In an effort to remain relevant to the marketplace and optimize our respective operations, the Commercial Service (CS), Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), Census Bureau (Census), and Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) have formed a project team to conduct market segmentation research and analysis. The market segmentation is a systematic approach for identifying clusters of companies with similar needs and behavior, and developing service offerings and sales/marketing approaches targeted at segments with the greatest return of investment. The purpose of this initiative is to gain market knowledge and generate statistically valid characterizations about the needs and buying behavior of exporting companies, with a particular focus on moderate exporters (those U.S. firms that currently export, but on a limited or reactive basis and whose international sales comprise less than 10% of total sales or whose international sales growth is less than 10% per year). From this research, services, pricing, and messaging may be repositioned to address the exporting needs of small and medium-sized businesses.

A telephone survey was chosen over a web survey for the following reasons: (1) Since no databases of current or potential exporters is available from a governmental agency, the third party vendor will purchase a list from Dun and Bradstreet. The list contains contact information including phone numbers but not email addresses; (2) Firms do not offer email address databases, to obtain email addresses, the addresses must be manually extracted from a firm's Web site; (3) While web surveys are easier to administer and provide a convenient option for the respondent, they do not have as high a completion rate as phone surveys. This is especially true when there is no incentive for the respondent to complete the survey; and (4) The web survey has more potential to be completed by a respondent other than the targeted respondent, i.e. there is no way to verify who completed the survey.

The CS will contract with a third party vendor (TBD) to conduct surveys to gain insight into the attitudes, needs, and behaviors of moderate exporters.

The third party vendor will recruit firms over the phone using lists obtained from other third party vendors. Data collection will be conducted during a telephone survey.

OMB Control Number:0625-0264.

Form Number(s):None.

Type of Review:Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:1,600.

Estimated Time Per Response:30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:800.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$0.

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

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

On August 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished from the People's Republic of China.See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,76 FR 45777 (August 1, 2011). The period of the review is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011. The preliminary results of the new shipper review are currently due no later than January 23, 2012.

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results in a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated.Seesection 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).

The Department finds that this new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated and, therefore, it requires additional time to complete the preliminary results. Specifically, the Department requires additional time to examine factors of production data that were only fully provided this month and then issue supplemental questionnaires for any additional information that may be needed. Accordingly, we are extending the time for the completion of the preliminary results of this review by 120 days, until May 22, 2012.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On February 10, 2000, the Department published in theFederal Registeran antidumping duty order on steel plate from Korea.See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea,65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000). On February 1, 2011, the Department published in theFederal Registera notice of opportunity to request administrative review of the order.See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011).

On February 25, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), DSM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. On March 31, 2011, the Department initiated an administrative review of DSM.See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review,76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011).

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

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e.,flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) ofseries 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e.,USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.

Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.

To determine whether DSM's sales of the subject merchandise from Korea to the United States were at prices below normal value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “scope of the order” section above produced and sold by DSM in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison market prices that were based on all sales which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-average comparison market prices on a level of trade-specific basis.

The Department based the price of DSM's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, before importation, by a U.S.-based seller affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes direct selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets.

DSM made home market sales to Dongkuk S&C (DSC), which is a subsidiary of Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI). DKI owns 60 percent of DSC. DSM's Chairperson, Sae Joo Chang, and President, Sae Wook Chang, are brothers. DKI's Chairperson, Sang Kuhn Chang, is the father of DSC's President/Director, Sae Hee Chang. DKI's Chairperson, Sang Kuhn Chang, is also an uncle of DSM's Chairperson, Sae Joo Chang, and President, Sae Wook Chang. Together the Chang family grouping owns the largest block of the outstanding shares of DSM and DKI.

Members of a family are affiliates pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). The definition of family includes uncle-nephew relationships under section 771(33)(A) of the Act.See Ferro Union, Inc.v.United States,44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1325-26 (CIT 1999). Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any person are affiliates under section 771(33)(F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). In past reviews, the Department has found that DSM and DKI are affiliated.See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,73 FR 77614, 77615-16 (December 19, 2008) (2007-08 Prelim), unchanged inCertain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,74 FR 19046 (April 27, 2009) (2007-08 Final). The U.S. Court of International Trade has upheld the Department's decision to find DSM and DKI affiliates in a separate review.See Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.v.United States,29 CIT 724 (2005).

Therefore, we preliminarily find that DKI's Chairperson, Sang Kuhn Chang, and DSM's Chairperson, Sae Joo Chang, and President, Sae Wook Chang, are affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3) because of their uncle-nephew relationship. We also preliminarily find that DSM, DKI, and DSC are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3) because DSM, DKI, and DSC are under common control of the Chang family grouping.Seethe memorandum entitled “Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea: Affiliation of Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd.,” dated January 9, 2012, for more details which contain DSM's business-proprietary information. Accordingly, we preliminarily treated DSM's home market sales to DSC as sales to an affiliated party and performed the arm's-length test for these sales.Seethe “Arm's-Length Test” section,infra.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of steel plate in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. DSM's quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in the comparison market,i.e.,Korea, and to the United States and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.Seesection 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determine that DSM's home market was viable during the POR.Id.Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be based on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold,inter alia,in the ordinary course of trade. Section 771(15) of the Act defines “ordinary course of trade” as the “conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.”

DSM reported home market sales of “overrun” merchandise,i.e.,sales of products that failed to meet the original customer's order specifications because of differences in size, chemical components, and/or strength. In the past, the Department has examined various factors to determine whether “overrun” sales are in the ordinary course of trade.See China Steel Corp.v.United States,264 F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 1364-65 (CIT May 14, 2003).See also, e.g., 2007-08 Prelim,73 FR at 77616, unchanged in2007-08 Final.The Department has the discretion to choose how best to analyze the many factors involved in determining whether sales are made within the ordinary course of trade.See Laclede Steel Co.v.United States,19 CIT 1076, 1078 (1995). These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Whether the merchandise is “off-quality” or produced according to unusual specifications; (2) the comparative volume of sales and the number of buyers in the home market; (3) the average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of a commercial sale; and (4) price and profit differentials in the home market.

Based on our analysis of these factors and the terms of sale, we preliminarily determine that DSM's overrun sales are outside the ordinary course of trade. Because our analysis includes business-proprietary information, the analysis is available in a separate decision memorandum.Seethe memorandum entitled “Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea: Home Market Overruns” dated January 9, 2012.

In the most recently completed administrative review, the Department determined that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded such sales from the calculation of normal value.See 2007-08 Prelim,73 FR at 77616-17, unchanged in2007-08 Final.Therefore, in this review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that DSM's sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value may have been made at prices below COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of DSM's sales in the comparison market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison market sales and COP information provided by DSM in its questionnaire response.

We analyzed DSM's affiliated transactions in accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act. During the POR, DSM purchased slabs, which are a major input in the production of steel plate, from its affiliates. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act (the major input rule) states:

In accordance with the major input rule, and as stated inStainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,73 FR 45708, 45714 (August 6, 2008), unchanged inStainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009), it is the Department's normal practice to use all three elements of the major input rule,i.e.,transfer price, COP, and market price, where available.See, e.g., Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,76 FR 36519, 36521-22 (June 22, 2011), unchanged inPurified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,76 FR 66687 (October 27, 2011). We adjusted DSM's cost of manufacturing to reflect the results of our analysis.Seethe DSM preliminary analysis memorandum dated January 9, 2012, for more details which contain DSM's business proprietary information.

Based on our review of the record evidence, DSM did not appear to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.

After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether comparison market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.Seesection 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported comparison market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of DSM's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of DSM's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost salesbecause they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

In this review, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of DSM's home market sales were at prices less than COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of cost within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer,i.e.,sales at arm's-length prices.See19 CFR 351.403(c). For affiliated-party sales, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to have been made at arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, and direct selling expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices.See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade,67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculations of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length prices.

We based normal value on comparison market sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test. DSM's comparison market prices were based on the ex-factory or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling expenses from normal value.

To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at the same level of trade as CEP sales.Seesection 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of trade, we compare CEP sales to comparison market sales at a different level of trade. The normal value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market.

To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different level of trade than DSM's U.S. sales in this review, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one level of trade in the United States and one level of trade in the home market and that the U.S. level of trade is at a less advanced stage than the home market level of trade. Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales to home market sales at different levels of trade.

Because there is only one level of trade in the home market, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on DSM's home market sales of the foreign like product and we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For DSM's CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value is subject to the so-called offset cap, which is calculated as the sum of home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP.

For a detailed description of our level-of-trade analysis for DSM in these preliminary results,seethe DSM preliminary analysis memorandum dated January 9, 2012.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are available on the Import Administration Web site athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for DSM is 1.64 percent for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.See19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.See19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue,a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in theFederal Register.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR.See19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by DSM for which DSM did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of DSM-produced merchandise at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.See Assessment of Antidumping Dutiesfor a full discussion of this clarification.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for DSM will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or 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, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 0.98 percent,1 the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. This deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2010). The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis (“OCEA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the issuance in theFederal Register. Under Section 305(a) of the Export Trading Company Act (15 U.S.C. 4012(b)(1)) and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

AIA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

1. Add the following new “Members” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):

2. Change the names of the one Member and the location of another Member:

The effective date of the amended certificate is September 27, 2011, the date on which AIA's application to amend was deemed submitted. A copy of the amended certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant is requesting a five-year permit to film gray and killer whales in the eastern Aleutian Islands, primarily near Ikatan Bay and along the Ikatan Peninsula on the south side of Unimak Island, Alaska. The purpose of the project is to document killer whales hunting gray whales migrating through False Pass and Unimak Pass. In addition, the filmmaker hopes to document the behavior of marine animals in the presence of a gray whale carcass. Filming would occur between April and June of each year. A maximum of 35 killer whales and 10 gray whales could be closely approached annually. Footage would be obtained from vessel-mounted cameras, a polecam that would be submerged next to the boat, and, as the opportunity arises, from a remotely operated video camera in an underwater housing placed on the sea floor near a gray whale carcass. The applicant would share footage with the scientific community as it may reveal to what extent killer whales continue to feed on submerged kills, how they feed on these carcasses, and document what other animals may benefit from these carcasses as well. Footage would be used for a television program about predators and the challenges they face.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in theFederal Register,NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

This notice is relevant to the following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs):

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.

Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Columbia River.

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.

Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Following introductions and any announcements, brief reports will be presented by the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator (Northeast Region), Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, as well as NOAA General Counsel, representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and staff from the Vessel Monitoring Systems Operations and Law Enforcement offices. During this period, the Council also will receive an update on the activities of the Northeast Regional Ocean Council. That discussion will be followed by a review of any experimental fishery permit applications that have been made available since the November 2011 Council meeting.

The Council will then receive an update on progress to date on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus 2, which is focusing on the development of management alternatives to minimize the adverse effects of fishing activities on essential fish habitat and the protection of deep sea corals. Next, the Council's Research Steering Committee will review its findings on a number final cooperative research projects and its ongoing discussions with NOAA Fisheries about accounting for scientific research catch and the sale of that catch. An open period for public comments will follow during which any interested party may provide brief comments on issues relevant to Council business but not listed on the meeting agenda.

Following a lunch break, Council staff will present a white paper outlining the details of a draft Fishery Management Plan Performance Evaluation process. This will include a question and answer session for both the Council and public. This is part of the Council's actions to respond to the Touchstone Report on the fisheries management process in New England. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will present an update and discuss several New England offshore wind energy projects and proposals. The day will conclude with a report from the Council's Sea Scallop Committee. The committee's intent is to request initiation of Framework 24 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP). That action will include fishery specifications for fishing years 2013 and 2014, as well as several additional measures identified by the Council in priority order: (1) Possible modification of Georges Bank access area opening dates; (2) measures to address sub-annual catch limits for yellowtail flounder for the limited access general category (LAGC) trawl fishery; and (3) leasing LAGC Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fish mid-year.

The day will begin with a summary of Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 53 results and possibly the subsequent peer review of the Gulf of Maine cod and black sea bass assessments addressed during the SAW. The Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) report will follow, during which the committee chairman will provide an overview of SSC's December 2012 planning meeting, including the use of social science information in the development of a risk policy for ABC recommendations, a process for addressing cod discard mortality in the groundfish hook fishery and SSC outreach. There also will be a detailed report of the committee's January 25, 2012 discussion and any decisions about the status of Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod.

Following the SSC's report, the Council will receive a briefing on new Marine Recreational Information Program estimates of recreational catch for 2004 to 2011. The Council's interest here is Gulf of Maine cod and haddock. The Groundfish Committee will then report on a range of issues. These include a report on the Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 18 scoping hearings concerning accumulation limits, the development of a course of action to address the recent Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment and a possible request to NOAA Fisheries for emergency action to address overfishing of that stock. There will be an update concerning progress on a new sector framework adjustment and potential modifications to the groundfish closed areas in effect in the FMP. Finally, there will be a presentation on the Rednet Project, a cooperative fishermen/scientific effort to redevelop a sustainable redfish trawl fishery. This may be followed by a review of recent sector exemption requests and any related Council recommendations.

The last day of the Council meeting will begin with development ofcomments on the Small Mesh Multispecies Secretarial Amendment, an action that which will address the small mesh hake fishery and is scheduled to become effective on May 1, 2012. The Council also will be asked to approve final Draft Amendment 19 to Northeast Multispecies FMP for purposes of holding public hearings on the proposed alternatives. This will be followed by a discussion of progress to develop a range of alternatives for consideration in Amendment 6 to the Monkfish FMP. The Council also will consider adopting a committee recommendation to establish a control date for use in the development of future management measures including, but not limited to, catch shares and accumulation limits. There will be a briefing by NOAA Fisheries concerning its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and FMP amendment that would consider catch shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries. Council meeting adjournment will take place once the Enforcement Committee asks for Council input on recommendations concerning gear stowage and NOAA Enforcement's draft priorities document.

Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council 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 that 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 (seeADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Council Plenary Session:The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. Reports:

1. Executive Director's Report (including update on Halibut Catch Share Plan, review and approve Standard Operations and Procedures (SOPPs)).

2. Final action to allow formation of a Community Quota Entity (CQE) in Area 4B.

3. Halibut Prohibited Species Catch (PSC): Initial review of Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendment to set Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Halibut PSC.

4. Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) Crab Management: Update on Pribilof Blue King Crab Rebuilding Plan, action as necessary; BSAI Crab Model Workshop Report. (SSC only); Preliminary Review on BSAI Tanner Crab Rebuilding Plan; Report on BSAI Crab Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Workgroup, action as necessary (T); Final action on BSAI Crab Electronic Data Reporting (EDR) Revisions.

5. Habitat Issues; Initial review of GOA Trawl Sweep modifications; Initial review Habitat Area Particular Concern (HAPC)—Skate egg deposition sites; Updated discussion paper on Bristol Bay Red King Crab spawning area/fishery effects(T); Report on 2012-2015 Deep Sea Coral Research

6. Groundfish Issues/Miscellaneous; Discussion paper on GOA Chinook Bycatch in all trawl fisheries; Discussion paper on GOA Pollock D-season; Discussion paper on American Fisheries Act (AFA) Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards; Discussion paper on BSAI Flatfish specification flexibility.

7. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking; discuss schedule for Groundfish Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PSEIS); Review Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) proposals and provide direction.

8. Other Business

The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council, except C-1, and B reports. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted athttp://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/

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 these meetings. 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 Fishery Conservation andManagement Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The workshop will include briefings on established volunteer data collection programs, statistical consultant presentations, and discussions of various options for volunteer angler data collections and their uses. This workshop is a product of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP—http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov) and was organized by the Council in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marines Fisheries Commission. Workshop outcomes may include recommendations, limitations, uses, and best practices that could inform state efforts and/or feed into a pilot project proposal to be submitted to the Marine Recreational Information Program for funding in 2013. The workshop will be available via GoToMeeting and registration can be made at the following link:https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/409337168.A public comment period will take comments from those at the meeting and also via webinar if feasible.

Special Accommodations:

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

On November 7, 2011, notice was published in theFederal Register(76 FR 68719) that a request for an amendment Permit No. 14676 to conduct research on California sea lions had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The amendment includes authorization for capture of up to 30 animals over two field seasons and an additional procedure, deployment of a heart rate/stroke rate recorder on half of the animals. The amendment is valid through the original permit expiration date, February 1, 2015.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a military readiness activity if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy's training activities at the Navy's VACAPES, JAX, and Cherry Point range complexes were published on June 15, 2009 (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; JAX: 74 FR 28349; CHPT: 74 FR 28370) and remain in effect through June 4, 2014. They are codified at 50 CFR part 218 subpart A (for VACAPES Range Complex), subpart B (for JAX Range Complex), and subpart C (for Cherry Point Range Complex). These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's range complex training exercises. For detailed information on these actions, please refer to the June 15, 2009Federal RegisterNotices and 50 CFR part 218 subparts A, B, and C.

An interim final rule was issued on May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30552) to allow certain flexibilities concerning Navy's training activities at VACAPES and JAX, and LOAs were issued to the Navy on June 1, 2011 (76 FR 33266; June 8, 2011).

On July 6, 2011, NMFS received a request from the U.S. Navy for modifications to three LOAs issued by NMFS on June 1, 2011, to take marine mammals incidental to training activities at VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes (76 FR 33266; June 8, 2011). Specifically, the Navy requested that NMFS modify these LOAs to include taking of marine mammals incidental to mine neutralization training using time-delay firing devices (TDFD) within the above Range Complexes, along with revised mitigation measures, to ensure that effects to marine mammals resulting from these activities will not exceed what was originally analyzed in the Final Rules for these Range Complexes (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; JAX: 74 FR 28349; CHPT: 74 FR 28370). The potential effects of mine neutralization training on marine mammals were comprehensively analyzed in the Navy's 2009 final regulations for these three Range Complexes and mine neutralization training has been included in the specified activity in the associated 2009, 2010, and 2011 LOAs. However, the use of TDFD and the associated mitigation measures have not been previously contemplated, which is why NMFS believes it was appropriate to provide these proposed modified LOAs to the public for review. NMFS published a notice proposing to modify the three LOAs on November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68734).

On March 4, 2011, three dolphins were suspected to be killed by the Navy's mine neutralization training event using TDFDs in its Silver Strand Training Complex. In short, a TDFD device begins a countdown to a detonation event that cannot be stopped, for example, with a 10-min TDFD, once the detonation has been initiated, 10 minutes pass before the detonation occurs and the event cannot be cancelled during that 10 minutes. Although in theFederal Registernotice for the proposed LOA (76 FR 68734; November 7, 2011), it stated that using TDFDs is believed to have likely resulted in the death of five dolphins, further discussion with the Navy and reviewing of reports concerning the incident showed that there is no concrete evidence that more than three dolphins were killed. Following the March 4th event, the Navy initiated an evaluation of mine neutralization events occurring within the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes and realized that TDFDs were being used at those Range Complexes. According to the Navy, less than 3% of all MINEX events would not use TDFD. As a result, the Navy subsequently suspended all underwater explosive detonations using TDFDs during training, and the three LOAs issued on June 1, 2011 by NMFS specifically do not cover marine mammals taken incidentally as a result of such training activities. While this suspension was in place, the Navy worked with NMFS to develop a more robust monitoring and mitigation plan to ensure that marine mammal mortality and injury would not occur during mine neutralization training activities using TDFDs.

The Navy requested that the revised LOAs remain valid until June 2012. A detailed description of the Navy's LOA modification request can be found on the NMFS Web site:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

A detailed description of the overall operational mission concerning the use of TDFD is provided in theFederal Registernotice for the proposed LOA (76 FR 68734; November 7, 2011), therefore, it is not repeated here.

A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68734). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and one private citizen.

Comment 1:The Commission recommends that NMFS and the Navy investigate the underlying cause of the high rate of non-compliance with the respective LOAs and determine why it was not detected earlier. Specifically, the Commission stated that the Navy had been using the TDFDs at the three east coast Range Complexes until the dolphin mortality incident at the Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC),despite a clear prohibition of using such devices in the applicable LOAs from NMFS. The Commission also states that the non-compliance with this provision also calls into question whether the Navy is fully complying with the other terms and conditions of the applicable letters of authorization.

Response:The Navy has not violated any provisions of their LOAs or rules. There were no prohibitions against using TDFDs in the earlier LOAs and rules issued to the Navy. The use of TDFDs was not identified in the Navy's LOA application and the explosives used in the mine neutralization training was treated as standard underwater detonation with positive control, therefore the use of TDFDs was not analyzed during the rulemaking stage and thus the LOAs issued to the Navy did not include the prohibition of using TDFDs for mine neutralization training. The issue of using TDFDs became known after the SSTC dolphin mortality incident mentioned above, and the Navy suspended all underwater detonation events that use those devices and worked with NMFS to come up with a more robust mitigation and monitoring plan. In the meantime, NMFS modified the 2010 LOAs that were issued to the Navy with the prohibition that no TDFDs be used for mine neutralization training, and the Navy complied with that prohibition.

Comment 2:The Commission recommends that NMFS and the Navy jointly review the full scope of the applicable regulations and letters of authorization to ensure that the responsible Navy officials are aware of, understand, and are in compliance with all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Response:NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation. NMFS and the Navy worked together closely in developing all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures for the Navy's MMPA authorizations and regulations applicable to training activities. In addition, draft regulations and authorizations were also sent to the Navy for review to ensure that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures set forth are attainable and practicable.

Comment 3:The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Navy to conduct empirical sound propagation measurements to verify the adequacy of the sizes of the exclusion zones for 5-, 10-, and 20-lb charges and to expand those zones and the buffer zones derived from those zones as necessary, if NMFS amends the LOA as proposed.

Response:In 2002, the Navy conducted empirical measurements of underwater detonations at San Clemente Island and at the SSTC in California. During these tests, 2 lb and 15 lb net explosive weight charges were placed at 6 and 15 feet of water and peak pressures and energies were measured for both bottom placed detonations and detonations off the bottom. A finding was that, generally, single-charge underwater detonations, empirically measured, were similar to or less than propagation model predictions (DoN 2006).

On the east coast, the Navy has conducted marine mammal surveys during mine neutralization training events during August of 2009, 2010, and 2011 as part of its marine mammal monitoring program (see Navy's VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT annual monitoring reports for further details). NMFS contacted Navy regarding the feasibility of empirical sound propagation measurement in the east coast range complexes. The Navy stated that it will explore the value of adding field measurements during monitoring of a future mine neutralization event after evaluating the environmental variables affecting sound propagation in the area, such as shallow depths, seasonal temperature variation, bottom sediment composition, and other factors that would affect our confidence in the data collected. If such data can be collected without unreasonable costs and impacts to training, the Navy will move forward in incorporating the measurements into its monitoring program for east coast mine neutralization training.

At this moment, because the modeled exclusion zones are set to be much larger than the measured and modeled zones of injury or TTS, NMFS does not believe that there is added value to conducting empirical measurements before the issuance of the modified LOAs, especially given the short time frame during which the LOA modifications will be effective. Nevertheless, NMFS would recommend the Navy conduct these measurements as funding becomes available.

Comment 4:The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Navy to re-estimate the sizes of the buffer zones using the mean average swim speeds plus at least one standard deviation for marine mammals that inhabit the shallow-water areas where TDFDs would be used, prior to amending the LOAs. The Commission states that if an animal swims at just 1 knot faster than the Navy's assumption of average swim speed at 3 knots, the Navy would have underestimated the size of the buffer zones in 8 of the 18 scenarios presented in Table 3 of the proposed LOA (76 FR 68734; November 7, 2011; Table 4 in the current document). The Commission further supports its argument with studies from Lockyer and Morris (1987) and Mateet al.(1995), which showed that the average swim speed for bottlenose dolphins ranged from 2.6 to 8 knots.

Response:First, although the Commission's recommendation of using the mean average swim speeds plus at least one standard deviation for marine mammals warrants consideration, it is not currently possible to implement because the actual data deriving the average swim speeds and the number of samples are unknown, therefore, the standard deviation cannot be calculated. The average dolphin swim speed used in establishing the buffer zones were based on published peer-review papers (e.g., Perrinet al.(1979), Würsig and Würsig (1979), Hui (1987), and Mateet al.(1995)) instead of actual data measurements. If what the Commission means is to use the mean published average swim speeds to calculate the “among population standard deviation”, other issues exist: (1) There are only a handful of published reports (four reviewed by NMFS and two additional papers by the Commission, with one reviewed by both NMFS and the Commission), so the mean of the average swim speeds plus their standard deviation reported in these five documents (among three species) would have no statistical meaning, and (2) Some of the papers (e.g., Lockyer and Morris (1987) and Perrinet al.(1979)) reported a range of the average speeds, which would not even allow for such calculations. In addition, among these reported delphinid average swim speeds (listed below in Table 1), all support the Navy's suggested average swim speed of 3 knots, except for the Lockyer and Morris (1987) paper. Therefore, NMFS considers that using the average of 3 knots for delphinid speed is a reasonable approach to address the time-delay issue related to the use of TDFDs for mine detonation.

In addition, the Navy proposed (and NMFS concurred) that an additional 200-yard buffer be added to the safety zone to provide additional protection for dolphins that may swim faster than the average of 3 knots.

Furthermore, in order to enhance the monitoring efficiency due to the enlarged buffer zones, buffer zones with a radius greater than 1,000 yards will have 2 boats, and buffer zones with a radius greater than 1,400 yards will have 3 boats or 2 boats and 1 helicopter for monitoring. While larger buffer zones may sometimes add benefits, there must also be an ability to adequately survey the buffer zone to ensure animals are spotted. Due to the type of small unit training being conducted, there are limited surveillance assets available to monitor the buffer zone during a mine neutralization event. Scheduling additional observation boats and crews involves coordination and availability of other units and degrades overall training readiness of the other unit(s) involved, which would not be practical for small training events like these. In summary, based on the above analyses and additional mitigation measures being implemented, NMFS believes the use of published average dolphin swim speed with an additional 200-yard buffer is the best current approach to establishing the buffer zones.

Finally, it is worth noting that even in the absence of mitigation, the Navy modeling suggests that zero animals will likely randomly come within the safety radius during the small amount of time that the detonations actually occur. It is unlikely that an animal will swim into the buffer zone during the brief amount of time that it might be exposed to a detonation without first being detected by the multiple boats circling the detonation area and observing the buffer zone.

Comment 5:The Commission recommends that NMFS consider whether modifications to the LOAs alone are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the MMPA and provide a thorough explanation of its rationale in theFederal Registernotice taking final action on the proposed modifications, if it believes that regulatory modifications are not needed.

Response:The amount of incidental harassment authorized in the regulations governing mine neutralization on the three east coast range complexes was based on thorough analyses and assessment of the Navy's activities and marine mammal distribution and occurrence in the vicinity of the range complexes. As explained in the Navy's initial LOA application submitted to NMFS and subsequent TDFD LOA modification application, the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement for these range activities, and NMFS'Federal Registernotices (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; June 15, 2009; JAX: 74 FR 28349; June 15, 2009; CHPT: 74 FR 28370; June 15, 2009), the estimated exposures are based on the probability of the animals being present in the area when a training event is occurring, and this probability does not change based on the use of TDFDs or implementation of mitigation measures (i.e., the exposure model does not account for how the charge is initiated and assumes no mitigation is being implemented). The amount of harassment currently authorized and NMFS' determination of negligible impact on the stock already assume a conservative estimate of predicted harassment for these events. The enhanced mitigation measures to be implemented in the LOA modification are to balance the potential additional risks that may arise from the Navy using TDFD during the mine neutralization training. In summary, the take limits are not expected to be exceeded with the use of TDFDs, but the additional mitigation and monitoring measures are to offset the potential risks of using TDFDs. Therefore, NMFS does not believe that further revisions to the regulation are warranted.

Comment 6:One private citizen expressed general opposition to Navy activities and NMFS' issuance of an LOA modification because of the danger of killing marine life.

Response:NMFS appreciates the commenter's concern for the marine mammals that live in the area of the proposed activities. However, the MMPA allows individuals to take marine mammals incidental to specified activities if NMFS can make the necessary findings required by law (i.e., negligible impact, unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence users, etc.), as explained in the rulemakings (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; June 15, 2009; JAX: 74 FR 28349; June 15, 2009; CHPT: 74 FR 28370; June 15, 2009) and the proposed LOAs (76 FR 68734; November 7, 2011). The detailed analyses in these documents show that no marine mammal mortality would likely occur as a result of the Navy activities, including the use of TDFDs during mine neutralization trainings. Finally, take of marine mammals by mortality and serious injury are not authorized under these rules and regulations. Therefore, NMFS has made the necessary findings under 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) to support our modification of these LOAs.

NMFS worked with the Navy and developed a series of modifications to improve monitoring and mitigation measures so that take of marine mammals will be minimized and that no risk of injury and/or mortality to marine mammals would result from the Navy's use of TDFD mine neutralization training exercises. The following modifications to the mitigation and monitoring measures are specific to Mine Neutralization training exercises involving TDFDs conducted within the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes.

(A) This activity shall only occur in W-50 of the VACAPES Range Complex, Undet North and Undet South of the JAX Range Complex, and Mine Neutralization Box of Area 15 of the CHPT Range Complex.

(B) Visual Observation and Exclusion Zone Monitoring.

The estimated potential for marine mammals to be exposed during MINEX training events is not expected to change with the use of TDFDs, as the same amount of explosives will be used and the same area ensonified/pressurized regardless of whether TDFDs are involved. This is due to thefact that estimated exposures are based on the probability of the animals occurring in the area when a training event is occurring, and this probability does not change because of a time-delay. However, what does change is the potential effectiveness of the current mitigation that is implemented to reduce the risk of exposure.

The locations selected for MINEX are all close to shore (∼3-12 nm) and in shallow water (∼10-20 m) in all three Range Complexes. Based on marine mammal monitoring during prior MINEX training activities and data from recent monitoring surveys, delphinids (mainly bottlenose dolphins) are the most likely species to be encountered in these areas. However, mitigation measures apply to all species and will be implemented if any marine mammal species is sighted.

The rationale used to develop new monitoring zones to reduce potential impacts to marine mammals when using a TDFD is as follows: The Navy has identified the distances at which the sound and pressure attenuate below NMFS injury criteria (i.e., outside of that distance from the explosion, marine mammals are not expected to be injured). Here, the Navy identifies the distance that a marine mammal is likely to travel during the time associated with the TDFD's time delay, and that distance is added to the injury distance. If this enlarged area is effectively monitored, animals would be monitored and detected at distances far enough to ensure that they could not swim to the injurious zone within the time of the TDFD. Using an average swim speed of 3 knots (102 yd/min) for a delphinid based on Perrin et al. (1979), Würsig and Würsig (1979), Hui (1987), and Mateet al.(1995), the Navy provided the approximate distance that an animal would typically travel within a given time-delay period (Table 2). Based on acoustic propagation modeling conducted as part of the NEPA analyses for these Range Complexes, there is potential for injury to a marine mammal within 106 yd of a 5 lb detonation, 163 yd of a 10 lb detonation, and 222 yd of a 20 lb detonation. The buffer zones were calculated based on average swim speed of 3 knots (102 yd/min). The specific buffer zones based on charge size and the length of time delays are presented in Table 3.

However, it is possible that some animals may travel faster than the average swim speed noted above, thus there may be a possibility that these faster swimming animals would enter the buffer zone during time-delayed to detonation. In order to compensate for the swim distance potentially covered by faster swimming marine mammals, an additional correction factor was applied to increase the size of the buffer zones radii. Specifically, three sizes of buffer zones are designed for the ease of monitoring operations based on size of charge and length of time-delay, with an additional buffer added to account for faster swim speed. These revised buffer zones are shown in Table 4. As long as animals are not observed within the buffer zones before the time-delay detonation is set, then the animals would be unlikely to swim into the injury zone from outside the area within the time-delay window.

The previous mitigation measure specified that parallel tracklines would be surveyed at equal distances apart to cover the buffer zone. Considering that the buffer zone for protection of a delphinid may be larger than specifiedin the current mitigation, a more effective and practicable method for surveying the buffer zone is for the survey boats to position themselves near the mid-point of the buffer zone radius (but always outside the detonation plume radius/human safety zone) and travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location surveying both the inner (toward detonation site) and outer (away from detonation site) areas of the buffer zone, with one observer looking inward toward the detonation site and the other observer looking outward. When using 2 boats, each boat will be positioned on opposite sides of the detonation location, separated by 180 degrees. When using more than 2 boats, each boat will be positioned equidistant from one another (120 degrees separation for 3 boats, 90 degrees separation for 4 boats, etc.). Helicopters will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location when used.

During mine neutralization exercises involving surface detonations, a helicopter deploys personnel into the water to neutralize the simulated mine. The helicopter will be used to search for any marine mammals within the buffer zone. Use of additional Navy aircraft beyond those participating in the exercise was evaluated. Due to the limited availability of Navy aircraft and logistical constraints, the use of additional Navy aircraft beyond those participating directly in the exercise was deemed impracticable. A primary logistical constraint includes coordinating the timing of the detonation with the availability of the aircraft at the exercise location. Exercises typically last most of the day and would require an aircraft to be dedicated to the event for the entire day to ensure proper surveying of the buffer zone 30 minutes prior to and after the detonation. The timing of the detonation may often shift throughout the day due to training tempo and other factors, further complicating coordination with the aircraft.

Based on the above reasoning, the modified monitoring and mitigation protocols for visual observation is developed as the following:

A buffer zone around the detonation site will be established to survey for marine mammals. Events using positive detonation control will use a 700 yd radius buffer zone. Events using time-delay firing devices will use the table above to determine the radius of the buffer zone. Time-delays longer than 10 minutes will not be used.

Regarding the sizes of the buffer zones, there were two typographical errors in theFederal Registernotice for the proposed LOA (76 FR 68734; November 7, 2011). On page 68738 of thatFederal Registernotice, it stated that “[b]uffer zones of 1,000 yds or less shall use a minimum of 2 boats to survey for marine mammals. Buffer zones greater than 1,000 yds radius shall use 3 boats or 1 helicopter and 2 boats to conduct surveys for marine mammals.” The notice should have stated, “[b]uffer zones less than 1,400 yds shall use a minimum of 2 boats to survey for marine mammals. Buffer zones greater than 1,400 yds radius shall use 3 boats or 1 helicopter and 2 boats to conduct surveys for marine mammals.” As indicated in Table 3, there is no buffer zone under 1,000 yds when TDFDs are used.

Two dedicated observers in each of the boats will conduct continuous visual surveys of the buffer zone for marine mammals for the entire duration of the training event. The buffer zone will be surveyed from 30 minutes prior to the detonation and for 30 minutes after the detonation. Other personnel besides the observers can also maintain situational awareness regarding the presence of marine mammals within the buffer zone to the best extent practical given dive safety considerations. If available, aerial visual survey support from Navy helicopters can be utilized, so long as it does not jeopardize safety of flight.

When conducting the survey, boats will position themselves at the mid-point of the buffer zone radius (but always outside the detonation plume radius/human safety zone) and travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location surveying both the inner (toward detonation site) and outer (away from detonation site) areas of the buffer zone. To the extent practicable, boats will travel at 10 knots to ensure adequate coverage of the buffer zone. When using 2 boats in a 1,000 yds buffer zone, each boat will be positioned on opposite sides of the detonation location at 500 yds from the detonation point, separated by 180 degrees. When using 3 boats in a 1,400 or 1,450 yds buffer zone, each boat will be positioned equidistant from one another (120 degrees separation) at 700 or 725 yds respectively from the detonation point. Helicopter pilots will use established Navy protocols to determine the appropriate pattern (e.g., altitude, speed, flight path, etc.) to search and clear the buffer zone of turtles and marine mammals.

(C) Mine neutralization training shall be conducted during daylight hours only.

(D) Maintaining Buffer Zone for 30 Minutes Prior to Detonation and Suspension of Detonation.

Visually observing the mitigation buffer zone for 30 min prior to the detonation allows for any animals that may have been submerged in the area to surface and therefore be observed so that mitigation can be implemented. Based on average dive times for the species groups that are most likely expected to occur in the areas where mine neutralization training events take place, (i.e. delphinids), 30 minutes is an adequate time period to allow for submerged animals to surface. Allowing a marine mammal to leave of their own volition if sighted in the mitigation buffer zone is necessary to avoid harassment of the animal.

Suspending the detonation after a TDFD is initiated is not possible due to safety risks to personnel. Therefore the portion of the measure that requires suspension of the detonation cannot be implemented when using a TDFD and will be removed, noting that revised mitigation measures will make it unnecessary to have to suspend detonation within the maximum of ten minutes between setting the TDFD and detonation.

Based on the above reasoning, the modified monitoring and mitigation for pre-detonation observation is the following:

If a marine mammal is sighted within the buffer zone, the animal will be allowed to leave of its own volition. The Navy will suspend detonation exercises and ensure the area is clear for a full 30 minutes prior to detonation.

When required to meet training criteria, time-delay firing devices with up to a 10 minute delay may be used. The initiation of the device will not start until the area is clear for a full 30 minutes prior to initiation of the timer.

(E) The requirement in the previous LOA that “no detonation shall be conducted using time-delayed devices” was deleted as the improved monitoring and mitigation measures will minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals and greatly reduce the likelihood of injury and/or mortality to marine mammals using TDFDs.

(F) Diver and Support Vessel Surveys.

The Navy recommends, and NMFS concurs with, revising this measure to clarify that it applies to divers only. The intent of the measure is for divers to observe the immediate, underwater area around the detonation site for marine mammals while placing the charge.

The modified mitigation measure is provided below:

Divers placing the charges on mines will observe the immediate, underwater area around the detonation site for marine mammals and will report any sightings to the surface observers.

(G) No detonations shall take place within 3.2 nm (6 km) of an estuaries inlet.

(H) No detonations shall take place within 1.6 nm (3 km) of shoreline.

(I) Personnel shall record any protected species observations during the exercise as well as measures taken if species are detected within the zone of influence (ZOI).

There is no change for marine mammal take estimates from what were analyzed in the final rules (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; JAX: 74 FR 28349; CHPT: 74 FR 28370; June 15, 2009) for mine neutralization training activities in all three Range Complexes. Take estimates were based on marine mammal densities and distribution data in the action areas, computed with modeled explosive sources and the sizes of the buffer zones.

The Comprehensive Acoustic System Simulation/Gaussian Ray Bundle (OAML, 2002) model, modified to account for impulse response, shock-wave waveform, and nonlinear shock-wave effects, was run for acoustic-environmental conditions derived from the Oceanographic and Atmospheric Master Library (OAML) standard databases. The explosive source was modeled with standard similitude formulas, as in the Churchill FEIS. Because all the sites are shallow (less than 50 m), propagation model runs were made for bathymetry in the range from 10 m to 40 m.

Estimated zones of influence (ZOIs; defined as within which the animals would experience Level B harassment) varied with the explosive weights, however, little seasonal dependence was found among all Range Complexes. Generally, in the case of ranges determined from energy metrics, as the depth of water increases, the range shortens. The single explosion TTS-energy criterion (182 dB re 1 microPa2-sec) was dominant over the pressure criteria and therefore used to determine the ZOIs for the Level B exposure analysis.

The total ZOI, when multiplied by the animal densities and total number of events, provides the exposure estimates for that animal species for each specified charge in the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes (Table 4). Since take numbers were estimated without considering marine mammal monitoring and mitigation measures, the additional monitoring and mitigation measures and the use of TDFD for mine neutralization training would not change the estimated takes from the original final rules for JAX (74 FR 28349; June 15, 2009) and CHPT (74 FR 28370; June 15, 2009) Range Complexes and from the interim final rule for VACAPES Range Complex (76 FR 33266; June 8, 2011).

Pursuant to NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA, an applicant is required to estimate the number of animals that will be “taken” by the specified activities (i.e., takes by harassment only, or takes by harassment, injury, and/or death). This estimate informs the analysis that NMFS must perform to determine whether the activity will have a “negligible impact” on the species or stock. Level B (behavioral) harassment occurs at the level of the individual(s) and does not assume any resulting population-level consequences, though there are known avenues through which behavioral disturbance of individuals can result in population-level effects. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

The aforementioned additional mitigation and monitoring measures will increase the buffer zone to account for marine mammal movement and increase marine mammal visual monitoring efforts to ensure that no marine mammal would be in a zone where injury and/or mortality could occur as a result of time-delayed detonation.

In addition, the estimated exposures are based on the probability of the animals occurring in the area when a training event is occurring, and this probability does not change based on the use of TDFDs or implementation of mitigation measures (i.e., the exposure model does not account for how the charge is initiated and assumes no mitigation is being implemented). Therefore, the potential effects to marine mammal species and stocks as a result of the mine neutralization training activities are the same as those analyzed in the final rules governing the incidental takes for these activities. Consequently, NMFS believes that theexisting analyses in the final rules do not change as a result of revising the LOAs to include mine neutralization training activities using TDFDs.

Further, there will be no increase of marine mammal takes as analyzed in previous rules governing NMFS issued incidental take authorizations that could result from the Navy's training activities within these Range Complexes by using TDFDs.

Based on the analyses of the potential impacts from the mine neutralization training exercises conducted within the Navy's VACAPES, JAX, and Cherry Point Range Complexes, especially on the improvement on marine mammal monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS has determined that the modification of the Navy's current LOAs to include taking of marine mammals incidental to mine neutralization training using TDFD within the above Range Complexes will have a negligible impact on the marine mammal species and stocks present in these action areas, provided that the additional mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented.

There are six ESA-listed marine mammal species, three sea turtle species, and a fish species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes: Humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, and the shortnose sturgeon.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultation internally on the issuance of the modified LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for these activities. The Biological Opinion concludes that the Navy's training activities using TDFDs within the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes are likely to adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction.

NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS's) for the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes. NMFS subsequently adopted the Navy's EIS's for the purpose of complying with the MMPA. For the modification of the LOAs, which include TDFDs, but also specifically add monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize the likelihood of any additional impacts from TDFDs, NMFS has determined that there are no changes in the potential effects to marine mammal species and stocks as a result of the mine neutralization training activities using TDFDs. Therefore, no additional NEPA analysis is required, and the information in the existing EIS's remains sufficient.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat and dependent upon the implementation of the mitigation measures, NMFS determined that the total taking from Navy mine neutralization training exercises utilizing TDFDs in the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS has issued three LOAs with modifications to allow takes of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's mine neutralization training exercises using TDFDs, provided that the improvements to the monitoring and mitigation measures are implemented.

Enacted by Congress in the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, the National Medal of Technology was first awarded in 1985. On August 9, 2007, the President signed the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act of 2007. The Act amended Section 16 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, changing the name of the Medal to the “National Medal of Technology and Innovation.” The Medal is the highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to America's leading innovators in the field of technology and is given annually to individuals, teams, or companies who have made outstanding contributions to the promotion of technology and technological manpower for the improvement of the economic, environmental or social well-being of the United States. The primary purpose of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation is to recognize American innovators whose vision, creativity, and brilliance in moving ideas to market has had a profound and lasting impact on our economy and way of life. The Medal highlights the national importance of fostering technological innovation based upon solid science, resulting in commercially successful products and services.

Nomination Guidelines containing information on eligibility and nomination criteria are athttp://go.usa.gov/1dU.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to furnish the services listed below from the nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the 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. Chapter 85) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a “system of records” is defined as any group of records under the control of a Federal Government agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act establishes the means by which government agencies must collect, maintain, and use personally identifiable information associated with an individual in a government system of records.

Each government agency is required to publish a notice in theFederal Registerof a system of records in which the agency identifies and describes each system of records it maintains, the reasons why the agency uses the personally identifying information therein, the routine uses for which the agency will disclose such information outside the agency, and how individuals may exercise their rights under the Privacy Act to determine if the system contains information about them.

The CFTC assigns its employees, interns, volunteers, contractors and consultants (“employees”) certain accountable CFTC property for their use in accomplishing their official duties. The CFTC is obligated to account for such property for financial responsibility and audit purposes and, in certain situations, to recover costs for property that has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed. The property for which an accounting is required includes, but is not limited to, sensitive property, such as a Blackberry or laptop, that requires special controls or is especially vulnerable to loss, theft or misuse, and other property, including printers, monitors, scanners, and cameras.

The Commission is establishing a new business process to require employees to report when CFTC property is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, and for the CFTC to document the determination of financial responsibility for the property. The new Privacy Act system of records includes information supplied by the employee; evidence and records requested to facilitate the determination of financial responsibility, such as copies of police reports, accident reports and photographs; Property Survey Board interviews and other notes, meeting minutes, and findings and recommendations concerning responsibility for reimbursement; and information related to the final decision by the Executive Director. The system of records also contains information on reimbursement and, if an employee disagrees with a finding of responsibility, records related to the employee's appeal.

The CFTC is implementing internal electronic collaboration tools utilizing the Microsoft SharePoint platform. These tools will upgrade the Commission's intranet, allow users to set up team collaboration workspaces, facilitate sharing of documents, policies and information, and allow limited social networking through the SharePoint “MySites” feature. The new Intranet, built on these tools, will include Commission policies, procedures, forms, organization charts, news clips, links to other sites that are helpful for staff members, and links to other CFTC SharePoint sites containing shared documents and other information. The Intranet will include content regarding program offices, services and support, and projects and activities. By connecting to a CFTC network administration database, the Intranet will display a directory of all CFTC users, including titles, contact information and the photograph used for CFTC credentials for all employees, interns, volunteers, consultants and contractors (collectively “users”). Certain SharePoint sites may include personal contact information for users. The MySites feature will allow CFTC users to set up a personal profile, identify subject matter areas about which they are knowledgeable, upload pictures, and publish notes, tags, content, and messages that are similar to email. MySites includes a “newsfeed” to alert selected users when one user has added or changed information on his or her MySites page. Users will be able to manually select “colleagues,” which the colleague may approve or deny, and create and join groups. Overall, the internal collaboration tools will provide invaluable dissemination and exchange of information, allowing users to stay connected within a dashboard that each user can personalize.

While most of the information in the collaboration tools will involve Commission policies, forms, activities and other business, the tools will display personally identifiable information (“PII”) in the form of the CFTC user name, title, business contact information, the photograph a user uses for credentials to access CFTC facilities, and organizational chart and hierarchy information. Those users who elect to participate in MySites will be able to publish additional personal information to selected colleagues only, to specified teams or groups, and/or to all CFTC users, as they choose. That personal information may include personal photographs, information about their family status (such as whether they are married or have children), their hobbies or personal activities, and other content.

All CFTC users will need to use the internal electronic collaboration tools to perform their official duties, for example, to use the Intranet to obtain business phone numbers of other CFTC users, to view internal policies, to link to specific SharePoint sites containing Commission business information, or use SharePoint workspaces with other team members. On the other hand, the use of MySites is purely voluntary. Those who elect to use MySites will have some control over which other users may see their personal information; however, as will be explained to MySites users, Intranet site administrators and other CFTC staff members with a legitimate need to know the information for official purposes will have full access to view all content, including all personal content posted through MySites. Intranet users will be clearly informed that, if they use MySites, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any information they post, as with any other information passing through or stored on CFTC equipment.

The Internal Electronic Collaboration Tools system of records will contain CFTC business information, business contact information and photographs for CFTC users, at times personal contact information, and any personal information a user chooses to post within MySites.

Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration are available at the DHB Web site,http://www.health.mil/dhb/default.cfm.Anyone intending to attend is encouraged to register to ensure that adequate seating is available.

The purpose of the meeting is to address and deliberate pending and new issues before the Board.

On February 21, 2012, the Dover Port Mortuary Independent Review Subcommittee will report its findings to the Board. Additionally, the Board will receive briefings regarding military health needs and priorities from guest speakers and representatives of the Department of Defense.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting on February 21, 2012 will be open to the public from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. On February 22, 2012, the Board will be conducting an administrative working session.

Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.

Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written statements should address the following details: the issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

If the written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the DHB President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.

If special accommodations are required to attend (sign language, wheelchair accessibility) please contact Ms. Lisa Jarrett at (703) 681-8448 ext. 1280 by Friday, February 10, 2012.

The U.S. Strategic Command systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in theFederal Registerand are available from the address inFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 10, 2012, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals”, dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Background:The Board was reestablished to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the Department's basic and applied research, economic and national security policy, educational issues, operational issues and other activities as directed by the Secretary of Energy.

Purpose of the Meeting:The meeting will provide briefings to the Board and an opportunity for the subcommittees to report on their progress.

Tentative Agenda:The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, and will serve as an update meeting for the Board. The tentative meeting agenda includes a welcome, opening remarks from the Secretary, reports on planned activities from the subcommittees and an opportunity for public comment. The meeting will conclude at 3:30 p.m.

Public Participation:The SEAB welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory board meetings. The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who would like to attend must RSVP to Alyssa Morrissey no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2012, by email at:seab@hq.doe.gov. An early confirmation of attendance will help facilitate access to the building more quickly. Please provide your name, organization, citizenship, and contact information. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government-issued identification. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number of individuals who wish to speak, but will not exceed 5 minutes. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should register to do so beginning at 8:30 a.m. on January 31, 2012.

Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address thecommittee are invited to send a written statement to Alyssa Morrissey, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, or send an email toseab@hq.doe.gov.

Minutes:The minutes of the meeting will be available on the SEAB Web site athttp://www.energy.gov/SEABor by contacting Ms. Morrissey at the postal address or email address listed above.

This information collection request contains: (1)OMB No.:New; (2)Information Collection Request Title:Customer Electricity Consumption Data Access and Control Questionnaire; (3)Type of Request:New; (4)Purpose:The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will generate a “crowd-sourced map” that discloses consumer access to personal electricity consumption data and the ability to share that data with third parties for the purpose of developing energy savings plans. Generation of such a map requires DOE to collect information from electricity providers about data access and sharing services offered to their customers. To meet this obligation, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has developed an online questionnaire device that captures and publishes the necessary information as a series of web-based maps upon completion by electricity providers. DOE is requesting a 6-month approval to collect this information; (5)Annual Estimated Number of Respondents:3,261; (6)Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses:3,261; (7)Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours:435; (8)Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden:$0.

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates 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.

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified underDATES.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, andFederal Registercitation.

Affected entities:Entities potentially affected by this ICR are establishments engaged in the production, use, and/or advancement of safer chemicals, that have furthered the goals of DfE through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the program, and that wish to receive recognition for their achievements.

Title:EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Partner of the Year Awards Program.

ICR numbers:EPA ICR No. 2450.01, OMB Control No. 2070-new.

ICR status:This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in theFederal Registerwhen approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in theFederal Registeror by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract:EPA has developed the Partner of the Year Awards to recognize DfE stakeholders who have furthered the goals of DfE through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the DfE program. Making DfE's mission known to the widest possible audience, through its safer product label and in other forms of communication, is critical to fully realizing the program's goals of protecting human health and the environment, promoting a sustainable economy, and creating green jobs, especially in the small business sector.

The Partner of the Year Awards will be an annual event, with recognition for DfE stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: (1) Formulators/product manufacturers (of both consumer and institutional/industrial (I/I) products), (2) purchasers and distributors, (3) retailers, (4) supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others). Within these categories and based on the criteria, DfE may elect to give additional awards in the subcategories of “small business” and “sustained excellence.” This information collection activity addresses the reporting burden associated with making application to EPA for recognition in the Partner of the Year Awards program.

Responses to this information collection are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

Burden statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents:110.

Frequency of response:Annual.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:1.

Estimated total annual burden hours:1,650 hours.

Estimated total annual costs:$69,790. This includes an estimated burden cost of $69,790 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue anotherFederal Registernotice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has created a Privacy Act system of records to document the Agency's decisions on applications filed requesting certification to apply restricted use pesticides (RUP) under certification plans administered by EPA regional offices or the Office of Pesticide Programs, as described in 75 FR 49489 (August 13, 2010). This system of records, entitled “Records of Pesticide Applicators Certified Under EPA-Administered Certification Plans,” covers the following types of information: (1) Contact information (e.g., name, address, telephone number, email address); (2) identification information (e.g., birth date, proof of identification (e.g., driver's license no.)), physical description (e.g., height, weight, gender, race)); (3) certification information (e.g., EPA certified applicator number, certification type (private or commercial), certification categories (e.g., aerial, aquatic, fumigation), certification issuance and expiration dates, and (4) information regarding qualifications (e.g., scores from EPA certification examinations; records of training and continuing education; state, tribal or other federal agency certification number(s), types, categories, issuance and expiration dates; records of compliance with federal, state and tribal pesticide laws). This information is provided by the pesticide applicators applying for EPA certification or it is generated during the certification process.

Records covered by this system of record notice are subject to Agency-wide security requirements governing all Privacy Act database systems at EPA. As described in the August 13, 2010 FR notice, system administrators may disclose certain personal information (e.g., names, addresses, EPA certification numbers, categories of certification) upon request as described in the section describing routine uses of records maintained in the system. The Tribal Pesticide Program Council and other tribes requested EPA to make certain information available online to facilitate their ability to confirm private and commercial certifications. The Agency plans to publish only the name, zip code and certification information for private applicators.

Regulatory authorities require post-licensing potency and safety testing of human and veterinary vaccines to ensure their effectiveness and minimize potential adverse health effects. However, such testing requires large numbers of animals and accounts for the majority of animals reported to the USDA with unrelieved pain and distress. Accordingly, identification and promotion of alternative methods thatcan reduce, refine, or replace the use of animals for vaccine potency and safety testing is one of the four highest priorities of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), an interagency committee of the Federal government administered by NICEATM.

To address this priority, NICEATM and ICCVAM, along with international partners organized an “International Workshop on Alternative Methods To Reduce, Refine, and Replace the Use of Animals in Vaccine Potency and Safety Testing: State of the Science and Future Directions,” which took place on September 14-16, 2010 at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. The report of the workshop is now available.

The goals of the workshop were to (1) review the state of the science of alternative methods currently available and/or accepted for use that can reduce, refine (enhance animal well-being and lessen or avoid pain and distress), and replace animal use in vaccine potency and safety testing, and discuss ways to promote their implementation; (2) identify knowledge and data gaps that should be addressed to develop alternative methods that can further reduce, refine, and/or replace the use of animals in vaccine potency and safety testing; and (3) identify and prioritize research, development, and validation efforts needed to address these knowledge and data gaps in order to advance alternative methods for vaccine potency and safety testing while ensuring the protection of human and animal health.

The workshop report is comprised of 27 papers that summarize the plenary session presentations and the conclusions and recommendations developed by the workshop participants during six breakout group sessions. The report recommends vaccines that should have the highest priority for future reduction, refinement, and replacement efforts. Other key recommendations include:

• Procedures such as earlier humane endpoints should be developed and implemented immediately to reduce or avoid the pain and distress experienced by animals for vaccines that still require live-agent challenge testing. Until non-animal tests are available, development of serological assays should also be considered as a way to avoid challenge testing.

• Specific non-animal approaches that have successfully replaced animals for some vaccine potency testing should be developed for vaccines currently requiring animals through identification, purification, and characterization of vaccine protective antigens.

• International harmonization and cooperation efforts and closer collaborations between human and veterinary vaccine researchers should be enhanced in order to support more rapid progress towards reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use for vaccine testing.

The workshop was organized by NICEATM and ICCVAM in partnership with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods, and Health Canada. The workshop was co-sponsored by the Society of Toxicology.

ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative testing methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological and safety testing methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that reduce, refine, or replace animal use.

NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM technical evaluations and related activities, and conducts independent validation studies to assess the usefulness and limitations of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies applicable to the needs of Federal agencies. Additional information about NICEATM and ICCVAM can be found on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site (http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov).

Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food.

On May 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ms. Izurieta was convicted of one count of conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and five counts of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered judgment against Ms. Izurieta on July 29, 2011.

FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony convictions referenced herein for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food. The factual basis for these convictions is as follows: On or about April 18, 2007, and continuing through on or about December 23, 2010, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, Ms. Izurieta knowingly, and with the intent to further the object of the conspiracy, conspired with others to commit an offense against the United States to fraudulently and knowingly import and bring into the United States merchandise contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545. Specifically, Ms. Izurieta conspired to distribute and sell imported dairy products that FDA had detained after receiving notice from FDA that the dairy products were suspected to be adulterated.

While serving as president and director of Naver Trading, Ms. Izurieta caused dairy products and other food to be imported from Honduras and Nicaragua. Despite a request from FDA to disclose the location of shipments of dairy products after learning that FDA had slated specific shipments for examination due to concerns of adulteration withEscherichia coli,Staphylococcus aureus,andSalmonella,Ms. Izurieta failed to do so. Ms. Izurieta also distributed shipments of dairy products after learning that FDA had slated specific shipments for examination due to concerns of adulteration withE. coli, S. aureus,andSalmonella.Ms. Izurieta failed to redeliver for destruction and exportation shipments of dairy products that FDA had determined to be adulterated withE. coli, S. aureus,andSalmonellaand that were not authorized for entry into the United States. Ms. Izurieta then distributed dairy products that wereadulterated and not authorized for entry into the United States. This conduct was in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545.

From approximately April 18, 2007, and continuing to approximately December 7, 2010, Ms. Izurieta fraudulently and knowingly imported and brought into the United States merchandise contrary to law. Further, Ms. Izurieta failed to redeliver, export, and destroy with FDA supervision the dairy products and other food products contained in these shipments after receiving notice from FDA regarding concerns about the adulteration of these products withE. coli, S. aureus,and/orSalmonella.

As a result of her conviction, on September 28, 2011, FDA sent Ms. Izurieta a notice by certified mail proposing to debar her for a period of 30 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Ms. Izurieta was convicted of six felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food because she conspired to and did commit offenses related to the importation of dairy products and other products into the United States, and a determination, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that Ms. Izurieta should be subject to the maximum possible period of debarment. The proposal also offered Ms. Izurieta an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Ms. Izurieta failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).

Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, and under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Ms. Anneri Izurieta has been convicted of six felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation of an article of food into the United States and that she is subject to the full period of debarment.

As a result of the foregoing finding, Ms. Izurieta is debarred for a period of 30 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective (seeDATES). Under section 301(cc) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for import into the United States of an article of food by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Ms. Izurieta is a prohibited act.

Any application by Ms. Izurieta for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0589 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).

Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from July 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents athttp://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmapage.html.

Comments Invited

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available athttp://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control Number 1652-0051; Rail Transportation Security Rule, 49 CFR part 1580.TSA collects this information under 49 CFR part 1580 and cleared under OMB control number 1652-0051. The information is collected and used by TSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enhance the security of the Nation's rail systems. The Rail Transportation Security Rule requires freight railroad carriers, certain rail hazardous materials shipper and receiver facilities, passenger railroad carriers, and rail mass transit systems to designate and submit contact information for a Rail Security Coordinator (RSC) and at least one alternate RSC to TSA.

This collection requires, in accordance with 49 CFR 1580.103, freight railroad carriers, shippers, and receivers in a High Threat Urban Area (HTUA) that handle certain categories and quantities of hazardous materials set forth in 49 CFR 1580.100(b), known as “rail security-sensitive materials,” to provide location and shipping information on rail cars under their physical custody and control to TSA upon request. Rail security-sensitive materials are defined as explosive materials, materials poisonous by inhalation, and radioactive materials.

This collection also requires freight railroad carriers, certain rail hazardous materials shipper and receiver facilities, passenger railroad carriers, and rail mass transit systems to report to TSA significant security concerns, which include security incidents, suspicious activities, and threat information.

TSA requires a secure chain of physical custody for rail cars containing rail security-sensitive materials. This collection also requires freight railroad carriers and certain hazardous materials shippers, and receivers of rail security-sensitive materials to document the transfer of custody of certain rail cars in writing or electronically and to retain these records for a minimum of 60 days. Specifically, 49 CFR 1580.107 requires documentation of the secure exchange of custody of rail cars containing rail security-sensitive materials between: A rail hazardous materials shipper and a freight railroad carrier; two separate freight railroad carriers, when the transfer of custody occurs within or HTUA or outside of an HTUA but the rail car may subsequently enter an HTUA; and a freight railroad carrier and a rail hazardous materials receiver located within an HTUA. The documentation must uniquely identify that the rail car was attended during the transfer of custody, including car initial and number; identification of individuals who attended the transfer (names or uniquely identifying employee number); location of transfer; and date and time the transfer was completed. The total burden for this collection is approximately 54,023 hours.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order inNational Coalition for the Homelessv.Veterans Administration,No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from Clearwater County, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; the TurtleMountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

At an unknown date, human remains representing three individuals were recovered from site 21-CE-4, Upper Rice Lake during archeological excavation by the University of Minnesota (UM641). In 1989, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the human remains and the dental morphology identify these human remains as American Indian from the pre-contact period. Site 2-CE-4 is identified with the Late Woodland Tradition based on cultural materials, including ceramics. The human remains from the site are associated with the Late Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe. The geographical location of site 21-CE-4 is on the tribal land of the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the tribal land of the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from Chippewa County, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the MIAC professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing five individuals were removed from site 21-CP-28, Lac qui Parle Mission, Chippewa County, MN, by an unknown individual who donated the human remains to the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS 293). In 1993, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H282). No knownindividuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The context of recovery and dental morphology identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian affiliation. The remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 2007, human remains representing two individuals were recovered from site 21-CP-64, an eroding bank on the east shore of the Minnesota River, just above the Lac qui Parle Mission site. The remains were recovered by the Chippewa County Sheriff's Office and transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, and then transferred to the MIAC (H435). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Femora morphology identifies these human remains as American Indian. A single tongue-river silica flake recovered from the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of the grave supports the identification. The remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from Mille Lacs County, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the MIAC professional staff in consultation with representatives the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In 2003, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 21-ML-81, Mille Lacs County, MN, during archeological excavations related to a Sanitary Sewer District project. Site 21-ML-81 is located on the tribal land of the Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota. In 2007, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H427). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the bones suggests a pre-contact/ancient time period and dental morphology identify this individual as American Indian. These human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the tribal land of the Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to the Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from Beltrami County, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the MIAC professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were recovered from site 21-BL-22, Lake Irving, Beltrami County, MN. The remains were removed during construction of a building and subsequently transferred to Bemidji State University. In 1990, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H170). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

These human remains are associated with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Bemidji area, Beltrami County, MN, by unknown person(s). In 1974, the remains were donated to the Minneapolis Public Library and subsequently, at an unknown date, were donated to the Science Museum of Minnesota (Acc. A74:14:1). In 1994, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H257). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains and cranial morphology identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian. These human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 21-BL-37, Midway site, Beltrami County, MN. The remains were removed during an archeological survey by Rose Kluth of the Leech Lake Heritage Sites Program, and transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist. In 2002, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H379). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

These human remains are associated with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from a road construction project on Hwy 197 in Beltrami County, MN, and transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist. In 2002, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H392). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains and femora morphology identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian affiliation. The remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 2007, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an undesignated site in Diamond Point Park in Bemidji, Beltrami County, MN. The remains were removed during an archeological survey by The 106 Group Ltd. and transferred to the Bemidji Police Department, who transferred them to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension—Bemidji Office for identification. The human remains were identified as pre-contact American Indian based on the condition of the bones and dental morphology. The human remains were then transferred to the MIAC (H426). Noknown individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Patterns of dental attrition and dental morphology identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian affiliation. The remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an undesignated site on the east side of Lake Bemidji, Beltrami County, MN, by unknown person(s) and transferred to the Beltrami County Sheriff's Office. In 2007, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H428). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains and the context of recovery identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian affiliation. The remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 2007, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from a site in Bemidji, Beltrami County, MN. The remains were removed during a sewer construction project and transferred to the MIAC (H444). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains and the context of recovery identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian affiliation. These human remains from Beltrami County have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from Becker County, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the MIAC professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

In 1935, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the north side of Height of Land Lake, site 21BK48, by Mr. William Krause during road construction and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-4). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, and subsequently were transferred to the MIAC (H362) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe. Site 21BK48 is located on land within the reservation boundaries of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered near Ice Cracking Lake during road construction and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-7). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, and subsequently were transferred to the MIAC (H360) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe. This burial site is located on land within the reservationboundaries of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is within the reservation boundaries of the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains were removed from the following counties: Anoka, Cass, Lincoln, Pope and Sherburne in the State of Minnesota.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 21-AN-1, Howard Lake, Anoka County, MN, by unknown person(s) and attached to a display board that was in the possession of a collector in Duluth, MN. In 2006, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H421). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Site 21-AN-1, consisting of three large mounds, has been identified as Middle Woodland Tradition. In 1950, L.A. Wilford of the University of Minnesota excavated human remains representing 32 individuals from site 21-AN-1 (UM309). The human remains recovered in 1950 were published in theFederal Register(65 FR, 53214, August 9, 1999) and have been repatriated and reburied. The human remains from 21-AN-1 are associated with the Middle Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1997, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from private land in Ramsey City, Anoka County, MN, by the Ramsey City Police Department and transferred to the Anoka County Coroner's Office (97-80193) for identification. In 2000, the human remains were transferred tothe Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist and then transferred to the MIAC (H376). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains and the degree of dental attrition suggest these human remains are ancient/pre-contact in time. Cranial morphology identifies this individual as American Indian. The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from an undesignated site on the south end of Gull Lake, Cass County, MN, by unknown person(s) and transferred to D. Birk of the Minnesota Historical Society. In 1998, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist and in 1999, to the MIAC (H372). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition of the remains identifies these human remains as pre-contact American Indian. The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing one individual were removed from mounds on the north end of Lake Benton City, Lincoln County, MN, by unknown person(s). In 2002, Mr. David Norden donated the human remains to the Lake Benton Area Historical Society. In 2004, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H409). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains are associated with the Woodland Tradition, an archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an undesignated site in Pope County, MN, and donated to the Pope County Historical Society (Acc. 66.391 and 66.394). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to Dave Nystuen, Minnesota Historical Society who transferred the remains to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist. In 1999, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H370). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Archeological material transferred with the human remains including Onamia style ceramic sherds suggest the remains may be associated with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In the late 1940s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered when a mound was leveled during construction of a parking lot at the site of the Elk Lake Tavern in (Little) Elk Lake, Sherburne County, MN, and donated to the University of Minnesota. In 1999, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H355). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The context of these human remains in a mound and femora morphology identify these human remains as pre-contact American Indian. The human remains are associated with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC). The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Becker and Wadena counties, MN.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the MIAC professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Dunton Locks area, Becker County, MN, by unknown person(s) and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-1). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and subsequently transferred to the MIAC (H366) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The red ochre staining on the human remains is consistent with American Indian mortuary practices over a broad temporal span and cannot be associated with any single archeological tradition. The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1955, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Rock Lake area, Becker County, MN, by unknown person(s) and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-2). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and subsequently transferred to the MIAC (H364) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 21BK37, Buck's Mill (aka Hildebrand site). The remains were collected by Mr. Hildebrand, the property owner, during construction of a garage and were donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-3). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and subsequently transferred to the MIAC (H365) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Additional individuals were removed from this site in 1985, a notice of inventory completion was published in theFederal Register(FR 64 FR 43212, September 8, 1999) and the human remains from the 1985 collection were repatriated and reburied.

Site 21BK37 has no archeological classification. The human remains cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1954, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from the north shore of Detroit Lake (Steffen Lot), Becker County, MN, by unknown person(s) during basement construction and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-5). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist and then to the MIAC (H363). No known individuals were identified. The twelve associated funerary objects include three bone needles made from the ribs of a black bear, six pieces of modified rib bone from a black bear, two unmodified fibulae from a black bear and one piece of quartz with red ochre pigment.

The human remains are associated with the Archaic Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1888, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from a mound in the city of Detroit Lakes, Becker County, MN, by Rev. W.A. Pratt and donated to the Becker County Historical Society (HR-6). In 1997, the human remains were transferred to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist and subsequently transferred to MIAC (H361) in 1999. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The human remains are associated with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 1935, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from a mound (Mound Z/1), site 21BK9, on the north shore of Detroit Lake, MN, by Otto Zeck. At an unknown date, the human remains were transferred to J. Oothoudt who then transferred the human remains to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist. In 2002, the remains were transferred to the MIAC (H383). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The context of burial in a mound identifies the human remains with the Woodland Tradition, a broad archeological classification which cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

In 2001, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Crow Wing River, Wadena County, MN, by two swimmers while wading in the river. The human remains were turned over to the Wadena County Sheriff's Department, who transferred them to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and then to the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist. In 2004, the human remains were transferred to the MIAC (H408). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The condition and morphology of the human remains, in addition to a radiocarbon date (AD 1290-1420) obtained by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, indicate pre-contact American Indian affiliation. The human remains have no archeological classification and cannot be associated with any present-day Indian tribe.

Officials of the MIAC have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 17 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A) the 12 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 3801 Bemidji Avenue NW., Suite 5, Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3223, before February 13, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.

The Notice of Final Payment or Suspension of Compensation Benefits, Form LS-208, is used by insurance carriers and self-insured employers to report the payment of benefits under the Longshore and Harbors Workers Compensation Act. While not affecting the public burden estimates, the OWCP intends to make this collection available on the Internet as fillable/printable and not fileable. The OWCP is also making certain cosmetic changes to Form LS-208, such as replacing a no longer used logo with the DOL seal. These cosmetic changes are not expected to affect the public burden; however, they do make it that this submission must be characterized as a revision under the PRA.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number.See5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under OMB Control Number 1240-0041. The current OMB approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that information collections submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in theFederal Registeron November 1, 2011 (76 FR 67481).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection within 30 days of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should reference OMB Control Number 1240-0041. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• 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;

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

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

Agency:Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP).

Title of Collection:Notice of Final Payment or Suspension of Compensation Benefits.

OMB Control Number:1240-0041.

Affected Public:Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents:600.

Total Estimated Number of Responses:21,000.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:5,250.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden:$16,590.

I.Background:Funds will be awarded to participating states in REA program year 2012 to continue the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) initiative. The REA guidelines require that these funds be used to conduct in-person assessments in the One-Stop Career Centers. The REA must include an unemployment insurance (UI) eligibility review, the provision of labor market information, development of a re-employment plan and referral to reemployment services and/or training, as appropriate. The guidelines require that participation exclude those claimants who have a specific return-to-work date.

II.Desired Focus of Comments:Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments on extending the collection of the ETA 9128, Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments Workloads Report and the ETA 9129, Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments Outcomes Report. Comments are requested to:

* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary to assess performance of the REA initiative, including whether the information has practical utility;

* 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;

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

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

III.Current Actions:The continued collection of the information contained on the ETA 9128 and the ETA 9129 reports is necessary to enable the Office of Unemployment Insurance (OUI) to continue evaluating the effectiveness of this initiative through workload and outcomes reports.

Type of Review:Extension without change.

Agency:Employment and Training Administration (ETA).

Title:Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments Workloads Report and Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments Outcomes Report.

OMB Number:1205-0456.

Agency Number:ETA 9128 and ETA 9129.

Affected Public:State and Local Governments.

Total Respondents:In fiscal year 2011, 41 State Workforce Agencies are participating in the REA initiative.

Frequency:Quarterly.

Estimated Annual Responses:168.

Average Time per Response:.5 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours:84 hours.

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

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):$0.

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

I. Background: The data submitted annually on the ETA-204 report enables the Employment and Training Administration to project revenues for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program on a state-by-state basis and to measure the variations in assigned contribution rates which result from different experience rating systems. Used in conjunction with other data, the ETA-204 assists in determining the effects of certain factors (e.g., seasonality, stabilization, expansion, or contraction in employment, etc.) on the unemployment experience of various groups of employers. The data also provide an early signal for potential solvency problems and are useful in analyzing factors which give rise to these potential problems and permit an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various approaches available to correct the detected problems. The report collects annual information about the taxing efforts in states relative to both taxable and total wages and allows comparison between states. Further, the data are key components to the Significant Tax Measures Report. The Significant Tax Measures Report provides the information necessary to evaluate and compare state UI tax systems.

II. Desired Focus of Comments: Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the ETA-204, Experience Rating Report which:

• 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;

• 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;

• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.

III. Current Actions:

Type of Review:Extension without change.

Agency:Employment and Training Administration (ETA).

Title:Experience Rating Report.

OMB Number:1205-0164.

Agency Number:ETA 204.

Affected Public:State Governments.

Total Respondents:53.

Frequency:Annual.

Total Responses:53.

Average Time per Response:15 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours:13 Hours.

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

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):$0.

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

The provisions of the Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels Standard include a requirement that the manufacturer or a Registered Professional Engineer certify that repaired restraining devices and barriers meet the strength requirements specified in the Standard, and a requirement that defective wheels and wheel components be marked or tagged. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that restraining devices used by them during the servicing of multi-piece rim wheels are in safe operating condition.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number.See5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under OMB Control Number 1218-0219. The current OMB approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in theFederal Registeron September 8, 2011 (76 FR 55708).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection within 30 days of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should reference OMB Control Number 1218-0219. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• 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;

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

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

Agency:Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Title of Collection:Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels Standard.

OMB Control Number:1218-0219.

Affected Public:Private Sector—Businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents:8.

Total Estimated Number of Responses:8.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:1.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden:$0.

Submitting Comments and Accessing Information

Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.

The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.

You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:

•NRC's Public Document Room (PDR):The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

•NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email topdr.resource@nrc.gov. The “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Fluorine Extraction Process and Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant in Lea County, New Mexico” is available electronically under ADAMS Accession Number ML12001A000.

•Federal Rulemaking Web Site:Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found athttp://www.regulations.govby searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0143.

The Draft EIS for the proposed Fluorine Extraction Process and Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant also may be accessed on the Internet atwww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/by selecting “NUREG-2113.” Additionally, a copy of the Draft EIS will be available at the following public library: Hobbs Public Library, 509 North Shipp, Hobbs, NM 88240, (575) 397-9328.

Introduction.The Postal Service has filed a request to add Global Plus 1C Contracts, consisting of two Global Plus 1C agreements, to the competitive product list.1 The instant agreements are set to begin on January 22, 2012, at the expiration of customers' current customized (Global Plus 1B) agreements.2 Id.at 4-5.

Product history.Prices and classifications for Global Plus Contracts 1 were added to the competitive product list in 2008; several groupings within this product, including Global Plus 1A and Global Plus 1B, were later added.Id.at 1-2. The Postal Service describes the instant contracts as the immediate successors to, and counterparts of, the instruments the Commission found eligible for inclusion in the Global Plus 1B product in previousdockets.3 Id.at 4. It also says the contracts are on behalf of the same customers.Id.

Functional equivalence.The Postal Service addresses the functional equivalence of the two Global Plus 1C contracts, including a review of their similarities and differences.Id.at 5-6. It attributes any differences to the result of negotiations, and says they do not affect the Global Plus rate design ormarket characteristics.Id.at 6. It also notes that Global Plus 1C is distinct from Global Plus 1B due to the addition of Global Express Guaranteed and Commercial ePacket.Id.at 7. This distinction is reflected in a minor classification change and in the financial models.Id.

Other supporting material.The Postal Service has filed the two Global Plus 1C contracts and certain other material under seal. Attachment 1 to the Notice is an application for non-public treatment of that material. Attachments 2 through 4 include redacted versions of two pertinent Governors' Decisions; revised Mail Classification Schedule language; certifications and a related statement required under Commission rules; and redacted versions of the contracts.

Postal Service representations.The Postal Service asserts that its filing establishes that the new Global Plus 1C contracts are in compliance with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633; fit within the proposed MCS language for Global Plus Contracts based on the controlling Governors' Decisions; and are functionally equivalent to each other.4 It therefore requests that Global Plus 1C be added to the competitive product list; that the contracts included in this filing be included within the Global Plus 1C product; and that these contracts be considered the baseline agreements for future functionally equivalency analyses for the Global Plus 1C product.Id.at 9.

Initial Commission action.The Commission establishes three related dockets, designated as Docket Nos. MC2012-6, CP2012-12, and CP2012-13, to consider matters raised in the Notice. The Commission strongly encourages those interested in the Postal Service's proposal to review the filing in its entirety. Public portions of the Postal Service's filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site,www.prc.gov.Commission rule 3007.40 (39 CFR 3007.40) addresses procedures for obtaining access to non-public information. Interested persons may submit comments on whether addition of the new product is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632 or 3633 and 39 CFR part 3015. Comments are due no later than January 17, 2012.

The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in the captioned filings.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-6, CP2012-12, and CP2012-13 to consider matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

2. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than January 17, 2012.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as the officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in theFederal Register.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), the Commission received two petitions for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the Hope post office in Hope, Minnesota. The first petition for review received December 28, 2011, was filed by Ed Nelson. The second petition for review received December 28, 2011, was filed by Marcia Dahle. The earliest postmark date is December 16, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2012-105 to consider Petitioners' appeal. If Petitioners would like to further explain their position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioners may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than February 1, 2012.

Notwithstanding the Postal Service's determination to close this post office, on December 15, 2011, the Postal Service advised the Commission that it “will delay the closing or consolidation of any Post Office until May 15, 2012.”1 The Postal Service further indicated that it “will proceed with the discontinuance process for any Post Office in which a Final Determination was already posted as of December 12, 2011, including all pending appeals.”Id.It stated that the only “Post Offices” subject to closing prior to May 16, 2012, are those that were not in operation on, and for which a Final Determination was posted as of, December 12, 2011. It affirmed that it “will not close or consolidate any other Post Office prior to May 16, 2012.”Id.at 2. Lastly, the Postal Service requested the Commission “to continue adjudicating appeals as provided in the 120-day decisional schedule for each proceeding.”Id.

The Postal Service's Notice outlines the parameters of its newly announced discontinuance policy. Pursuant to the Postal Service's request, the Commission will fulfill its appellate responsibilities under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5).

Categories of issues apparently raised.Petitioners contend that the Postal Service failed to consider the effect of the closing on the community (see39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i)).

After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that thePostal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record with the Commission is January 12, 2012.See39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due date for any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this Notice is January 12, 2012.

Availability; Web site posting.The Commission has posted the appeal and supporting material on its Web site athttp://www.prc.gov.Additional filings in this case and participant's submissions also will be posted on the Web site, if provided in electronic format or amenable to conversion, and not subject to a valid protective order. Information on how to use the Commission's Web site is available online or by contacting the Commission's webmaster via telephone at (202) 789-6873 or via electronic mail atprc-webmaster@prc.gov.

The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail atprc-dockets@prc.govor via telephone at (202) 789-6846.

Filing of documents.All filings of documents in this case shall be made using the Internet (Filing Online) pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 10(a) at the Commission's Web site,http://www.prc.gov,unless a waiver is obtained.See39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an account to file documents online may be found on the Commission's Web site,http://www.prc.gov,or by contacting the Commission's docket section atprc-dockets@prc.govor via telephone at (202) 789-6846.

Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.

Intervention.Persons, other than the Petitioners and respondents, wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention.See39 CFR 3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in this case are to be filed on or before January 31, 2012. A notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission's Web site,http://www.prc.gov,unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing.See39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a).

Further procedures.By statute, the Commission is required to issue its decision within 120 days from the date it receives the appeal.See39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has been developed to accommodate this statutory deadline. In the interest of expedition, in light of the 120-day decision schedule, the Commission may request the Postal Service or other participants to submit information or memoranda of law on any appropriate issue. As required by Commission rules, if any motions are filed, responses are due 7 days after any such motion is filed.See39 CFR 3001.21.

It is ordered:

1. The Postal Service shall file the applicable administrative record regarding this appeal no later than January 12, 2012.

2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this notice is due no later than January 12, 2012.

3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Brent W. Peckham is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.

5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order and Procedural Schedule in theFederal Register.

In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,5 U.S.C.-App. 1, § 10(a), and the regulations thereunder, Meredith B. Cross, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

Section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that it has requested a panel pursuant to the WTOUnderstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes(“DSU”). Once it is established, the panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, and would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months of its establishment.

The United States considers that certain measures imposing countervailing duties and antidumping duties on chicken broiler products from the United States are inconsistent with China's commitments and obligations under the WTO Agreement. The measures are set forth in the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 8 [2010], Notice No. 26 [2010], Notice No. 51 [2010], and Notice No. 52 [2010], including any and all annexes. These measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.8, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 12.3, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 16.1, 19.4, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement; and Article VI of the GATT 1994. On September 20, 2011, the United States requested consultations with China. That request may be found atwww.wto.orgcontained in a document designated as WT/DS427/1. The United States and China held consultations on October 28, 2011, but the consultations did not resolve the matter.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically towww.regulations.gov,docket number USTR-2011-0022. If you are unable to provide submissions bywww.regulations.gov,please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of transmission.

To submit comments viawww.regulations.gov,enter docket number USTR-2011-0022 on the home page and click “search”. The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting “Notice” under “Document Type” on the left side of the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Submit a Comment.” (For further information on using thewww.regulations.govWeb site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page.)

Thewww.regulations.govsite provides the option of providing comments by filling in a “Type Comments” field, or by attaching a document using an “upload file” field. It is expected that most comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “Type Comments” field.

A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted towww.regulations.gov.The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may bedetermined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.

Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted towww.regulations.gov.The non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute. If a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, any non-confidential submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute, will be made available to the public on USTR's Web site atwww.ustr.gov,and the report of the panel, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body, will be available on the Web site of the World Trade Organization,www.wto.org.Comments open to public inspection may be viewed on thewww.regulations.govWeb site.