp://www.regulations.govhome page and click “Search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with that docket number. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Submit a Comment.” Thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a comments field, or by attaching a document. ITA prefers submissions to be provided in an attached document. (For further information on using thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on the “Help” tab.)

All comments and recommendations submitted in response to this notice will be made available to the public. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. The top of any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL”. Any person filing comments thatcontain business confidential information must also file in a separate submission a public version of the comments. The file name of the public version of the comments should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by thename of the person or entity submitting the comments. If a comment contains no business confidential information, the file name should begin with the character “P”, followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.

In 1989, the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) was established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Minerals Management Service (MMS), and the US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD). The NMMTB provides protocols, techniques, and physical facilities for the long-term storage of tissues from marine mammals. Scientists can request tissues from this repository for retrospective analyses to determine environmental trends of contaminants and other substances of interest. The NMMTB collects, processes, and stores tissues from specific indicator species (e.g., Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic white sided dolphins, pilot whales, harbor porpoises), animals from mass strandings, animals that have been obtained incidental to commercial fisheries, animals taken for subsistence purposes, biopsies, and animals from unusual mortality events through two projects, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) and the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP).

The purposes of this collection of information are: (1) To enable NOAA to allow the scientific community the opportunity to request tissue specimen samples from the NMMTB and, (2) to enable the MMHSRP of NOAA to assemble information on all specimens submitted to the Marine Environmental Specimen Bank (Marine ESB), which includes the NMMTB.

Respondents must complete a specimen banking information sheet for every sample submitted to the Bank. Methods of submitting reports include the Internet, mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms. Those requesting samples send the information, and their research findings, mainly via email.

OMB Control Number:0648-0468.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission.

Affected Public:Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:50.

Estimated Time per Response:Request for tissue sample, 2 hours; specimen submission form, 45 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:155.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$152.

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

Purpose of the Meeting:The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. However, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134.

Ms. Kelley Berta, 703-805-5412.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in theFederal Registerand are available from theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTaddress above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 26, 2011, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Department of the Army notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTaddress above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 26, 2011 to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427.

This notice announces a fifteen-day extension of the public comment period until May 17, 2011.

Comments may be submitted in writing to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest,Attention:Ms. Christine Stevenson, EHW-2 EIS Project Manager, 1101 Tautog Circle, Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101. In addition, comments may be submitted online athttp://ehw.nbkeis.com/during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked by May 17, 2011, to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following libraries:Jefferson County Rural Library, 620 Cedar Avenue, Port Hadlock, WA 98339; Port Townsend Public Library, 1220 Lawrence Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368; Poulsbo Library, 700 Northeast Lincoln Road, Poulsbo, WA 98370; Silverdale Library, 3450 NW Carlton Street, Silverdale, WA 98383; Sylvan Way Library, 1301 Sylvan Way, Bremerton, WA 98310; and Seattle Central Library, 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. The Trident Support Facilities Explosives Handling Wharf (EHW-2) Draft EIS is also available for electronic public viewing at:http://ehw.nbkeis.com/.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB 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 ofthe 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.

Type of Review:Revision.

Title of Collection:Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS 2011/12) Full Scale Data Collection.

OMB Control Number:1850-0598.

Agency Form Number(s):N/A.

Frequency of Responses:Once.

Affected Public:State, Local, or Tribal Government, State Educational Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:215,553.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:91,226.

Abstract:The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is an in-depth, nationally-representative survey of first through twelfth grade public and private school teachers, principals, schools, library media centers, and school districts. Kindergarten teachers in schools with at least a first grade are also surveyed. For traditional public school districts, principals, schools, teachers and school libraries, the survey estimates are state-representative. For public charter schools, principals, teachers, and school libraries, the survey estimates are nationally-representative. For private school principals, schools, and teachers, the survey estimates are representative of private school types. There are two additional components within SASS's 4-year data collection cycle: the Teacher Follow-up Survey and the Principal Follow-up Survey, which are conducted a year after the SASS main collection, and the approval for which will be sought at a later date. SASS respondents include public and private school principals, teachers, and school and school district staff. Topics covered include, but are not limited to, demographic characteristics of teachers and principals, school staffing, school programs and services, school library staffing, school library usage, teacher professional development, district policies on teacher recruitment and retention, and teacher certification. This submission for SASS 2011/12 requests OMB approval for full-scale data collection activities to take place during school year 2011-12. These data collection activities include administering the teacher listing form for teacher sampling, and collection of all survey questionnaires for districts, schools, principals, teachers, and school libraries.

Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site athttp://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMainor from the Department's Web site athttp://edicsweb.ed.gov,by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4528. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet addressICDocketMgr@ed.govor faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The National Assessment Governing Board is established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, as amended.

The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include the following: Selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, developingguidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.

On May 12, from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., the Ad Hoc Committee on Parent Engagement will meet in open session. Thereafter, from 11:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., the Assessment Development Committee will meet in closed session to review secure test items at the eighth grade for the Technological and Engineering Literacy (TEL) pilot assessment in 2013. The Board will be provided with specific test materials/questions for review that cannot be discussed/disclosed in an open meeting. Premature disclosure of these secure test materials would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessments, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

On May 12, from 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., the Executive Committee will meet in open session and thereafter in closed session from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m. During the closed session on May 12, the Executive Committee will receive a briefing from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on options for NAEP contracts covering assessment years beyond 2011 and discuss budget implications for the NAEP assessment schedule and for international linking studies. The discussion of contract options and costs will address the congressionally mandated goals and Board policies on NAEP assessments. This part of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because public discussion of this information would disclose independent government cost estimates and contracting options, adversely impacting the confidentiality of the contracting process. Public disclosure of information discussed would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP contracts, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

On May 13, the full Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. The Board will review and approve the meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the March 2011 Board meeting, followed by an oath of office for a newly appointed Board member, and the Chairman's remarks. Thereafter, Portland Board member W. James Popham and Oregon education leaders are scheduled to make welcome remarks and address the Board. The Executive Director of the Governing Board will then provide a report to the Board, followed by updates from the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics and the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences. The Board will recess for Committee meetings on May 13 from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p. m.

The Governing Board's standing committees, the Assessment Development Committee, the Reporting and Dissemination Committee and the Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology will meet in open session on May 13 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

On May 13, from 12:45 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. the full Board will meet in closed session to receive a briefing on the 2010 NAEP U.S. History Report Card. The Board will be provided with results of the assessments that cannot be discussed in an open meeting prior to their official release. Premature disclosure of test results would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

From 1:45 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. the Board will meet in open session to receive a briefing and discuss the NAEP Five Largest States Report for 2009 (Mega States). Following this session, from 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., the Board will discuss ways of improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps. From 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., the Board will receive a briefing on Oregon's Assessment System from Tony Alpert, the Director of Assessment and Accountability from the Oregon Department of Education.

The May 13, 2010 session of the Board meeting is scheduled to conclude at 4:30 p.m.

On May 14, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 8 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. to review specific names for Board vacancies, and the status of nominees for Board membership for terms beginning October 1, 2011. These discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and will disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

On May 14, the full Board will meet in open session to receive Committee reports and take action on Committee recommendations. The May 14, 2010 session of the Board meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 10 a.m.

Detailed minutes of the meeting, including summaries of the activities of the closed sessions and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite #825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

Electronic Access to This Document:You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in theFederal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1800; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-0000.

The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by Section 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council is established within the Department ofEducation to advise the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council submits to the Congress, not later than June 30 of each year, a report on the activities of the Council that includes recommendations the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program.

One of the Council's responsibilities is to develop and provide recommendations to the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction that can benefit Indian children or adults participating in any program which could benefit Indian children. The purpose of this closed meeting is to convene the Council to review, advise, and provide recommendations to the Secretary on the procurement of services to accomplish this responsibility. Council members will discuss contract options and costs during the closed meeting. The meeting must be conducted in closed session because public discussion of procurement information would disclose independent government cost estimates and contracting options, adversely impacting the confidentiality of the contracting process and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR Part 765 in theFederal Registeron May 23, 1994, (59 FR 26714) to carry out the requirements of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001-1004 of Pub. L. 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 2296aet seq.) and to establish the procedures for eligible licensees to submit claims for reimbursement. DOE amended the final rule on June 3, 2003, (68 FR 32955) to adopt several technical and administrative amendments (e.g.,statutory increases in the reimbursement ceilings). Title X requires DOE to reimburse eligible uranium and thorium licensees for certain costs of decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action incurred by licensees at active uranium and thorium processing sites to remediate byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the United States Government. To be reimbursable, costs of remedial action must be for work which is necessary to comply with applicable requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901et seq.) or, where appropriate, with requirements established by a State pursuant to a discontinuance agreement under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for reimbursement must be supported by reasonable documentation as determined by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR part 765. Funds for reimbursement will be provided from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established at the Department of Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or obligation of funds shall be subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).

I. Background A. Nonroad Authorizations

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses the permanent preemption of any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.1 Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to grant California authorization to enforce state standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. EPA regulations set forth, among other things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider any California authorization requests for new nonroad engines or vehicle emission standards (section 209(e) rules).2 These regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 1074, provide:

As stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted the requirement regarding whether “California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209” to require that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures must in particular be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers.3 In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Secondly, California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(e)(1), which identifies the categories permanently preempted from state regulation.4 California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures would be considered inconsistent with section 209 if they applied to the categories of engines or vehicles identified and preempted from State regulation in section 209(e)(1).

Finally, because California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA will review nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California's “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of Federal preemption for motor vehicles have stated that State standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.5

With regard to enforcement procedures accompanying standards, EPA must grant the requested authorization unless it finds that these procedures may cause the California standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than the applicable Federal standards promulgated pursuant to section 213(a), or unless the Federal and California certification test procedures are inconsistent.6

Once California has received an authorization for its standards and enforcement procedures for a certain group or class of nonroad equipment engines or vehicles, it may adopt other conditions precedent to the initial retail sale, titling or registration of these engines or vehicles without the necessity of receiving an additional authorization.7

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested EPA's authorization of the IB/SD marine engine emission standards by letter dated March 2, 2004.8 The CARB standards were implemented in two tiers; the first tier set HC and NOXstandards beginning with the 2003 model year engines, and the second tier set more stringent HC and NOXstandards beginning with the 2007 model year engines. As required by the Act, EPA offered the opportunity for a public hearing and requested public comments on these new standards on January 12, 2005;9 this hearing also covered earlier CARB authorization requests for emission standards for marine outboard and personal watercraft spark ignition engines. EPA received a request for a hearing from the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA),10 and a hearing was held on February 28, 2005,11 at which the NMMA, several boat manufacturers, and the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) testified. In addition, EPA received written comments from several boat manufacturers (some of whom also testified at the hearing), the U.S. Coast Guard, MECA, NMMA, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), as well as a supplemental submission from CARB responding to matters raised at the public hearing.12

After our review of the information submitted by CARB in its requests, and the information presented to the Agency at the public hearing and in the comments received after the hearing, EPA granted authorization for the CARB emission regulations for marine spark-ignition outboard and personal watercraft (PWC) engines in their entirety. EPA also granted authorization for the first Tier of the CARB regulations covering (IB/SD) engines. For the Tier I standards (as well as for the outboard and personal watercraft engines), EPA determined that CARB had successfully shown that these standards were technologically feasible, and thus met the authorization criterion of consistency with section 202(a). Regarding the Tier II IB/SD emission standards, all parties who testified at the hearing and submitted comments after the hearing, with the exception of CARB and MECA, had expressed concern that CARB had not shown that the Tier II IB/SD standards were technologically feasible, because they believed CARB had not shown that catalysts needed for the marine IB/SD engines to comply with the CARB standards were safe and durable in saltwater operation. Accordingly, EPA deferred authorization of these standards until the conclusion of then ongoing joint testing (by CARB, EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the industry), to evaluate the technological feasibility of both the CARB Tier II IB/SD standards and Federal IB/SD standards which, at that time, were expected to be proposed in 2007. These Federal standards were proposed in May 2007 and finalized in October 2008.13

Shortly after the EPA IB/SD proposed standards were published, the NMMA wrote to EPA stating that “at this stage of catalyst development, there is little or no additional data to be obtained by completing the (joint test program). * * * NMMA agrees that EPA and CARB can cancel the saltwater test program.” Additionally, NMMA dropped its objection to the “waiver” of the CARB standards because “one manufacturer is already in production with catalysts, and the others will beready to meet the CARB standard in 2008.”14

EPA, based on the record of this proceeding, cannot find that CARB's Marine Tier II IB/SD protectiveness determination was arbitrary and capricious, that CARB does not need its own standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or that the CARB standards are inconsistent with section 209 of the Act. Therefore, EPA grants authorization for CARB to enforce the second tier of its regulations for IB/SD engines which set a level of 5.0 g/kW-hr HC plus NOXand phases in beginning with 45% of manufacturers' sales in 2007, 75% in 2008, and 100% in 2009 and beyond. EPA has made this authorization decision based on the information submitted by CARB in its requests, and the information presented to the Agency at the public hearing and in the comments received after the hearing. A full explanation of EPA's decision, including our review of comments received, is contained in our Decision Document which may be obtained as explained above in theADDRESSESsection of this Notice.

My decision will affect not only persons in California but also persons outside the State who would need to comply with California's Marine Tier II IB/SD regulations to produce engines for introduction into commerce in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final 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 July 5, 2011. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings.

As with past waiver and authorization decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding authorizations under section 209(e) of the Act to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

EPA is seeking public comment to determine the scope of environmental issues andreasonable alternatives to be addressed in the EA on the reissuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges from construction activities that are greater than one acre. EPA invites the public to submit comments through Regulations.gov or by mail or fax to the address cited in theADDRESSESsection during the 30-day comment period following the publication of the Proposed Construction General Permit in theFederal Register.

Since 1992, EPA has issued a series of NPDES Construction General Permits (CGP) that cover areas where EPA is the permitting authority. At present, EPA is the permitting authority in four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, all U.S. territories with the exception of the Virgin Islands, federal facilities in four states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington), most Indian lands and a few other specifically designated activities in specific states (e.g., oil and gas activities in Texas and Oklahoma). EPA's current CGP became effective on June 30, 2008 (see74 FR 40338) and will expire on June 30, 2011. (Note:On April 25, 2011, EPA proposed extending the expiration of the 2008 CGP until January 31, 2012.See76 FR 22891.) On April 25, 2011, EPA proposed for public comment the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for stormwater discharges from large and small construction activities. 76 FR 22882. The proposed permit would replace the 2008 CGP, as well as the 2003 CGP for construction sites still covered under that administratively continued permit. EPA proposes to issue the construction general permit for five (5) years, and to provide permit coverage to eligible existing and new construction projects in all areas of the country where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.

EPA is currently planning to analyze two alternatives in the EA: No Action, that is not issuing the CGP; and the proposed action, which is issuing the draft CGP implementing the technology-based Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards (C&D Rule). The C&D Rule was issued by EPA for the construction and development industry on December 1, 2009. These requirements include (1) non-numeric effluent limitations that apply to all permitted discharges from construction sites in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants, and (2) a numeric effluent limit that applies to sites over 10 acres. The EA will analyze the potential environmental impacts of both alternatives on threatened and endangered species, water quality, and historic properties.

OMB Control Number:3060-1113.

Title:Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS).

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents:1,253 respondents; 1,253 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.50 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirements

Obligation To Respond:Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d).

Total Annual Burden:627 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses:The Commission will submit this information collection (IC) to the OMB during this comment period. The Commission is seeking OMB approval for revision of this information collection.

The Commission is requesting OMB approval for a revision because on August 7, 2008, the FCC released aThird Report and Orderin PS Docket No. 07-287, FCC 08-184 (CMAS Third R&O).

TheCMAS Third R&Oimplements provisions of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (“WARN”) Act, including inter alia, a requirement that within 30 days of release of theCMAS Third R&O,each Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) provider must file an election with the Commission indicating whether or not it intends to transmit emergency alerts as part of the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). TheCMAS Third R&Onoted that this filing requirement was subject to OMB review and approval. The Commission received “pre-approval” from the OMB on February 4, 2008. The Commission began accepting CMAS election filings on or before September 8, 2008.

All CMS providers are required to submit a CMAS election, including those that were not licensed at the time of the initial filing deadline with the FCC. In addition, any CMS provider choosing to withdraw its election mustnotify the Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the withdrawal of its election. The information collected will be the CMS provider's contact information and its election, i.e., a “yes” or “no”, on whether it intends to provide commercial mobile service alerts.

The Commission will use the information collected to meet its statutory requirement under the WARN Act to accept licensees' election filings and to establish an effective CMAS that will provide the public with effective mobile alerts in a manner that imposes minimal regulatory burdens on affected entities.

OMB Control Number:3060-1046.

Title:Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-251.

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents:924 respondents; 8,080 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.50 hours—200 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion, annual and quarterly reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirements, and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation To Respond:Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154 and 276.

Total Annual Burden:160,184 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information. Respondents may request confidential treatment of their information that they believe to be confidential pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:The Commission will submit this expiring information collection (IC) to the OMB during this comment period. The Commission is seeking OMB approval for an extension of this information collection. There is no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements. The Commission is reducing its previous burden estimates by 18,208 hours.

In an Order on Reconsideration (FCC 04-251), the Commission considered four petitions for reconsideration of the Commission'sReport and Order.TheReport and Orderestablished detailed rules (Payphone Compensation Rules) ensuring that payphone service providers or PSPs are “fairly compensated” for each and every completed payphone-originated call pursuant to section 276 of the Communications Act as follows:

(1) The Payphone Compensation Rules place liability to compensate PSPs for payphone-originated calls on the facilities-based long distance carriers from whose switches such calls are completed.

(2) The Payphone Compensation Rules define these responsible carriers as “completing carriers” and require them to develop their own system of tracking calls to completion, the accuracy of which must be confirmed and attested to by a third-party auditor.

(3) Completing carriers must file with PSPs a quarterly report and must also submit an attestation by the chief financial officer (CFO) that the payment amount for that quarter is accurate and is based on 100% of all completed calls.

(4) The rules also require reporting obligations for other facilities-based long distance carriers in the call path, if any, and define these carriers as “intermediate carriers”.

(5) Additionally, the rules give parties flexibility to agree to alternative compensation arrangements (ACA) so that small completing carriers may avoid the expense of instituting a tracking system and undergoing an audit.

(6) The Payphone Compensation Rules satisfy section 276 by identifying the party liable for compensation and establishing a mechanism for PSPs to be paid.

The information collected under the Completing Carrier filing of quarterly reports and Intermediate Carrier filing of quarterly reports must be provided to third parties. The information collected under the completing carrier establishment of call tracking system must be provided to third parties and submitted to the Commission. The information is collected annually under completing carrier establishment of call tracking system. Completing carrierfiling of quarterly reports and intermediate carrier filing of quarterly reports would be used to ensure that completing carriers comply with their obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

OMB Control Number:3060-0470.

Title:Section 64.901, Allocation of Cost; Section 64.903, Cost Allocation Manuals; and RAO Letters 19 and 26.

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents:1 respondent; 2 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:200 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion and annual reporting requirements.

Obligation To Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 215, and 218-220.

Total Annual Burden:400 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The information is not of a confidential nature. Respondents who believe that certain information to be of a proprietary nature may solicit confidential treatment in accordance with 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:The Commission will submit this expiring information collection (IC) to the OMB during this comment period to obtain the three year clearance from them. The Commission is seeking OMB approval for a revision of this information collection.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket No. 07-21 (FCC 08-120) the Commission forbore from many of its cost allocation rules as they apply to the former Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). Therefore, there are fewer respondents affected by the requirements of these rule sections.

Section 64.901 requires carriers to separate their regulated costs from nonregulated costs using the attributable cost method of cost allocation. Carriers must follow the principles described in section 64.901. Carriers subject to section 64.901 are also subject to the provisions of 47 CFR sections 32.23 and 32.27 of the Commission's rules.

Section 64.903(a) requires each local exchange carrier with annual operating revenues that equal or exceed the indexed revenue threshold, as defined in 47 CFR 32.9000, to file with the Commission a manual containing information regarding its allocation of costs between regulated and non-regulated activities.

Section 64.903(b) requires that carriers update their cost allocation manuals (CAMs) at least annually; except that changes to the cost apportionment table and the description of time reporting procedures must be filed at the time of implementation. Proposed changes in the description of time reporting procedures, the statement concerning affiliate transactions, and the cost apportionment table must be accompanied by a statement quantifying the impact of each change on regulated operations. Changes in the description of time reporting procedures and the statement concerning affiliate transactions must be quantified in $100,000 increments at the account level. Changes in the cost apportionment table must be quantified in $100,000 increments at the cost pool level.

Moreover, filing of CAMs and occasional updates are subject to the uniform format and standard procedures specified in Responsible Accounting Officer (RAO) Letter 19. RAO Letter 26 provides guidance to carriers in revising their CAMs to reflect changes to the affiliate transactions rules pursuant to theAccounting Safeguards Order(FCC 96-490).

The CAM is reviewed by the Commission to ensure that all costs are properly classified between regulated and nonregulated activity. Uniformity in the CAMs helps improve the joint cost allocation process. In addition, this uniformity gives the Commission greater reliability in financial data submitted by the carriers through the Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS).

OMB Control Number:3060-1087.

Title:Section 90.477(a), (b)(2), (d)(2), and (d)(3), Interconnected Systems.

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents:10,294 respondents; 10, 294 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.25 hours for 9,768 responses and 2 hours for 526 responses.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 332(a).

Total Annual Burden:3,494 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:No questions of a confidential nature are asked.

Needs and Uses:The Commission will submit this expiring information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this comment period to obtain the regular three year clearance. There is no change in the Commission's reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements. There is no change in the Commission's burden estimates (since this information collection was approved by OMB in 2008).

This rule section governs interconnection of private land mobile radio service stations with the public switched telephone network as follows:

(1) Pursuant to 47 CFR section 90.477(a), licensees of interconnected land stations must maintain as part of their station records a detailed description of how interconnection is accomplished.

(2) Pursuant to 47 CFR section 90.477(b)(2) and (d)(2), at least one licensee participating in any cost sharing arrangement for telephone service must maintain cost sharing records, the costs must be distributed at least once a year, and a report of the distribution must be placed in the licensee's station records and made available to participants in the sharing arrangement and the Commission upon request.

(3) Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.477(d)(3), licensees in the Industrial/Business Pool and those licensees who establish eligibility pursuant to 90.20(a)(2), other than persons or organizations charged with specific fire protection activities, persons or organizations charged with specific forestry-conservation activities, or medical emergency systems in the 450-470 MHz band, and who seek to connect within 120 km (75 miles) of 25 cities specified in 90.477(d)(3), must obtain the consent of all co-channel licensees located both within 120 km of the center of the city, and with 120 km of the interconnected base station transmitter. Consensual agreements must specifically state the terms agreed upon and a statement must be submitted to the Commission indicating that all co-channel licensees have consented to the use of interconnection.

In a December 1998Report and Orderin WT Docket Nos. 98-20 and 96-188, the Commission consolidated, revised and streamlined the Commission's rules governing the licensing application procedures for radio services licensed by the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in order to fully implement the Universal Licensing System (ULS). As a result of the ULS rule conversions in connection with this information collection, 47 CFR 90.477(a), interconnected systems now file all information (100 percent) electronically via ULS. Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.477(d)(3), interconnected systems were changed to reflect NAD83 coordinates

OMB Control Number:3060-0419.

Title:Sections 76.94, Notification; 76.95, Exceptions; 76.105, Notification; 76.106, Exceptions; 76.107, Exclusivity contracts; and 76.1609, Non duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses:5,555 respondents; 199,304 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:0.5-2.0 hours.

Frequency of Response:On occasion reporting requirement; One time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:183,856.

Total Annual Cost:None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses:47 CFR 76.94(a) and 76.105(a) require television stations and program distributors to notify cable television system operators of non-duplication protection and exclusivity rights being sought. The notification shall include (1) The name and address of the party requesting non-duplication protection/exclusivity rights and the television broadcast station holding the non-duplication right; (2) the name of the program or series for which protection is sought; and (3) the dates on which protection is to begin and end.

47 CFR 76.94(b) requires broadcasters entering into contracts providing for network non-duplication protection to notify cable systems within 60 days of the signing of such a contract. If they are unable to provide notices as provided for in Section 74.94(a), they must provide modified notices that contain the name of the network which has extended non-duplication protection, the time periods by time of day and by network for each day of the week that the broadcaster will be broadcasting programs from that network, and the duration and extent of the protection.

47 CFR 76.94(d) requires broadcasters to provide the following information to cable television systems under the following circumstances: (1) In the event the protection specified in the notices described in 47 CFR 76.94(a) or (b) has been limited or ended prior to the time specified in the notice, or in the event a time period, as identified to the cable system in a notice pursuant to Section 76.94(b) for which a broadcaster has obtained protection is shifted to another time of day or another day (but not expanded), the broadcaster shall, as soon as possible, inform each cable television system operator that has previously received the notice of all changes from the original notice. Notice to be furnished “as soon as possible” under this subsection shall be furnished by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, overnight mail or other similar expedient means. (2) In the event the protection specified in the modified notices described in Section 76.94(b) has been expanded, the broadcaster shall, at least 60 calendar days prior to broadcast of a protected program entitled to such expanded protection, notify each cable system operator that has previously received notice of all changes from the original notice.

47 CFR 76.94(e)(2) and 76.105(c)(2) state that if a cable television system asks a television station for information about its program schedule, the television station shall answer the request.

47 CFR 76.94(f) and 76.107 require a distributor or broadcaster exercising exclusivity to provide to the cable system, upon request, an exact copy of those portions of the contracts, such portions to be signed by both the network and the broadcaster, setting forth in full the provisions pertinent to the duration, nature, and extent of the non-duplication terms concerning broadcast signal exhibition to which the parties have agreed. Providing copies of relevant portions of the contracts is assumed to be accomplished in the notification process set forth in Sections 76.94 and 76.105.

47 CFR 76.95 states that the provisions of Sections 76.92 through 76.94 (including the notification provisions of Section 76.94 shall not apply to a cable system serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system shall file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication protection against it.

47 CFR 76.105(d) requires that in the event the exclusivity specified in Section 76.94(a) has been limited or has ended prior to the time specified in the notice, the distributor or broadcaster who has supplied the original notice shall, as soon as possible, inform each cable television system operator that has previously received the notice of all changes from the original notice. In the event the original notice specified contingent dates on which exclusivity is to begin and/or end, the distributor or broadcaster shall, as soon as possible, notify the cable television system*10030 operator of the occurrence of the relevant contingency. Notice to be furnished “as soon as possible” under this subsection shall be furnished by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, overnight mail or other similar expedient means.

47 CFR 76.106(b) states that the provisions of Sections 76.101 through 76.105 (including the notification provisions of Section 76.105 shall not apply to a cable system serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system shall file a notice to effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise syndicated exclusivity protection against it.

47 CFR 76.1609 states that network non-duplication provisions of Sections 76.92 through 76.94 shall not apply to cable systems serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each system shall file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity protection against it.

OMB Control Number:3060-0863.

Title:Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses:848 respondents; 250,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:0.50 hours.

Frequency of Response:Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is the Satellite Home Viewer Act, 17 U.S.C. 119.

Total Annual Burden:125,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost:None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses:On November 23, 2010, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, released a Report and Order, Measurement Standards for Digital Television Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, ET Docket No. 06-94; FCC 10-195. The Report and Order adopted rules establishing measurement procedures for determining the strength of a digital broadcast television (DTV) signal at any specific location. These procedures will be used for determining whether households are eligible to receive distant DTV network signals retransmitted by satellite carriers, pursuant to the provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). This Report and Order implements DTV signal measurement procedures proposed in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SHVERA NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (STELA FNRPM) in this proceeding with minor modifications.

Therefore, the information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are as follows:

47 CFR 73.686(e) describes the procedures for measuring the field strength of digital television signals. These procedures will be used to determine whether a household is eligible to receive a distant digital network signal from a satellite television provider, largely rely on existing, proven methods the Commission has already established for measuring analog television signal strength at any individual location, as set forth in Section 73.686(d) of the existing rules, but include modifications as necessary to accommodate the inherent differences between analog and digital TV signals. The new digital signal measurement procedures include provisions for the location of the measurement antenna, antenna height, signal measurement method, antenna orientation and polarization, and data recording.

Therefore, satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements shall maintain written records and include the following information: (a) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey, which for each instrument specifies the manufacturer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of the most recent calibration by the manufacturer or by a laboratory. Include complete details of any instrument not of standard manufacture; (b) a detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, including field strength meters, measuring antenna, and connecting cable; (c) for each spot at the measuring site, all factors which may affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of vegetation, buildings, obstacles, weather, and other local features; (d) a description of where the cluster measurements were made; (e) time and date of the measurements and signature of the person making the measurements; (f) for each channel being measured, a list of the measured value of field strength (in units of dB) after adjustment for line loss and antenna factor) of the five readings made during the cluster measurement process, with the median value highlighted.

Proposal To Renew the Following Currently-Approved Collection of Information:

Title:Flood Insurance.

OMB Number:3064-0120.

Frequency of Response:On occasion.

Affected Public:Any depository institution that makes one or more loans to be secured by a building located on property in a special flood hazard area.

Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:5,272.

Estimated Number of Transactions:180,000.

Estimated Reporting Hours:.05 hours × 180,000 = 9,000.

Estimated Recordkeeping Hours:1 hour × 5,272 hours = 5,272.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Hours:5,272 + 9,000 = 14,272 hours.

General Description of Collection:Each supervised lending institution is currently required to provide a notice of special flood hazards to each borrower with a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in an area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being subject to special flood hazards. The Riegle Community Development Act requires that each institution must also provide a copy of the notice to the servicer of the loan (if different from the originating lender).

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

The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collections listed in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments. We invite comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title:46 CFR Part 540—Application for Certificate of Financial Responsibility/Form FMC-131.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0012 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Sections 2 and 3 of Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 44101-44106) require owners or charterers of passenger vessels with 50 or more passenger berths or stateroom accommodations and embarking passengers at United States ports and territories to establish their financial responsibility to meet liability incurred for death or injury to passengers and other persons, and to indemnify passengers in the event of nonperformance of transportation. The Commission's Rules at 46 CFR part 540 implement Public Law 89-777 and specify financial responsibility coverage requirements for such owners and charterers.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The information will be used by the Commission's staff to ensure that passenger vessel owners and charterers have evidenced financial responsibility to indemnify passengers and others in the event of nonperformance or casualty.

Frequency:This information is collected when applicants apply for a certificate or when existing certificants change any information in their application forms.

Type of Respondents:The types of respondents are owners, charterers and operators of passenger vessels with 50 or more passenger berths that embark passengers from U.S. ports or territories.

Number of Annual Respondents:The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 45.

Estimated Time per Response:The time per response ranges from 0.5 to 8 person-hours for reporting and recordkeeping requirements containedin the rules, and 8 person-hours for completing Application Form FMC-131.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 1,286 person-hours.

Title:46 CFR Part 565—Controlled Carriers.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0060 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40701-40706, requires that the Commission monitor the practices of controlled carriers to ensure that they do not maintain rates or charges in their tariffs and service contracts that are below a level that is just and reasonable; nor establish, maintain or enforce unjust or unreasonable classifications, rules or regulations in those tariffs or service contracts which result or are likely to result in the carriage or handling of cargo at rates or charges that are below a just and reasonable level. 46 CFR part 565 establishes the method by which the Commission determines whether a particular ocean common carrier is a controlled carrier subject to section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984. When a government acquires a controlling interest in an ocean common carrier, or when a controlled carrier newly enters a United States trade, the Commission's rules require that such a carrier notify the Commission of these events.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The Commission uses these notifications in order to effectively discharge its statutory duty to determine whether a particular ocean common carrier is a controlled carrier and therefore subject to the requirements of section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984.

Frequency:The submission of notifications from controlled carriers is not assigned to a specific time frame by the Commission; they are submitted as circumstances warrant. The Commission only requires notification when a majority portion of an ocean common carrier becomes owned or controlled by a government, or when a controlled carrier newly begins operation in any United States trade.

Type of Respondents:Controlled carriers are ocean common carriers which are owned or controlled by a government.

Number of Annual Respondents:It is estimated that 9 of the currently classified controlled carriers may respond in any given year. Classifications are reviewed periodically to determine current status of respondents and to increase or decrease the number of controlled carriers based on new circumstances. The Commission cannot anticipate when a new carrier may enter the United States trade; therefore, the number of annual respondents may fluctuate from year to year and could increase to 10 or more at any time.

Estimated Time per Response:The estimated time for compliance is 7 person-hours per year.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the person-hour burden required to make such notifications at 63 person-hours per year.

Title:46 CFR Part 525—Marine Terminal Operator Schedules and Related Form FMC-1.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0061 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Section 8(f) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40501(f), provides that a marine terminal operator (MTO) may make available to the public a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine terminal. The Commission's rules governing MTO schedules are set forth at 46 CFR part 525.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to determine the organization name, organization number, home office address, name and telephone number of the firm's representatives and the location of MTO schedules of rates, regulations and practices, and publisher, should the MTOs determine to make their schedules available to the public, as set forth in section 8(f) of the Shipping Act.

Frequency:This information is collected prior to an MTO's commencement of its marine terminal operations.

Type of Respondents:Persons operating as MTOs.

Number of Annual Respondents:The Commission estimates the respondent universe at 20, of which 12 opt to make their schedules available to the public.

Estimated Time per Response:The time per response for completing Form FMC-1 averages 0.5 person hours, and approximately 5 person-hours for related MTO schedules.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 70 person-hours.

Title:46 CFR Part 520—Carrier Automated Tariffs and Related Form FMC-1.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0064 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Except with respect to certain specified commodities, section 8(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)-(c), requires that each common carrier and conference shall keep open to public inspection, in an automated tariff system, tariffs showing its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all ports and points on its own route and on any through transportation route that has been established. In addition, individual carriers or agreements among carriers are required to make available in tariff format certain enumerated essential terms of their service contracts. 46 U.S.C. 40502. The Commission is responsible for reviewing the accessibility and accuracy of automated tariff systems, in accordance with its regulations set forth at 46 CFR Part 520.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to ascertain the location of common carrier and conference tariff publications, and to access their provisions regarding rules, rates, charges and practices.

Frequency:This information is collected when common carriers or conferences publish tariffs.

Type of Respondents:Persons desiring to operate as common carriers or conferences.

Number of Annual Respondents:The Commission estimates there are 4,200 Carrier Automated Tariffs. It is estimated that the number of annual respondents will be 1,300.

Estimated Time per Response:The time per response ranges from 0.1 to 2 person-hours for reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the rules, and 0.5 person-hours for completing Form FMC-1.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 4,275 person-hours.

Title:46 CFR Part 530—Service Contracts and Related Form FMC-83.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0065 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Section 8(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40502, requires service contracts, except those dealingwith bulk cargo, forest products, recycled metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper or paper waste, and their related amendments and notices to be filed confidentially with the Commission.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The Commission monitors service contract filings for acts prohibited by the Shipping Act of 1984.

Frequency:The Commission has no control over how frequently service contracts are entered into; this is solely a matter between the negotiating parties. When parties enter into a service contract, it must be filed with the Commission.

Type of Respondents:Parties that enter into service contracts are ocean common carriers and agreements among ocean common carriers on the one hand, and shippers or shipper's associations on the other.

Number of Annual Respondents:The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 141.

Estimated Time per Response:The time per response ranges from 0.1 to 1 person-hours for reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the rules, and 0.1 person-hours for completing Form FMC-83.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 79,370 person-hours.

Title:46 CFR Part 531—NVOCC Service Arrangements and Related Form FMC-78.

OMB Approval Number:3072-0070 (Expires August 31, 2011).

Abstract:Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40103, authorizes the Commission to exempt by rule “any class of agreements between persons subject to this part or any specified activity of those persons from any requirement of this part if the Commission finds that the exemption will not result in substantial reduction in competition or be detrimental to commerce. The Commission may attach conditions to an exemption and may, by order, revoke an exemption.” 46 CFR part 531 allows non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs) and shippers' associations with NVOCC members to act as shipper parties in NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs), and to be exempt from certain tariff publication requirements of the Shipping Act provided the carriage in question is done pursuant to an NSA filed with the Commission and the essential terms are published in the NVOCC's tariff.

Current Actions:There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review:Extension.

Needs and Uses:The Commission uses filed NSAs and associated data for monitoring and investigatory purposes and, in its proceedings, to adjudicate related issues raised by private parties.

Frequency:The filing of NSAs is not assigned a specific time by the Commission; NSAs are filed as they may be entered into by private parties. When parties enter into an NSA, it must be filed with the Commission.

Type of Respondents:Parties that enter into NSAs are NVOCCs and shippers' associations with NVOCC members.

Number of Annual Respondents:The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 145.

Estimated Time per Response:The time per response ranges from 0.1 to 1 person-hours for reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the rules, and 1 person-hour for completing Form FMC-78.

Total Annual Burden:The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 1,186 person-hours.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance:Information Request Regarding Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Section 905(j) Reports: Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence for Tobacco Products—(OMB Control Number 0910-0673)—Extension.

On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by adding a new chapter granting FDA important new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

Section 905(j)(1) of the FD&C Act authorizes FDA to establish the form and manner for the submission of information related to substantial equivalence (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)(1)). In a level 1 guidance document issued under the Good Guidances Practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115), FDA provides recommendations intended to assist persons submitting reports under section 905(j) of the FD&C Act, and explains, among other things, FDA's interpretation of the statutory sections related to substantial equivalence (see“Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Section 905(j) Reports: Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence for Tobacco Products” (January 6, 2011, 76 FR 789).)

In theFederal Registerof January 24, 2011 (76 FR 4116), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed information collection.

FDA received one comment in response to the 60-day notice. The commenter indicated that the substantial equivalence requirements were “burdensome to industry in the extreme,” that FDA's estimation of the number of reports to be received was too low, and that the current burden hours to complete each report was unrealistic. Although the commenter asserted that the burden hours were too low and unrealistic, no alternative estimates were provided.

The recommendations in the “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Section 905(j)Reports: Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence for Tobacco Products” are the information that FDA suggests a manufacturer include in a report submitted under section 905(j)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act. The recommendations reflect the information FDA believes is necessary for it to make the required findings under section 910(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387j(a)). FDA has also articulated current enforcement policies in its guidances that are intended to address some of the burden associated with premarket requirements for new tobacco products (manufacturers and interested parties may refer to FDA'sWeb site for guidance documents with current enforcement policies related to premarket requirements for tobacco products (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/default.htm)).

With regard to the comment that the number of section 905(j)(1)(A)(i) substantial equivalence reports which FDA estimated to be submitted (150 per year) was too low, FDA has revised its estimate based on information it now has from initial submissions, interactions with industry, and other information, such as the comment received on the 60-day notice on the information collection. As shown below, FDA is increasing the annual estimate of the number of reports received from 150 to 1,000.

With regard to the comment that the number of hours to prepare and submit each report is unrealistic, FDA continues to believe that the currently estimated hours (360 hours annually) is appropriate, particularly given that the premarket requirements for new tobacco products (Section 910 of the FD&C Act) are new and manufacturers' experience with preparing a submission is just beginning to develop. As the requirements and program become more familiar to respondents, FDA may be able to refine these estimates. In addition, as discussed previously, the commenter did not suggest an alternative number of hours. FDA's estimate of 360 hours reflects an amount of time that should provide each submitter enough time to prepare and submit a section 905(j)(1)(A)(i) substantial equivalence report to the Agency.

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

FDA has based these estimates on information it now has available from interactions with the industry, comments regarding the submission of 905(j)(1)(A)(i) substantial equivalence reports, and comments on the 60-day information collection notice request for comments published in theFederal Registeron January 24, 2011 (76 FR 4116). Table 1 of this document describes the annual reporting burden as a result of the implementation of the substantial equivalence requirements of sections 905(j)(1)(A)(i) and 910(a) of the FD&C Act. FDA estimates that it will receive 1,000 section 905(j) substantial equivalence reports each year and that it will take a manufacturer approximately 360 hours to prepare a report of substantial equivalence for a new tobacco product. Therefore, FDA estimates the burden for submission of substantial equivalence information will be 360,000 hours.