Extensive research has demonstrated that current ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest are greatly altered in terms of forest structure, density, and ecological function. Most pine forests in the Southwest are at much higher risk of high intensity and severe fire than they were prior to European settlement (Covington 1993, Mooreet al.1999). A century ago the pine forests had widely-spaced large trees with a more open, herbaceous forest floor (Cooper 1960). These conditions were maintained by fairly frequent low-severity surface fires that did not kill the large trees (Fiedleret al.1996). These fires occurred every 2 to 21 years and maintained an open canopy structure (Moiret al.1997). Fire suppression, cattle grazing, timber production, and general human habitation in and near the forests over the last 100 years interrupted fire's natural role in these fire-adapted ponderosa pine forests. As a result, the forests have shifted from naturally open conditions to high densities of small diameter trees (Covington and Moore 1994) dramatically increasing the size and severity of wildland fires (Swetnam and Betancourt 1998). The forests have become less resilient to natural disturbances and are vulnerable to large-scale disturbances such as changing climatic conditions (drought), fire, insect, and disease.

In contrast to having a ponderosa pine ecosystem consisting of groups of trees with an open tree canopy density mixed with interspaces, approximately 75 percent of the ponderosa pine forest type within the project area has a moderately closed to closed tree canopy density. An open tree canopy mixed with interspaces which mimic historical spatial patterns and provide for tree regeneration and the development of grass and forbs are lacking. There is a need to use management strategies that promote tree regeneration and understory vegetation. There is a need to move towards the historic range of variability for tree canopy density and patterns of tree groups and interspaces. Forest resiliency and diversity is dependent on the distribution of age and size classes. Currently, over 50 percent of the project area lacks age and size class diversity and is in an even-aged structure. The desired condition is to have a forest structure that represents all age classes necessary for a sustainable balance of regeneration, growth, mortality and all age classes necessary for a sustainable balance of regeneration, growth, mortality and decomposition. There is a need to implement un-even aged management strategies where appropriate. In goshawk habitat, habitat components such as an intermix of vegetation structural stages are lacking or limited in most stands.There is a need to manage for a balanced interspersion of age classes in goshawk foraging and PFA/nest stand habitat. Forest structure in Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat has an excess of the smaller size classes (12″ to 18-) and is deficit in trees 18″ to 24″ dbh in restricted habitat and in target/threshold, a component of restricted habitat. There is a need to implement uneven-aged management strategies and manage for high-density, relatively uneven-aged stands in MSO restricted habitat, including target/threshold habitats.

In both gohsawk and MSO habitat, stand conditions are on a trajectorytowards density-related mortality. The desired condition is to improve forest health by reducing the potential for density-related mortality and move towards forest plan desired conditions for snags and course woody debris. There is a need to reduce stand densities in all habitats except MSO restricted and target threshold.

Approximately 25 percent to 35 percent of the project area has some level of infection ranging from light to extreme. The desired condition is to have a varied level of mistletoe across the landscape that is comparable with historic reference conditions. There is a need to use management strategies that would reduce stand densities in order to reduce (but not eliminate) the level of dwarf mistletoe infection.

Vegetation diversity throughout the project area has declined (USDA 2009). A lack of fire, which ultimately allowed for increased stand densities, has allowed Gambel oak to become overtopped by fast growing ponderosa pine. The desired condition is to develop and maintain a variety of oak size classes and forms, where they occur, that range from shrubby thickets and pole-sized clumps to large trees across the landscape. There is a need to use management strategies that stimulate new growth and maintain growth in large diameter trees.

There are approximately 7,700 acres of aspen in the project area. Aspen is dying or rapidly declining on both forests due to the combined effects of conifer encroachment, browsing, insect, disease, severe weather events, and lack of fire disturbance (USDA 2008 2009). The desired condition is to maintain and/or regenerate aspen. Where possible, there is a need to stimulate growth and increase individual recruitment of aspen. On the Coconino NF, grasslands have decreased from approximately 8 percent to percent since historic conditions (generally pre-1900). On the Kaibab NF, grasslands have decreased from approximately 15 to 7 percent (USDA 2008) (USDA 2009). The desired condition is to move towards the historic range of variability of tree canopy cover that ranges from 0 to 9 percent. Fire should function as a natural disturbance across the landscape without causing loss to ecosystem function or to human safety, lives, and values. There is a need to reduce (and in some cases remove) tree encroachment which has reduced the size and function of landscapes that were historically grasslands. Big sage and ponderosa pine co-occur on approximately 6,094 acres of the Tusayan district portion of the project area. The desired condition for the pine/sage understory community is a shifting mosaic of sagebrush with a mix of age classes averaging from 3 to 5 percent cover. With other shrub canopies combined, the percent cover would average around 9 to 14 percent under a 25 to 30 percent canopy of ponderosa pine. The mosaic pattern would be largely regulated by low intensity fires. On approximately 40 percent of the pine-sage cover type, there is a need to retain vegetation age class diversity in big sage and promote a shifting mosaic of shrub cover.

Approximately 41 percent of the project area has the potential to sustain crown fire and about 58 percent has the potential for surface fire. Dense forest conditions (numerous trees with interlocking crowns) are common within the project area and would support active crown fire. Even without crown fire, a high intensity surface fire burning though this area could scorch the canopy sufficiently to cause widespread mortality.The current fire return interval is approximately 43 years, about four times longer than the desired fire return interval which is between 2 and 21 years. The desired condition is to have fire, as a disturbance process, maintain a mosaic of diverse native plant communities. No more than 10 percent of the analysis area should be prone to crown fire. When crown fire does occur, it would be mostly passive crown fire, occurring in single trees, groups, or clumps, or areas where there had been mortality (wind throw, insects, etc.). There is a need to reduce the potential for crown and high intensity surface fire.

Across the entire analysis area, 75 percent is currently rated as condition class 3 which indicates the fire regime is significantly departed from historical ranges. In a condition class 3, the risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals resulting in dramatic alterations to fire size, intensity, severity, landscape patterns, and/or vegetation attributes. The desired condition is to have 99 percent of the analysis area in FRCC 1. There is a need to reduce the percent of area in FRCC 3 and move the fire regimes towards FRCC 1.

Springs and seeps play an important role on the landscape for hydrological function of watersheds and they are very important for wildlife and plant diversity. Fifty-one developed springs on the Coconino NF are not functioning at or near potential and 27 springs on the Kaibab NF have reduced function. The desired condition is to have the necessary soil, water, and vegetation attributes to be healthy and functioning at or near potential. Ephemeral streams are important for hydrological function of watersheds and provide important seasonal habitat for a variety of wildlife, in particular, migratory birds and dispersing amphibians. On the Coconino NF, approximately 36 miles of channels are heavily eroded with excessive bare ground, denuded vegetation, and head cuts. Of the total miles, approximately 6 miles are riparian streams and 30 miles are non-riparian streams. The Kaibab NF has approximately 7 miles of channels in this condition and all are non-riparian reaches. The desired condition is to restore the functionality of both springs and ephemeral streams. On all springs and streams and channels, there is a need to return fire, a natural disturbance processes, to the system.

Both forests have identified the needed road system for public and administrative motorized use through the Travel Management Rule (TMR) process. As a precursor to the TMR process, the Coconino NF identified roads that should be closed to public travel, decommissioned, or considered for other uses because they were no longer needed to meet resource management objectives (USDA 2010). A review of 2010 data indicates there is a need to decommission approximately 941 miles of existing system and unauthorized roads on the Coconino NF. Similar to the Coconino process, the Kaibab NF identified resource risks and access benefits associated with all roads. A review of Kaibab NF data indicates approximately 170 miles of unauthorized roads are recommended for decommissioning. The desired condition is to have soils in satisfactory condition so that the soil can resist erosion, recycle nutrients and absorb water. There is a need to decommission the roads that have been identified.

In addition to the need for decommissioning roads, there is a need to have adequate access to the project area for implementation. There is a need to upgrade road segments which have resource or health and human safety concerns, construct temporary roads that could be used for access, and temporarily open existing closed roads. Once the project is completed, there is a need to decommission the temporary roads and closed roads.

In response to the purpose and need, the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests propose to conduct approximately 595,370 acres of restoration activities (within the 988,764 acre project area) over approximately 10years or until objectives are met. Approximately 20,000 to 30,000 acres of vegetation would be treated annually and up to 60,000 acres prescribed burned annually across the two forests. Restoration activities would: (1) Mechanically cut trees and prescribe burn on approximately 389,993 aces, (2) cut trees by hand and prescribe burn on slopes greater than 40 percent on approximately 99 acres, (3) prescribe burn only on approximately 205,278 acres, (4) decommission 941 miles of roads designated “closed”, (5) decommission 170 miles of unauthorized roads, (6) construct 46 miles of temporary roads for haul access and obliterate when treatments are finished, (7) reconstruct 27 miles of existing open roads for natural resource, health and human safety concerns, (8) open 183 miles of existing closed roads in order to conduct treatments and close and rehabilitate as needed when treatments are finished, (9) restore 78 springs, (10) restore 43 miles of ephemeral channels, and (11) construct 82 miles of protective (aspen and springs) fencing.

An old tree and large tree implementation strategy, that are integral to the proposed action, are included as appendices B and C in the proposed action document. Forest plan amendments are integral to the proposed action. Three non-significant forest plan amendments would be required on the Coconino NF to implement the proposed action. One non-significant forest plan amendment would be required on the Kaibab NF. The proposed amendments are located at appendix F in the proposed action document.

A full range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a no-action alternative, will be considered. The no-action alternative represents no change and serves as the baseline for the comparison among the action alternatives.

The Responsible Officials are the Coconino Forest Supervisor and Kaibab Forest Supervisor.

Given the purpose and need of the project, the forest supervisors will review the proposed action, other alternatives and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions including determining: (1) Whether to select the proposed action or another alternative; (2) the location, design, and scheduling of proposed restoration activities; (3) the estimated products, if any, to be made available from the project; (4) mitigation measures, monitoring requirements and adaptive management actions; and (5) whether forest plan amendments are needed.

This corrected notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Two open houses are planned during the comment period. The first open house will be held on August 18, 2011 at the Williams Ranger District, 742 South Clover Road, Williams, Arizona, from 4 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The second open house will be held on August 20, 2011 at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1824 S. Thompson Street, Flagstaff, AZ 86101, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Please contact Paula Cote at (928) 226-4686 for additional information.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

The environmental assessment of this Federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.

The project purpose is continued flood prevention. The planned works of improvement include upgrading an existing floodwater retarding structure.

The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting John A. Bricker at the above number.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in theFederal Register.

Proposed Action:The “Irrigation System Improvements” alternative assumes a salinity control project will be implemented. Existing financial and technical assistance programs will continue to operate as they have in the past. However, the “Irrigation System Improvements” alternative will increase the available Federal funds for assistance. It is assumed that on-farm irrigation water management will improve due to an increase in technical assistance provided by the NRCS field office.

Through implementation of a SCPP, on-farm irrigation application system improvements will occur at an accelerated rate as producers voluntarily sign up for improved irrigation systems. It is estimated that through this alternative 74 percent of the irrigated acres in the project area will have improved irrigation systems. Most of the surface irrigation systems will be converted to side roll, center pivot, and pod sprinkler systems. The remaining 26 percent of irrigated acres will continue as unimproved irrigation systems.

A limited amount of on-farm delivery ditches that transport irrigation water from the canal to the field will be improved by converting from dirt ditch to buried pipe. This will reduce seepage and salt loading from these delivery ditches by 99 percent. Canal modifications (i.e.conversion to pipeline or canal lining) are not included in this SCPP.

Currently, approximately 70,790 acre-foot of water are used for irrigation in the project area. This includes water directly diverted from streams and water stored in reservoirs. The irrigation system improvements outlined in this plan will provide more efficient use of this water. Deep percolation from the 14,800 acres is expected to be treated though the project action, reducing it by approximately 58 percent. The Colorado River salt loading attributed to this project area will be reduced by the reduction of excess deep percolation passing below the plant root zone. Deep percolation of irrigation water results in concentrating and transporting salt in groundwater to the surface and eventually depositing in the Colorado River.

This proposal is not intended to bring new land under irrigation or to provide water to fields that have been infrequently or marginally irrigated. Any project measure proposed on lands without an adequate irrigation history will not be considered for funding without prior approval by the appropriate state water authority.

Alternatives:The other alternative presently considered is the “No-Action” Alternative. Under this alternative accelerated improvements to the on-farm irrigation systems will not be implemented. Environmental conditions, including salt loading into associated tributaries will continue unhindered.

Scoping:The lead and cooperating agencies will conduct an open scoping and public involvement process during the development of the EIS. The scoping process is the key to preparing a concise EIS to receive public input on the alternatives to the proposed action and the range of issues to be addressed in the EIS. The purpose of the scoping meetings is to assist the lead and cooperating agencies in defining the issues that will be evaluated in the EIS. A public meeting was held in McKinnon on December 9, 2009 where input on the project was obtained. A second public and agency scoping meeting will be held as indicated above (seeDATESandADDRESSESsections above). Further information will be published in local newspapers in advance of the meeting. Any necessary changes will be announced in the local media. Written scoping comments will be considered in the preparation of the draft EIS (seeDATESandADDRESSESsections above). Comments postmarked or received by e-mail after specified date will be considered to the extent practicable. Questions about the EIS/SCPP, requests for inclusion on the EIS/SCPP mailing list, and requests for copies of any documents associated with the draft EIS/SCPP should be directed to Rachel Bundschuh, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 508 North Broadway Avenue, Riverton, Wyoming 82501-3458; E-mail:rachel.bundschuh@wy.usda.gov;Phone: (307) 856-7524, ext. 121.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

On June 14, 2011, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and section 351.225(h) of the Department's regulations, the Petitioners submitted a request for the Department to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry of the Hilong Group of Companies Co., Ltd. (“Hilong”)2 to determine whether pipe3 and tool joints produced in the PRC, and friction welded together in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), which are allegedly products of the PRC exported from the UAE, are circumventing theDrill Pipe Orders. 4 In their request, the Petitioners contend that Hilong's PRC drill pipe facility exports PRC-produced pipe and tool joints to AlMansoori/Hilong in the UAE, which friction welds the pipe to the tools joints, and then exports them to Hilong USA, which enters and sells the drill pipe as UAE origin merchandise. The Petitioners argue that because Hilong's PRC-produced pipe and tool joint are assembled in the UAE, and enter the United States as UAE-origin merchandise which is of the same class or kind as the merchandise covered by theDrill Pipe Orders,this constitutes circumvention.

On June 16, 2011, the Petitioners certified that all parties on the scope service list were served with their request. On July 6, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the Petitioners regarding the request to initiate the anti-circumvention inquiry. On July 13, 2011, the Petitioners provided a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.5 Hilong did not submit comments regarding the Petitioners' circumvention allegations.

On July 27, 2011, the Department extended the deadline to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry by 8 days, pursuant to section 351.302(b) of the Department's regulations.6 On August 3, 2011, the Department extended the deadline to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry by 14 days, pursuant to section 351.302(b) of the Department's regulations.7

The products covered by the orders are steel drill pipe, and steel drill collars, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications. Included are finished drill pipe and drill collars without regard to the specific chemistry of the steel (i.e.,carbon, stainless steel, or other alloy steel), and without regard to length or outer diameter. Also included are unfinished drill collars (including all drill collar green tubes) and unfinished drill pipe (including drill pipe green tubes, which are tubes meeting the following description: seamless tubes with an outer diameter of less than or equal to 65/8inches (168.28 millimeters), containing between 0.16 and 0.75 percent molybdenum, and containing between 0.75 and 1.45 percent chromium). The scope does not include tool joints not attached to the drill pipe, nor does it include unfinished tubes for casing or tubing covered by any other antidumping or countervailing duty order.

The subject products are currently classified in the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) categories: 7304.22.0030, 7304.22.0045, 7304.22.0060, 7304.23.3000, 7304.23.6030, 7304.23.6045, 7304.23.6060, 8431.43.8040 and may also enter under 8431.43.8060, 8431.43.4000, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.49.0015, 7304.49.0060, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050 and 7304.59.8055.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

Section 781(b)(1) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In conducting anti-circumvention inquiries, under section 781(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will also evaluate whether: (1) The processof assembly or completion in the other foreign country is minor or insignificant; (2) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States; and (3) action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such an order or finding. As discussed below, the Petitioners have provided evidence with respect to these criteria.

The Petitioners state that theDrill Pipe Orderscover the drill pipe assembled in the UAE because it is the same class or kind as the drill pipe produced in the PRC. The Petitioners assert that the drill pipe assembled in the UAE contains the same components as the drill pipe produced in the PRC,i.e.,green tube which is subsequently heat treated and upset, and tool joints. According to the Petitioners, the only distinction is that the friction welding of the pipe to the tool joint occurs in the UAE instead of the PRC. The Petitioners provided affidavits, as well as an e-mail from one of the Petitioner's customers, which indicate that Hilong USA has imported merchandise identical to that which is subject to theDrill Pipe Orders. 8 Since the merchandise being imported into the United States from the UAE is physically identical to the subject merchandise from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, this drill pipe is of the same class or kind as the drill pipe subject to theDrill Pipe Orders.

The Petitioners state that the drill pipe subject to its anti-circumvention inquiry request is made from pipe and tool joints produced in the PRC, then exported to and assembled in the UAE for re-export to the United States. The Petitioners maintain that the pipe is subject merchandise before the assembly performed by Almansoori/Hilong in the UAE, which consists of friction welding the PRC-produced pipe to the PRC-produced tool joints. The Petitioners posit that the completed merchandise is then exported to the United States as UAE-origin. Therefore, the Petitioners conclude that, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Hilong's drill pipe is merchandise assembled in another foreign country (the UAE) from merchandise that is produced in a country (the PRC) already subject to theDrill Pipe Orders. 9

The Petitioners argue that for the purposes of section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, the process of friction welding the pipe to the tool joint in the UAE is “minor or insignificant” as defined by the Act. According to the Petitioners, the most fundamental aspect of the production process—the forming of seamless green tube by rotary piercing billet in an integrated or electric furnace, and the forming of tool joints from alloy steel bars that undergo a number of processes that require various specialized and expensive equipment—occurs in the PRC.10 Citing to a normal value build up consisting of factors of production consumption ratios reported by VAM Drilling, and surrogate values used in the antidumping investigation, the Petitioners contend that pipe and tool joint production account for about 75 percent of the cost of manufacture of the subject merchandise.11

The Petitioners maintain that only a small percentage of the cost of manufacture consists of friction welding the pipe to the tool joint. The Petitioners provided evidence of the costs VAM Drilling incurs to subcontractors for friction welding pipe to tool joints.12

The Petitioners reason that an analysis of the relevant statutory factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further supports its conclusion that the UAE processing is “minor or insignificant.” These factors include (1) the level of investment in the foreign country, (2) the level of research and development in the foreign country, (3) the nature of the production process in the foreign country, (4) the extent of production facilities in the foreign country and (5) whether the value of the processing in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States.

The Petitioners provided an affidavit from VAM Drilling asserting that the cost of a friction welding line is approximately $20 million U.S. dollars (“USD”).13 The Petitioners provided an additional affidavit that asserts that one of VAM Drilling's affiliates has invested $650 million in a rotary piercing mill to produce pipe, although this company already has its own steel mill for producing billet.14 Further, the Petitioners provided publically available information that Tianjin Pipe Company indicates that the costs for a pipe production facility with a mill to produce billet is $1 billion USD.15 Thus, the Petitioners conclude that the cost of investing in a friction welding line is approximately two percent of the cost of investing in a pipe production line.

The Petitioners argue that, based on their own experience in the UAE market, with regard to drill pipe, Almansoori/Hilong is engaged in assembly operations, and is essentially an export platform for PRC-origin drill pipe and is not an integrated production facility. Consequently, the Petitioners assert that little investment has been made in the UAE by Hilong in the assembly of drill pipe.

The Petitioners state that, similar to the level of investment, because Almansoori/Hilong's drill pipe operations only involve the friction welding of pipe to tool joints, little or no research and development are required to set up and operate the UAE company to assemble Chinese components.16

According to the Petitioners, the nature of the production process for friction welding pipe to tool joints requires little machinery or equipment. The Petitioners contend that once a tool joint is attached, the drill pipe is exported to the United States.17 The Petitioners argue that the drill pipe assembled in the UAE contains the same components as the drill pipe produced in the PRC,i.e.,pipe friction welded to tool joints, and the only distinction is that the friction welding of the tool joint to the pipe occurs in the UAE instead of the PRC. As a consequence, the Petitioners maintain that before the pipe is friction welded to the tool joints, the pipe is of the same class or kind as the drill pipe produced in the PRC that is subject to theDrill Pipe Orders.

On April 7, 2011, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe preliminary results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of antidumping duty order on certain OJ from Brazil.See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part,76 FR 19315 (Apr. 7, 2011) (Preliminary Results). Also in April, after the issuance of the preliminary results, the Department issued, and Cutrale submitted responses to, two additional supplemental questionnaires.

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May 2011, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e.,Florida Citrus Mutual and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, and Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer). We received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and Cutrale.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil.See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil,52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, Coinbra-Frutesp (SA), Cutrale, Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A.

Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product.

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

The POR is March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010.

The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,inter alia,that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.See19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider whether: (1) The company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping.See19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).

As we noted in thePreliminary Results,on March 31, 2010, Cutrale requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). This request was accompanied by certification that: (1) Cutrale sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future; and (2) it sold subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. Cutrale also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.See Preliminary Results,76 FR at 19315.

After analyzing Cutrale's request for revocation (as more fully explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice (the Decision Memo)), we find that it does not meet all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). In the second and third administrative reviews, we found that Cutrale sold subject merchandise at less than NV.See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,74 FR 40167 (Aug. 11, 2009); andCertain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order inPart, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010). Accordingly, Cutrale did not demonstrate that it did not sell the subject merchandise at less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years.

Therefore, we determine that Cutrale does not qualify for revocation of the order on certain orange juice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and as a resultwe have not revoked the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Cutrale. For further discussion of this issue, see the Decision Memo at Comment 3.

As noted in thePreliminary Results,we received no-shipment claims from two companies named in the notice of initiation of this review, Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) (Coinbra-Frutesp) and Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus), and we confirmed their claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Because we find that the record indicates that Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we determine that they had no reviewable transactions during the POR.

As we stated in thePreliminary Results,our former practice concerning respondents submitting timely no-shipment certifications was to rescind the administrative review with respect to those companies if we were able to confirm the no-shipment certifications through a no-shipment inquiry with CBP.See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997);see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 2010). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instructed CBP to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.

In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the “automatic assessment” regulation, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

As noted in thePreliminary Results,because “as entered” liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Coinbra-Futesp or Montecitrus and exported by other parties at the all-others rate. In addition, we continue to find that it is more consistent with the May 2003 clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to complete the review with respect to these two companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this administrative review.Seethe “Assessment Rates” section of this notice below.

As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Cutrale and Fischer made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.See Preliminary Results.For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in thePreliminary Results,except as discussed in the Decision Memo.

We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.Seesections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.

For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Cutrale and Fischer made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales (if any) as the basis for determining NV, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on constructed value.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Department building.

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

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

We have calculated importer-specificad valoremduty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate is abovede minimis(i.e.,less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.See Assessment Policy Notice,68 FR 23954. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these finalresults of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of OJ from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent,de minimiswithin the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.51 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil,72 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final 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.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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 return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) is established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. (FACA), and advises the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1512. The Board provides a means of ensuring regular contact between the U.S. Government and the travel and tourism industry. The Board advises the Secretary on government policies and programs that affect United States travel and tourism, and the Board serves as a forum for discussing and proposing solutions to industry-related problems. The Board acts as a liaison among the stakeholders represented by the membership and provides a forum for those stakeholders on current and emerging issues in the travel and tourism sector. The Board recommends ways to ensure that the United States remains the preeminent destination for international visitation and tourism throughout the world.

The Office of Advisory Committees is accepting applications for Board members. Members shall represent companies and organizations in the travel and tourism sector from a broad range of products and services, company sizes, and geographic locations and shall be drawn from large, medium, and small travel and tourism companies, private-sector organizations involved in the export of travel and tourism-related products and services, and other tourism-related entities.

Each Board member shall serve as the representative of a U.S. company in the travel and tourism industry, a U.S. organization involved in the export of travel and tourism-related products and services, or a tourism-related U.S. entity. For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. company” is a for-profit firm that is incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated U.S. firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by other U.S. companies. A company is not a U.S. company if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is known to be controlled, directly orindirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. companies. For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, including trade associations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. company (or companies), as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. For eligibility purposes, a U.S. entity includes state and local tourism marketing entities, state government tourism offices, state and/or local government-supported tourism marketing entities, multi-state tourism marketing entities, and other tourism-related entities that can demonstrate U.S. ownership or control.

Members of the Board will be selected, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Board as set forth above. Members of the Board shall be selected in a manner that ensures that the Board is balanced in terms of points of view, industry subsector, range of products and services, demographics, geography, and company size.

Additional factors which will be considered in the selection of Board members include candidates' proven experience in the strategic development and management of travel and tourism-related or other service-related organizations; or the candidate's proven experience in promoting, developing, and implementing advertising and marketing programs for travel-related or tourism-related industries.

Priority may be given to a Chief Executive Officer, Executive Director, or President (or comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S. company, U.S. organization, or U.S. entity in the travel and tourism sector.

Members shall serve a term of two years from the date of appointment, at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. All appointments will automatically terminate no later than November 15, 2013. Members will serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Although the Board's current charter terminates in September 2011, it is anticipated that it will be rechartered.

Members shall serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of their particular industry subsector. Board members are not special government employees, and will receive no compensation for their participation in Board activities. Members participating in Board meetings and events will be responsible for their travel, living and other personal expenses. Meetings will be held regularly and, to the extent practical, not less than twice annually, usually in Washington, DC.

To be considered for membership, please provide the following information by the 9/16/2011, 5 p.m. EDT deadline, via e-mail, toOACIE@trade.govor, via mail, to Jennifer Pilat, Office of Advisory Committees, U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board Executive Secretariat, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.

2. A sponsor letter from the applicant on his or her company/organization/entity letterhead or, if the applicant is to represent a company/organization/entity other than his or her employer, a letter from the company/organization/entity to be represented, containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Board. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant's travel and tourism-related experience.

3. The applicant's personal resume.

4. An affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

5. An affirmative statement by the applicant that he or she is not a Federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that he or she, if appointed, will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Board member if the applicant becomes a Federally registered lobbyist.

6. If the applicant represents a tourism-related U.S. entity, the functions and responsibilities of the entity, and information regarding the entity's U.S. ownership or control.

7. If the applicant represents an organization, information regarding the control of the organization, including the governing structure, members, and revenue sources as appropriate signifying compliance with the criteria set forth above.

8. If the applicant represents a company, information regarding the control of the company, including the governing structure and stock holdings as appropriate signifying compliance with the criteria set forth above.

9. The company's, organization's, or entity's size and ownership, product or service line and major markets in which the company, organization, or operates.

10. Brief statement describing how the applicant will contribute to the work of the Board based on his or her unique experience and perspective (not to exceed 100 words).

The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance. The requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to the enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. The regulations specify fishing gear must be marked with the vessel's official number,Federal permit or tag number, or some other specified form of identification. The regulations further specify how the gear is to be marked (e.g., location and color). Law enforcement personnel rely on this information to assure compliance with fisheries management regulations. Gear that is not properly identified is confiscated. The identifying number on fishing gear is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and other marine agencies in issuing violations, prosecutions, and other enforcement actions. Gear marking helps ensure that a vessel harvests fish only from its own traps/pots/other gear and that traps/pots/other gear are not illegally placed. Gear violations are more readily prosecuted when the gear is marked, allowing for more cost effective enforcement. Cooperating fishermen also use the number to report placement or occurrence of gear in unauthorized areas. Regulation-compliant fishermen ultimately benefit from this requirement, because unauthorized and illegal fishing is deterred and more burdensome regulations are avoided.

The physical marking of fishing buoys is done by the affected public (fishermen in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery) according to regulation. No information is collected.

OMB Number:0648-0352.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission.

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:946.

Estimated Time per Response:15 minutes per marking.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:3,798.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$3,798.

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.

The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The described research is part of a new monitoring program by LDWF. The research is intended to involve recreational fishermen in the collection of fundamental biological information of Gulf reef fish. The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that could otherwise be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to reef fish managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The applicant requires authorization through the EFP to collect these Council-managed species that may be taken as part of the normal fishing activities of the recreational for-hire sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery. LDWF would enlist the Louisiana Charter Boat Association, a for-hire recreational fishing body that is recognized by the department and the state legislature to assist with a focused watch for red snapper and other Gulf reef fish species exhibiting biological abnormalities, such as skin lesions or infections. LDWF Office of Fisheries personnel and university researchers would train participating charter boat operators to recognize abnormalities in reef fish and to use scientifically accepted technical procedures to process affected fish for laboratory analysis. The charter boat captain would attach an identification tag to each specimen, record the fishing location using Global Positioning System coordinates, and then contact the LDWF via an emergency call-in number. LDWF field personnel would assist in transferring these samples to shore facilities for transport to a pathology laboratory at Louisiana State University for analysis.

The goal of the research is to more closely monitor populations of red snapper and other reef fish taken from state and Federal waters off Louisiana to ensure public health and seafood quality are maintained. The EFP, if approved, would authorize the take of as many as 100 Federally-managed red snapper or other Gulf reef fish through August 31, 2012. Such fish, collected as biological samples, would be exempted from the recreational bag limit for the particular species, and not subject to size limits or seasonal closures.

NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS would prohibit the possession of Nassau or goliath grouper. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.

A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS's review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The described research is part of an ongoing Cooperative Research Program Cooperative Agreement (No. NA10NMF4540110) funded by NMFS. The research is intended to involve commercial fishermen in the collection of fundamental fisheries information. Resource collection efforts support the development and evaluation of fisheries management and regulatory options.

The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that could otherwise be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to reef fish managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The applicants require authorization through the EFP to collect these Council-managed species that may be taken as part of the normal fishing activities of the commercial sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery. The applicant would be conducting this research in cooperation with a commercial fishing organization, Shareholders Alliance, and would involve as many as 30 vessel owners associated with that organization. Observers from Texas Tech University and Texas A&M—Corpus Christi, would document the catch and bycatch of red snapper and other reef fish during normal commercial fishing operations in the Gulf.

The objective of the study is to compare the discard rate of red snapper and the bycatch rates of other fish species in the red snapper commercial handline component of the Gulf reef fish fishery between fishermen with high and low amounts of quota allocation in both the eastern and western Gulf. By tagging discarded fish, and examining the return rates for recaptured tagged fish, the intent of the research is to estimate the delayed mortality rate, and long-term survival, of fish discarded in the commercial sector using vertical line gear in the Gulf reef fish fishery based on depth of capture. Information learned from this study is intended to help fishermen reduce discard mortality rates using new methodologies such as descender hooks to return fish to depth during fishing operations. In addition, sampling for age, growth, and size composition of the catch and bycatch would be conducted, providing additional information that can be used to assess the health of stock.

Additionally, the goal of the research is to improve the scientific knowledge of red snapper and other reef fish taken from state and Federal waters of the Gulf and to use that knowledge to support fishery management decisions. The EFP, if approved, would authorize the take of as many as 1,000 Federally-managed red snapper or other reef fish through July 31, 2012. Such fish, collected as biological samples, would be exempt from size limit regulations, and would not count against an individual fishermen's specific red snapper IFQ allocation.

NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS would prohibit the possession of Nassau or goliath grouper. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.

A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS's review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that the EFP is consistent with all applicable laws.

At the last meeting, the Committee tasked the Monkfish Advisory Panel (AP) and the Monkfish Plan Development Team (PDT) to elaborate and substantiate the bullet list of problems and issues developed by the AP and Committee after the scoping session on Amendment 6, in which the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils are considering catch shares management for the monkfish fishery. At this meeting, the Committee will review the AP and PDT reports and develop a recommended set of goals and objectives for Amendment 6 for approval by the Councils.

The Committee will also hold a closed session at the end of the meeting to review applications for recently vacated AP seats. The Committee's recommendations will be transmitted to the Executive Committee for approval.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Committee will continue development of options to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat and will also continue development of alternatives to protect deep-sea corals from fishing, these options will be presented to the Council at the September meeting. The Committee will also review remaining essential fish habitat designation issues held over from previous meetings. Other business will be discussed at the discretion of the Chair.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands with the concurrence of, and in consultation with, the Governor of the Pacific Insular Area to which the PIAFA applies. Before entering into a PIAFA, the appropriate Governor, with the concurrence of the Council, must develop a 3-year marine conservation plan (MCP) providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA to be deposited into the United States Treasury and then conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for which funds were collected. In the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels occurring within the EEZ off any Pacific Insular Area, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, shall be deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the EEZ in which the violation occurred, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. Any funds deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area may be used by the jurisdiction for fisheries enforcement and for implementation of an MCP.

An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing is being considered at this time, the Council, at its 151st meeting held June 15-18, 2011, reviewed and approved the Northern Mariana Islands MCP and recommended its submission to the Secretary for approval. On June 29, 2011, the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) submitted the MCP to NMFS, the designee of the Secretary, for review and approval.

The CNMI MCP contains 10 conservation and management objectives under which planned projects and activities designed to meet the objective are identified and described, as follows:

Objective 1.Data collection and reporting through a commercial harvest monitoring program.

Objective 2.Resource assessment and monitoring through analysis of data on pelagic fisheries resources.

Objective 3.Habitat assessment and monitoring.

Objective 4.Management procedures through the development of management zones for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Objective 5.Surveillance and enforcement through an EEZ enforcement program.

Objective 6.Promote responsible domestic fisheries development to provide long term economic growth and stability and local food production. This objective would be supported through the following projects:

(a) Construction of cold storage, fish processing, and fish market facilities.

(b) Longline permit, reporting, and quota utilization program to facilitate responsible fisheries.

(c) Development of a fish marketing plan that includes market identification, transportation, fish products, branding and ecolabeling, and other marketing issues.

(d) Enhance fishing opportunities by deploying community fish aggregation devices.

(e) Fisheries technology and education program.

(f) Recreational and subsistence fishing economic impact and use study.

(g) Charter fishing economic impact study.

(h) CNMI commercial fisheries baseline assessment.

Objective 7.Public participation.

Objective 8.Regional cooperation through participation in regional fisheries meetings and conferences.

Objective 9.Western Pacific demonstration projects, including the following:

(a) Village-based aquaculture project.

(b) Northern Islands remote fishing station project.

Objective 10.Performance evaluation.

This notice announces that NMFS has determined that the CNMI MCP satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and approves the MCP for the 3-year period from August 4, 2011, through August 3, 2014. The current MCP supersedes the amended CNMI MCP approved for the period October 6, 2009, through October 6, 2011 (74 FR 25710, May 29, 2009).

On 5/20/2011 (76 FR 29210-29211) and 6/17/2011 (76 FR 35415-35417), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

On 4/8/2011 (76 FR 19750-19751), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

Under the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, and other public benefit conveyance authorities, this surplus property may be available for conveyance to State and local governments and other eligible entities for public benefit purposes. Notices of interest from representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties located in the vicinity of any listed surplus property should besubmitted to the recognized Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). Additional information for this or any Army BRAC 2005 surplus property may be found athttp://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/brac/braco.htm.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, (a portion of, comprising approximately 67.5 acres) 6900 Georgia Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20307.

The Army's Base Transition Coordinator is Mr. Randy Treiber whose e-mail address israndal.treiber@us.army.miland his telephone number is (202) 782-7389. His mailing address is Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Base Transition Coordinator, 6900 Georgia Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20307.

The Government of the District of Columbia has been recognized as the LRA. The LRA is located at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 317, Washington, DC 20004. The LRA's point of contact is Mr. Eric D. Jenkins, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. He can be reached for information by calling (202) 727-6365.

a. Background:Since 2000, the total value of international trade has risen by over 40 percent and it is becoming a larger part of our national economy. The combined value of foreign trade (imports and exports) represented 13 percent of GDP in 1990, rising to nearly 22 percent in 2006. If this trend continues, it is projected that the value of U.S. foreign trade will be equivalent to 35 percent of the Nation's GDP in 2020 and 60 percent in 2030. Marine transportation will become even more important to our economy as 95 percent of America's foreign trade is moved by ship. To sustain expected growth, it is estimated the U.S. must expand its overall port capacity by 10 percent annually. This would require port expansion, mainly on the West Coast, Gulf Coast and South Atlantic. That is the equivalent of adding capacity equal to the Port of Oakland every year.

The Charleston port district's ranking as a global trading port is consistently in the top ten nationally in container traffic and cargo value. In 2009, the Charleston port district was ranked ninth (out of 200 deep-draft ports) in cargo value, and ninth (out of 80 container ports) in container traffic.

Shipping trends in Charleston show adherence to projections for considerable growth in ship size, in all three dimensions, draft, beam, and length. As economies of scale and improved vessel technologies have driven ship sizes larger, the world's port infrastructure must be rapidly expanded in channel depths and widths and terminal capacity to accommodate larger ships. The number of ports able to handle larger vessels around the world is growing, and, most importantly, the Panama Canal is currently expanding lock capacity to handle ships of 25% greater draft (up to 50 ft), 52% greater beam (up to 160 feet), and 30% greater length (up to 1250 feet). Ships have been under construction for several years to be ready for the new canal capacity when the new Panama Canal locks open in 2014.

b. Objectives:There is opportunity to deepen the navigation channel at Charleston Harbor to accommodate larger container vessels. Particularly important is the great increase in the deployment of those vessels, which is occurring now and expected to increase when the Panama Canal Expansion Project is completed in 2014. These larger vessels, commonly referred to in the shipping industry as the “Super Post-Panamax” vessels, are expected to comprise greater percentages of vessel fleet composition over the next several decades. This transition to larger vessels is expected to occur rapidly and current Panamax vessels are expected to no longer be used in the Asia service by 2024. Additional depth would be required to serve existing users of Charleston Harbor by that time, as the transition from the current Panamax fleet is complete.

c. Alternatives:The reconnaissance level alternatives analysis does not constitute a complete analysis of the full array of potential alternatives nor does it define a preferred alternative or National Economic Development (NED) plan. Detailed analyses are expected to be conducted in the proposed feasibility phase and would likely involve evaluation of all alternatives to address the problems and opportunities. The array of alternatives that may be examined in the feasibility study would likely include navigational improvements to some or all of the channels in Charleston Harbor, including (1) deepening channel(s) up to 50 feet MLLW or more, (2) widening channel(s), (3) adjusting existing channel alignments/bend easing, and (4) widening and/or lengthening turning basins.

During the feasibility phase, Charleston Harbor will be evaluated to identify the extent to which the array of alternatives will be applied to each reach of the Federal Navigation Channel. Problems and opportunities pertinent to each reach will be identified and investigated. A matrix of reach specific alternative plans will be developed and evaluated to produce a recommended plan for improvements to Charleston Harbor. This process will include the appropriate level of engineering, economic, and environmental analyses to identify all possible benefits and impacts associated with the projected navigational improvements.

Additional channel depth would allow current and future shippers to more fully utilize larger class vessels and would reduce future anticipated congestion. The current depth of the existing inner harbor channel is 45 feet MLLW. The Entrance Channel from the Atlantic Ocean through the jetties is 47feet MLLW deep to allow for wave action.

d. Issues:The DEIS will consider the possible effects of channel deepening/widening on aquatic resources, loss of wetlands, as well as other project related impacts on protected species, water quality, fish and wildlife resources, cultural resources, essential fish habitat, socio-economic resources, coastal processes, aesthetics, and other impacts identified through scoping, public involvement, and agency coordination.

e. Scoping process:The scoping process as outlined by the Council on Environmental Quality would be utilized to involve Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested persons and organizations. A scoping letter will be sent to the appropriate parties regarding issues to consider during the study. Public scoping meetings would be held throughout the process. Exact dates, times, and locations will be published in local papers.

The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is an interstate and federal compact agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.

DRBC currently is compiling data for the2012 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Reportrequired by the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The 2012 Assessment will present the extent to which waters of the Delaware River and Bay are attaining designated uses in accordance with Section 305(b) of the CWA and the Commission's Water Quality Regulations (18 CFR part 410) and will identify impaired waters, which consist of waters that exceed surface water quality standards.

The assessment methodology to be used in the 2012 Assessment is available for review at the following url:http://www.state.nj.gov/drbc/Methodology-WQAssess-draft_July2011.pdf.

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 of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review:Extension.

Title of Collection:Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers Annual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number:1840-0561.

Agency Form Number(s):N/A.

Frequency of Responses:Annually.

Affected Public:Not-for-profit; Private sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:596.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:3,576.

Abstract:Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers grantees must submit the report annually. The reports provide the U.S. Department of Education with information needed to evaluate a grantee's performance and compliance with program requirements and to award prior experience points in accordance with the programregulations. The data collection is also aggregated to provide national information on project participants and program outcomes.

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 4565. 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.

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 of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review:NEW.

Title of Collection:Employment Certification for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

OMB Control Number:Pending.

Agency Form Number(s):N/A.

Frequency of Responses:Annually.

Affected Public:Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:2,073,643.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:1,036,822.

Abstract:This form serves as the means by which eligible borrowers in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program indicate eligible employment for the purpose of final forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. The Department and its Direct Loan Program servicers will use the information collected on the Employment Certification for Public Service Loan Forgiveness form to determine whether a borrower has worked for a qualified employer during the certification period and whether payments made against a borrower's outstanding Direct Loan balance were qualifying payments for the purpose of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

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 4563. 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 Department's Measuring Educational Gain in the National Reporting System for Adult Education regulations, 34 CFR part 462 (NRS regulations), include the procedures for determining the suitability of tests for use in the NRS.

Criteria the Secretary uses:In order for the Secretary to consider a test suitable for use in the NRS, the test must meet the criteria and requirements established in § 462.13 of the NRS regulations.

(a) A test publisher must comply with the requirements in § 462.11 of the NRS regulations when submitting an application.

(b) In accordance with § 462.10 of the NRS regulations, the deadline for transmittal of applications is October 1, 2011.

(c) Whether you submit your application by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) or deliver your application by hand or by courier service, you must mail or deliver three copies of your application, on or before the deadline date, to the following address:

(d) If you submit your application by mail or commercial carrier, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the Department of Education.

(e) If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

(f) If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

(g) If you submit your application by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver three copies of the application by hand, on or before 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time on the application deadline date.

Accessible Format:Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g.,braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.

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

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:http://www.federalregister.gov.Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The Committee is established to advise the Secretary of Education in assisting two-year degree-granting institutions of higher education in meeting the completion or graduation rate disclosure requirements outlined in section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Specifically, the Committee shall develop recommendations regarding the accurate calculation and reporting of completion or graduation rates of entering certificate/degree-seeking, full-time, undergraduate students by two-year degree granting institutions of higher education. The Committee may also recommend additional or alternative measures of student success that are comparable alternatives to the completion or graduation rates of entering degree-seeking full-time undergraduate students and that consider the mission and role of two-year degree granting higher education institutions. These recommendations shall be provided to the Secretary no later than April 2012.

The agenda for the meeting will include a discussion among Committee members regarding preliminary findings and recommendations for the Committee's final report to the Secretary.

Individuals interested in attending the meeting must register in advance because of limited space issues. To register, please send an e-mail request tostudentsuccess@ed.gov.Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g.,interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify John Fink at (202) 502-7328 no later than August 31, 2011. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Opportunities for public comment are available through the Committee's Web site athttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acmss.html.Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection on the Web site and at the National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006 from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. E.S.T.

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/fed-register/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 1-866-512-1830; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-0000.

On June 7, 2011, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(76 FR 32968-32969) proposing an extension of project period and a waiver of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c) in order to—

(1) Enable the Secretary to provide additional funds to the currently funded National Center to Enhance the Professional Development of School Personnel Who Share Responsibility for Improving Results for Children with Disabilities (Center) for an additional 12-month period, from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012; and

(2) Request comments on the proposed extension of project period and waiver.

There are no substantive differences between the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver and this notice of final extension of project period and waiver.

In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed project period and waiver, we did not receive any substantive comments. Generally, we do not address comments that do not express views on the substance of the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). We received no substantive comments on the proposed extension of project period and waiver, and we have not made any substantive changes to the proposal. The Secretary has therefore determined to waive the delayed effective date to ensure a timely continuation grant to the entity affected.

On June 19, 2006, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(71 FR 35260) inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2006 for a National Professional Development Enhancement Center (Center), funded under the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program authorized under section 662 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1462.

The purpose of the Center is to provide pre-service training and professional development programs with high-quality instructional modules, materials, and resources in order to improve the overall quality of special education personnel training and professional development. The Center's goals are to help ensure that local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools have the capacity to implement school improvement programs; to close achievement gaps between students with disabilities and their peers; and to promote access to, and greater participation and progress in, the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities.

Based on the 2006 notice inviting applications, the Department made one award to Vanderbilt University to serve as the Center. The project period was 60 months, and it is scheduled to end on September 30, 2011.

We believe that it is not in the public interest to hold a new competition under this program in 2011 to fund a new Center as the Department is currently working on changes to the entire Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program. The program's new design will ensure that all projects the program supports are more strategically aligned with each other and that all projects better meet the needs of LEAs and schools for effective personnel. The Department is currently shaping these changes and expects to fund a new competition in FY 2012. However, we also have concluded that it is not in the public interest for the Center to have a lapse in the provision of the resources currently provided by the Center.

For these reasons, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years; waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c), which limit the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds; and is issuing a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253 in the amount of $1,350,000 to Vanderbilt University (H325F060003) to operate the Center for an additional 12-month period.

Waiving these regulations and issuing this continuation award ensure that pre-service and professional development programs will continue to receive instructional modules, materials, and resources to improve the overall quality of training for individuals who provide services to students with disabilities.

With this final extension of project period and waiver, the Center will conduct the following activities during FY 2012:

(a) Build on the previous work of the project by developing additional products, and disseminating both new and previously developed products to an increased number of institutions of higher education, State educational agencies, LEAs, and any other entities that provide training and professional development to individuals who provide services to students with disabilities.

(b) Develop products and services based on the input obtained from the comprehensive needs-assessments, textbook analyses, focus groups, and consumer-input processes previously conducted by the Center that tapped the experiences and expertise of an array of partners, consumers, and advisors, including staff from the Department's Office of Special Education Programs. In addition, the Center must continue to seek recommendations from consumers and the Department to guide the development of enhancements (e.g., interactive modules, case studies, activities, information briefs) and services (e.g., technical assistance to faculty, training of trainers, training sessions, and dissemination activities) provided by the Center.

(c) Continue to disseminate project products to instructors and their students through a cost-free, dedicated Web site that meets accessibility standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Seehttp://www.section508.govfor additional information on these standards.)

The Secretary certifies that this final extension of project period and waiver will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that will be affected are the current grantee serving as the Professional Development Enhancement Center and any other potential applicants.

The final extension of project period and the waiver do not contain any information collection requirements.

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.

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

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:http://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On June 7, 2011, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(76 FR 32967) proposing an extension of project period and a waiver of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c) in order to—

(1) Enable the Secretary to provide additional funds to the currently funded National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) for an additional 12-month period, from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012; and

(2) Request comments on the proposed extension of project period and waiver.

There are no substantive differences between the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver and this notice of final extension of project period and waiver.

In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver, we did not receive any substantive comments. Generally we do not address comments that do not express views on the substance of the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). We received no substantive comments on the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver, and we have not made any substantive changes to the proposal. The Secretary has therefore determined to waive the delayed effective date to ensure a timely continuation grant to the entity affected.

On April 28, 2006, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(71 FR 25163) inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2006 for NECTAC. The purpose of the NECTAC, which was funded under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (TA&D) program, authorized under section 663 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1463, is to ensure that eligible infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities (ages birth through five years) receive, as appropriate, services under Parts B and C of IDEA that ultimately improve their developmental and early learning outcomes. Another purpose of the NECTAC is to ensure that the families of eligible infants, toddlers, and children receiving services under Part C of IDEA receive services necessary to enhance families' capacity to meet the developmental needs of their infants, toddlers, or children.

Based on the 2006 notice inviting applications, the Department made one award for a period of 60 months to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to carry out the activities of the NECTAC.

Currently, the NECTAC focuses on providing technical assistance to strengthen State and local early childhood systems and improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and families of infants, toddlers, and children receiving services under Part C of IDEA.

The NECTAC's current project period is scheduled to end on September 30, 2011. We believe that it is not in the public interest to hold a new competition under this program in 2011 to fund a new NECTAC. An extension of the current grantee's project will align the end of the current NECTAC project period with the expiration of the project period for the Technical Assistance Center on Social-Emotional Intervention for Young Children (CFDA No. 84.326B) and allow for the Department to develop a strategic and better coordinated approach to early childhood special education technical assistance without there being a lapse in the provision of technical assistance services currently provided by the NECTAC. We also have concluded that it is not in the publicinterest to have a lapse in the provision of the resources currently provided by the NECTAC.

For these reasons, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years; waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c), which limit the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds; and issues a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253 in the amount of $3,000,000 to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (H326H060005) to operate the NECTAC for an additional 12-month period.

Waiving these regulations and issuing this continuation award ensure that technical assistance is available to strengthen State and local early childhood systems and improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and families of infants, toddlers, and children receiving services under Part C of IDEA.

With this final extension of project period and waiver, the NECTAC will conduct the following activities during FY 2012:

(a) Develop products and services to respond to State needs prioritized on the basis of results of current needs-analyses and syntheses.

(b) Provide coordinated individualized and multi-State technical assistance services to address high-priority needs.

(c) Support State-specific technical assistance efforts specified by the Department's Office of Special Education Programs.

(d) Coordinate with other relevant national and State-level technical assistance efforts.

(e) Disseminate documents to a wide audience, including State and local directors of special education.

(f) Maintain the NECTAC's Web site.

The Secretary certifies that this final extension of project period and waiver will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that will be affected are the current grantee serving as the NECTAC and any other potential applicants.

The final extension of project period and the waiver do not contain any information collection requirements.

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format:Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:http://www.federalregister.gov.Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On June 7, 2011, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(76 FR 32969) proposing an extension of project period and a waiver of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c) in order to—

(1) Enable the Secretary to provide additional funds to the currently funded Center for an additional 24-month period, from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2013; and

(2) Request comments on the proposed extension of project period and waiver.

There are no substantive differences between the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver and this notice of final extension of project period and waiver.

In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver, we did not receive any substantive comments. Generally, we do not address comments that do not express views on the substance of the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). We received no substantive comments on the notice of proposed extension of project period and waiver, and we have not made any substantive changes to the proposal. The Secretary has therefore determined to waive the delayed effective date to ensure a timely continuation grant to the entity affected.

On December 22, 2005, the Department published a notice in theFederal Register(70 FR 76039) inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2006 for a Center. The purpose of the Center, which was funded under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (TA&D) program, authorized under section 663 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is to provide specialized technical assistance, training, dissemination, and informational services to States, families, and agencies and organizations that are responsible for the provision of early intervention, special education, and related and transitional services for children through age 21 who are deaf-blind. For purposes of this notice, the term “individuals who are deaf-blind” refers to infants, toddlers, children, youth and young adults through age 21 who are deaf-blind.

Based on the 2005 notice inviting applications, the Department made one award for a period of 60 months to Western Oregon University to establish the Center, which is currently known as the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB). The NCDB's major goals are three-fold. The first goal is to increase the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), early intervention programs, and other agencies to improve policies and practices that will result in appropriate assessment, planning, placement, and services for individuals who are deaf-blind. The second goal is to increase the capacity of State deaf-blind projects as well as State and local agencies to use evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for individuals who are deaf-blind. The third goal is to collaborate with Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) to build the capacity of families of individuals who are deaf-blind to build relationships with family, peers, service providers, employers, and others and develop their knowledge about and skills in self-advocacy and self-empowerment.

The NCDB accomplishes this mission through a combination of activities in the following areas: (1) Technical assistance to SEAs, LEAs, families, and organizations that are responsible for the provision of early intervention, special education, and related and transitional services for individuals who are deaf-blind; (2) collection and dissemination of information related to improving outcomes for individuals who are deaf-blind; and, (3) training to address gaps in the knowledge of service providers, including gaps in the knowledge of evidence-based practices, to improve outcomes for individuals who are deaf-blind.

The NCDB's current project period is scheduled to end on September 30, 2011. We believe that it is not in the public interest to hold a new competition in 2011 to fund a new Center. This extension will align the end of the NCDB's project period with the end of the grants funded under the Projects for Children and Young Adults who are Deaf-Blind program (CFDA Number 84.326C). This alignment will enable the Department to develop a technical assistance strategy for individuals who are deaf-blind that maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided. We also have concluded that it is not in the public interest to have a lapse in the provision of technical assistance services currently provided by the NCDB pending the development of a coordinated strategy for technical assistance for individuals who are deaf-blind. For these reasons, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years; and waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c), which limit the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds; and issues a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253 in the amount of $4,200,000 to Western Oregon University (H326T060002) to operate the Center for an additional 24-month period.

Waiving these regulations and issuing this continuation award ensure that technical assistance, training, and dissemination of information to multiple recipients, including families, individuals who are deaf-blind, State projects for deaf-blind services, SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies under Part C of IDEA, and other State agencies, will not be interrupted during this period of time.

With this extension of project period and waiver, the NCDB will be required to conduct the following activities:

(a) Continue identifying State project needs in order to provide universal, targeted, and intensive technical assistance and training, as appropriate.

(b) Assist State deaf-blind projects (1) to increase collaboration among State deaf-blind projects, the PTIs, and other OSEP Technical and Assistance projects (2) to improve early intervention, instructional and behavioral practices by providing universal, targeted, and intensive technical assistance and training, as appropriate.

(c) Provide information to SEAs to aid in policy development related to services to individuals who are deaf-blind, as appropriate.

(d) Assist families and individuals who are deaf-blind to increase their capacity to build relationships with family, peers, service providers, employers, and others; and develop their knowledge about and skills in self-advocacy and self-empowerment.

(e) Assist personnel preparation training programs to work collaboratively with each other to increase the number of teachers and paraprofessionals who are prepared to provide effective services and implement evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for individuals who are deaf-blind.

(f) Collaborate with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, other Federal technical assistance projects, and State agencies to improve practices and services in early intervention, special education, related services, and transitional services by facilitating inclusion of individuals who are deaf-blind in SEA and LEA initiatives, as appropriate.

The Secretary certifies that the extension of project period and waiver will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that will be affected are the NCDB and any other potential applicants.

The final extension of project period and the waiver do not contain any information collection requirements.

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.Accessible Format:Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:http://www.federalregister.gov.Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Purpose of the Board:The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Committee:The purpose of the Committee is to review and prepare comments on the draft site-wide EIS.

Tentative Agenda:The Committee members will review and prepare comments on the draft site-wide EIS.

Public Participation:The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Denise Rupp at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Denise Rupp at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date.

Minutes:Minutes will be available by writing to Denise Rupp at the address listed above or at the followingWeb site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.401(f)(4), DOE provides notice of the issuance of the Decision and Order set forth below. In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Fujitsu a waiver from the existing DOE commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for the basic models of AIRSTAGE V-II multi-splits set forth in its petition. DOE also requires the use of an alternate test procedure for this equipment. Fujitsu must use American National Standards Institute/Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (ANSI/AHRI) Standard 1230-2010, “Performance Rating of VRF Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” to test and rate the models of AIRSTAGE V-II VRF multi-split commercial heat pumps identified below. The cooling capacities of these models range from 72,000 Btu/h to 288,000 Btu/h.

Today's decision prohibits Fujitsu from making any representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless the product has been tested consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and therepresentations fairly disclose the test results. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products.Id.

In the Matter of:Fujitsu General Limited (Fujitsu) (Case No. CAC-033).

Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the AIRSTAGE V-II VRF commercial multi-split heat pumps (“AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps”) that are the focus of this notice.1 Part C specifically includes definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6316. With respect to test procedures, Part C authorizes the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that “the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.” (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), the statute further directs the Secretary to amend the test procedure for a covered commercial product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines, by rule and based on clear and convincing evidence, that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3).

On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. For commercial air-source heat pumps, DOE adopted ARI Standard 340/360-2004. Table 1 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring energy efficiency of those products. The cooling capacities of Fujitsu's AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps in its waiver petition range from 72,000 Btu/h to 288,000 Btu/h. The current test procedure for this equipment is ARI Standard 340/360-2004, which includes units with capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/hour.

DOE's regulations for covered products permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g).

The waiver process also permits parties submitting a petition for waiver to file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). An interim waiver remains in effect for 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the petition for waiver, whichever occurs first. It may be extended by DOE for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4).

On April 25, 2011, Fujitsu filed a petition for waiver from the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 applicable to commercial package air source central air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as an application for interim waiver. The capacities of the AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps in Fujitsu's waiver petition range from 72,000 Btu/h to 288,000 Btu/h. The applicable test procedure for these commercial air-source heat pumps is ARI 340/360-2004. Manufacturers are directed to use these test procedures pursuant to Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96.

Fujitsu seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96 on the grounds that the AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps specified in its petition contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Specifically, Fujitsu asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing of these multi-split variable speed products are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other manufacturers for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems:

• Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and

• There are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test.See, e.g.,72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007) (Mitsubishi); 76 FR 19069 (April 6, 2011) (Fujitsu); 76 FR 19078 (April 6, 2011) (Mitsubishi).

On June 2, 2011, DOE published Fujitsu's petition for waiver in theFederal Register, seeking public comment pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv), and granted the application for interim waiver. 76 FR 31946. DOE received no comments on the Fujitsu petition.

Fujitsu seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedures for the equipment specified in its petition on the grounds that its AIRSTAGE V-II VRF multi-split commercial heat pumps contain design characteristics that prevent them from being tested using the current DOE testprocedures. As stated above, Fujitsu asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing these multi-split variable speed models are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi, Daikin AC Americas (Daikin), Samsung Air Conditioning (Samsung), Carrier, Sanyo, and LG for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems: (1) Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and (2) there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test.

The AIRSTAGE V-II system consists of multiple indoor units connected to one or multiple outdoor units. They have the capability of connecting the outdoor unit with up to 45 indoor units selected from 10 chassis types with 43 basic models, giving these systems more than a million installation combinations. Consequently, Fujitsu requested that DOE grant a waiver from the applicable test procedures for its AIRSTAGE V-II product designs.

In responses to two petitions for waiver from Mitsubishi, DOE specified an alternate test procedure to provide a basis upon which Mitsubishi could test and make valid energy efficiency representations for its R410A CITY MULTI equipment, as well as for its R22 multi-split equipment. Alternate test procedures related to the Mitsubishi petitions were published in theFederal Registeron April 9, 2007.See72 FR 17528 and 72 FR 17533. The Fujitsu AIRSTAGE V-II systems have operational characteristics similar to the commercial multi-split products manufactured by Mitsubishi, Samsung, Daikin, Carrier, LG, and Sanyo. DOE granted waivers for these products, prescribing an alternate test procedure similar to the alternate test procedure prescribed for Mitsubishi. For reasons similar to those published in these prior notices, DOE believes that an alternate test procedure is appropriate in this instance.

After DOE granted a waiver for Mitsubishi's R22 multi-split products, ARI formed a committee to discuss testing issues and to develop a testing protocol for variable refrigerant flow systems. The committee has developed a test procedure which has been adopted by the American National Standards Institute (AHRI)—“American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AHRI 1230-2010: Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment.” This test procedure has been incorporated into ASHRAE 90.1-2010. DOE is currently assessing AHRI 1230-2010 with respect to the requirements for test procedures specified by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)), and will provide a preliminary determination regarding those test procedures in a future notice of proposed rulemaking.

Fujitsu's petition proposed that DOE apply ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230-2010 as the alternate test procedure to apply to its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pump equipment as a condition of its requested waiver. As stated above, no comments were received by DOE regarding the Fujitsu petition. As described below, the alternate test procedure in the commercial multi-split waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi and the other manufacturers listed above is similar to ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010.

DOE issues today's Decision and Order granting Fujitsu a test procedure waiver for its commercial AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps. As a condition of this waiver, Fujitsu must use ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010, the alternate test procedure specified by DOE, to test the Fujitsu AIRSTAGE V-II models listed in its petition.

The alternate test procedure prescribed by DOE in earlier multi-split waivers, including the interim waiver granted to Fujitsu in response to the current petition, consisted of a definition of a “tested combination” and a prescription for representations. ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 also includes a definition of “tested combination,” and the two definitions are identical in all relevant respects.

The earlier alternate test procedure provides for efficiency rating of a non-tested combination in one of two ways: (1) At an energy efficiency level determined using a DOE-approved alternative rating method; or (2) at the efficiency level of the tested combination utilizing the same outdoor unit. ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 requires an additional test and in this respect is similar to the residential test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. Multi-split manufacturers must test two or more combinations of indoor units with each outdoor unit. The first system combination is tested using only non-ducted indoor units that meet the definition of a tested combination. The rating given to any untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit and all non-ducted indoor units is set equal to the rating of the tested system having all non-ducted indoor units. The second system combination is tested using only ducted indoor units that meet the definition of a tested combination. The rating given to any untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit and all ducted indoor units is set equal to the rating of the tested system having all ducted indoor units. The rating given to any untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit and a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units is set equal to the average of the ratings for the two required tested combinations.

With regard to the laboratory testing of commercial products, some of the difficulties associated with the existing test procedure are avoided by the alternate test procedure's requirements for choosing the indoor units to be used in the manufacturer-specified tested combination. For example, in addition to limiting the number of indoor units that need to be tested, ANSI 1230-2010 requires that all the indoor units must be subjected the same minimum external static pressure so that the test lab can manifold the outlets from each indoor unit into a common plenum that supplies air to a single airflow measuring apparatus. This eliminates situations in which some of the indoor units are ducted and some are non-ducted. Without this requirement, the laboratory must evaluate the capacity of a subgroup of indoor coils separately and then sum the separate capacities to obtain the overall system capacity. Measuring capacity in this way would require that the test laboratory be equipped with multiple airflow measuring apparatuses. It is unlikely that any test laboratory would be equipped with the necessary number of such apparatuses. Alternatively, the test laboratory could connect its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units until the contribution of each indoor unit had been measured. However, that approach would be so time-consuming as to be impractical.

For the reasons discussed above, DOE believes Fujitsu's AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps cannot be tested using the procedure prescribed in 10 CFR 431.96 (ARI Standard 340/360-2004) and incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)-(3). After careful consideration, DOE has decided to prescribe ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 as the alternate test procedure for Fujitsu's commercial multi-split products.

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Fujitsu petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to issuing a waiver to Fujitsu.

After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by Fujitsu, the absence of any comments, and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:

(1) The petition for waiver filed by Fujitsu (Case No. CAC-033) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.

(2) Fujitsu shall not be required to test or rate its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pump models listed below on the basis of the test procedures cited in 10 CFR 431.96, specifically ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)). Instead, it shall be required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (3).

Outdoor units, 208/230Vac, 3-phase, 60Hz, Air-Source Heat pump models:

Standalone models:

AOUA72RLBV and AOUA96RLBV with nominal cooling capacities of 72,000 and 96,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Compatible indoor units for the above listed outdoor units:

Compact cassette: AUUA7RLAV, AUUA9RLAV, AUUA12RLAV, AUUA14RLAV, AUUA18RLAV and AUUA24RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 14,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Cassette: AUUB30RLAV and AUUB36RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 30,000 and

36,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Slim cassette: AUUB18RLAV and AUUB24RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Compact wall mounted: ASUA7RLAV, ASUE7RLAV, ASUA9RLAV, ASUE9RLAV, ASUA12RLAV, ASUE12RLAV, ASUA14RLAV and ASUE14RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 7,500, 7,500, 9,500, 9,500, 12,000, 12,000, 14,000 and 14,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Wall mounted: ASUB18RLAV and ASUB24RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Floor/Ceiling (Universal): ABUA12RLAV, ABUA14RLAV, ABUA18RLAV and ABUA24RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 12,000, 14,000, 18,000, 24,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Ceiling: ABUA30RLAV and ABUA36RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 30,000 and 36,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Slim duct: ARUL7RLAV, ARUL9RLAV, ARUL12RLAV, ARUL14RLAV and ARUL18RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 14,000 and 18,000 Btu/hr respectively.

Middle static pressure duct: ARUM24RLAV, ARUM30RLAV, ARUM36RLAV, ARUM48RLAV and ARUM54RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 24,000, 30,000, 36,000, 48,000 and 54,000 Btu/hr respectively.

High static pressure duct: ARUH36RLAV, ARUH48RLAV, ARUH54RLAV, ARUH60RLAV, ARUH72RLAV, ARUH90RLAV and ARUH96RLAV with nominal cooling capacities of 36,000, 48,000, 60,000, 72,000, 90,000 and 96,000 Btu/hr respectively.

(3)Alternate test procedure.Fujitsu is not required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) above according to the test procedure for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96 (ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)), but instead shall use the alternate test procedure ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010.

(4) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date this Decision and Order is issued, consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g).

(5) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify the waiver at any time if it determines that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

(6) This waiver applies only to those basic models set out in Fujitsu's petition for waiver. Grant of this waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(l)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its decision and order as set forth below. The decision and order grants Samsung a waiver from the applicable clothes washer test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1 for certain basic models of clothes washers with capacities greater than 3.8 cubic feet, provided that Samsung tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. Today's decision prohibits Samsung from making representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless the product has been tested consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the decision and order below, and the representations fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).

In the Matter of:Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. CW-019).

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the residential clothes washers that are the focus of this notice.1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1.

DOE's regulations for covered products contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver for a particular basic model from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer products when (1) the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m).

Any interested person who has submitted a petition for waiver may also file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

On December 23, 2010, DOE issued enforcement guidance for large-capacity clothes washers. This guidance can be found on DOE's Web site athttp://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/LargeCapacityRCW_guidance_122210.pdf.

On February 11, 2011, Samsung submitted the instant petition for waiver and application for interim waiver (petition) from the test procedure applicable to automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1. This petition expands the model list set forth in Samsung's initial petition CW-014, for which DOE granted a waiver on March 10, 2011. 76 FR 13169. Samsung requested a waiver to test its residential clothes washers with basket volumes greater than 3.8 cubic feet on the basis of the test procedures contained in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix J1, with a revised Table 5.1 which extends the range of container volumes beyond 3.8 cubic feet. Samsung's instant petition and DOE's grant of interim waiver were also published in theFederal Registeron April 19, 2011. 76 FR 21881. DOE received no comments on the Samsung petition.

Samsung's petition seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure because the mass of the test load used in the procedure, which is based on the basket volume of the test unit, is currently not defined for basket sizes greater than 3.8 cubic feet. The basic models specified in Samsung's February 2011 petition have capacities larger than 3.8 cubic feet. In addition, if the current maximum test load mass is used to test these products, the tested energy use would be less than the actual energy usage, and could evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.

Table 5.1 of Appendix J1 defines the test load sizes used in the test procedure as linear functions of the basket volume. Samsung requests that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on a revised Table 5.1, the same table as set forth in the waiver granted to Samsung on March 10, 2011. The table is identical to the Table 5.1 found in DOE's clothes washer test procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 75 FR 57556 (September 21, 1010).

As DOE has stated in the past, it is in the public interest to have similar products tested and rated for energy consumption on a comparable basis. Previously, DOE granted a test procedure waiver to Whirlpool for three of Whirlpool's clothes washer models with container capacities greater than3.8 cubic feet. 75 FR 69653 (November 15, 2010). This notice contained an alternate test procedure, which extended the linear relationship between maximum test load size and clothes washer container volume in Table 5.1 to include a maximum test load size of 15.4 pounds (lbs) for clothes washer container volumes of 3.8 to 3.9 cubic feet. On December 10, 2010, DOE granted a similar waiver to General Electric Company (GE), which used the same alternate test procedure. 75 FR 76968. DOE has also granted waivers to Electrolux (76 FR 11440 (March 2, 2011)), LG (76 FR 11233 (March 1, 2011)) and Samsung (76 FR 13169 (March 10, 2011)). All decisions and orders for this type of product use the Table 5.1 values presented in DOE's NOPR.

DOE notes that its recently issued supplemental proposed rule (http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/rcw_tp_snopr.pdf) to amend the test procedures for clothes washers makes slight adjustments to Table 5.1 to correct for rounding errors. The alternate test procedure set forth in this decision and order adopts this updated table.

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Samsung petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Samsung.

After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Samsung, the waivers granted to Whirlpool, GE, LG and Electrolux, as well as previously to Samsung, the clothes washer test procedure rulemaking, and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:

(1) The petition for waiver submitted by the Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. CW-019) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.

(2) Samsung shall not be required to test or rate the following Samsung models on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1. Instead, it shall be required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (3) below.

WA5471* * *, WA5461* * *, WA5451* * *, WA5441* * *, WA5431* * *.

(3) Samsung shall be required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) above according to the test procedures for clothes washers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, appendix J1, except that, for the Samsung products listed in paragraph (2) only, the expanded Table 5.1 below shall be substituted for Table 5.1 of appendix J1.