Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-56, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in theFederal Registerannouncing the availability of the PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the PRA; (2) the comments on the PRA revealed that no changes to the PRA were necessary; or (3) changes to the PRA were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice1 in theFederal Registeron August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52302-52303, Docket No. APHIS-2010-0074), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of three PRAs that evaluate the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on October 25, 2010. We received one comment by that date, from a State department of agriculture.

In the two PRAs that analyzed the risks of importing fresh celery and spinach from Colombia into the United States, APHIS determined that one of the plant pests identified, the pea leaf miner (Liriomyza huidobrensis), has a high risk potential of following the pathway of fresh celery and spinach from Colombia. However, as noted in the PRAs, APHIS concludes that visual inspection forL. huidobrensiswill sufficiently mitigate the risk of introducing this pest into the United States. The one comment we received referred to this potential risk and stated that visual inspection of these articles is not by itself adequate in mitigating the risk of introduction of this pest. The commenter noted thatL. huidobrensisspends most of its lifecycle in the larval form mining leaves of the host plant material and would not be easily detectable along the midribs of leaves. The commenter recommends that a systems approach be undertaken that includes limiting growing of these articles to pest-free areas, fumigation, visual inspection at the point of origin and upon arrival in the United States, and an accompanying phytosanitary certificate stating that the plant material is free ofL. huidobrensis.

Although we acknowledge the risk that these plant pests could potentially evade visual detection and be introduced into the United States, APHIS has permitted the entry of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from several countries using similar mitigations forL. huidobrensiswithout significant pest issues. Spinach, for example, has been permitted entry into the United States from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama with only visual inspection, andL. huidobrensisreportedly occurs in these countries. In response to the commenter's recommendations, we note that celery, arugula, and spinach from neighboring countries are already subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States, and that we will require the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Colombia to issue phytosanitary certificates with an additional declaration attesting that shipments of celery and spinach are free ofL. huidobrensisand other named plant pests.

In the notice2 we published announcing the availability of PRAs for the importation of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia,Coccus viridiswas included as being one of the quarantine pests of celery subject to mitigation. Subsequent to publication of that notice, we established thatCoccus viridisno longer meets our definition of a quarantine pest and added it to our list3 of pests that we no longer regulate. Therefore, we will not be including Coccus viridisamong the pests listed in the additional declaration on the phytosanitary certificate.

For these reasons, together with Colombia's use of integrated pest management practices in the production of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach, APHIS has concluded that imports of celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia are unlikely to containL. huidobrensisor other plant pests of concern. Accordingly, we have determined that no changes to the PRAs are necessary based on the comment.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

• Fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia must be imported as commercial shipments only.

• Each consignment of fresh celery, arugula, and spinach must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Colombia. The phytosanitary certificate for celery and spinach must include an additional declaration stating that each consignment has been inspected and is free of pests. The additional declaration for celery must state “This shipment has been inspected and is free fromCopitarsia decolora, Planococcus lilacinus,andLiriomyza huidobrensis.”The additional declaration for spinach must state “This shipment has been inspected and is free fromCopitarsia incommoda, Diabrotica speciosa,andLiriomyza huidobrensis.”

• Each shipment of celery, arugula, and spinach is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry into the continental United States.

These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available athttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In addition to those specific measures, fresh celery, arugula, and spinach from Colombia will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

Federal Agency:Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

Funding Opportunity Title:Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.

Announcement Type:Initial announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number:10.861.

Dates:Deadline for completed grant applications submitted electronically or on paper.

As part of the nation's transition to digital television, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all television broadcasters to have converted their transmitters to broadcast digital signals by June 12, 2009. While stations must broadcast their main transmitter signal in digital, many rural stations have yet to complete a full digital transition of their stations across all equipment. Rural stations often have translators serving small or isolated areas and some of these have not completed the transition to digital.

The 2009 FCC deadline did not apply to translators, and only recently in 2011 the FCC adopted a final deadline for analog-to-digital conversion of all translators by September 1, 2015. Because of this, translators have been allowed to continue broadcasting in analog, and stations are still in the process of converting some of their translators to digital. Some rural stationsalso have not fully converted their production and studio equipment to digital, which has impaired their ability to provide the same quality local programming that they provided in analog. The digital transition has also created some service gaps where households that received an analog signal are now unable to receive a digital signal. For rural households the digital transition has meant in some cases diminished over-the-air public television service. These rural households are the focus of the Agency's Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.

Most applications to the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program have sought assistance towards the goal of replicating analog coverage areas through transmitter and translator transitions. The first priority has been to initiate digital broadcasting from their main transmitters. As many stations have completed the digital transition of their transmitters, the focus has shifted to power upgrades and translators, as well as digital program production equipment and multicasting/data casting equipment. There are some rural stations that may need to install translators to provide fill-in service to areas that previously received analog but are now unable to receive digital. In FY 2011, 15 awards were made, including the following project purposes: transmitter equipment, translators, studio and production equipment, master control equipment, and microwave equipment. When compared with the first few years of the program, as the digital transition progresses, more applications were received for translators and master control and production equipment, than for transmitters. Some stations may not have achieved full analog parity in program management and creation even after the June 12, 2009, deadline. Continuation of reliable public television service to all current patrons understandably is still the focus for many broadcasters.

It is important for public television stations to be able to tailor their programs and services (e.g.,education services, public health, homeland security, and local culture) to the needs of their rural constituents. If public television programming is lost, many school systems may be left without educational programming they count on for curriculum compliance.

This notice has been formatted to conform to a policy directive issued by the Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in theFederal Registeron June 23, 2003, (68 FR 37370). This Notice does not change the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation (7 CFR part 1740).

1. The amount available for grants for FY 2012 is $3,000,000. The maximum amount for grants under this program is $750,000 per public television station per year.

2. Assistance instrument: Grant documents appropriate to the project will be executed with successful applicants prior to any advance of funds.

Transition Grants Cannot be Renewed. Award documents specify the term of each award. The award term cannot be extended.

1. Public television stations which serve rural areas as defined in 7 CFR 1740.2, are eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grants. A public television station is a noncommercial educational television broadcast station that is qualified for Community Service Grants by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under section 396(k) of the Communications Act of 1934.

2. Individuals are not eligible for Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance directly.

3. Corporations that have been convicted of a felony (or had an officer or agency acting on behalf of the corporation convicted of a felony) within the past 24 months are not eligible. Any corporation that has any unpaid federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible

1. Grants shall be made to perform digital transitions of television broadcasting serving rural areas. Grant funds may be used to acquire, lease, and/or install facilities and software necessary to the digital transition. Specific purposes include:

a. Digital transmitters, translators, and repeaters, including all facilities required to initiate DTV broadcasting. All broadcast facilities acquired with grant funds shall be capable of delivering DTV programming and HDTV programming, at both the interim and final channel and power authorizations. There is no limit to the number of transmitters or translators that may be included in an application;

b. Power upgrades of existing DTV transmitter equipment, including replacement of existing low-power digital transmitters with digital transmitters capable of delivering the final authorized power level;

c. Studio-to-transmitter links;

d. Equipment to allow local control over digital content and programming, including master control equipment;

e. Digital program production equipment, including cameras, editing, mixing and storage equipment;

f. Multicasting and data casting equipment;

g. Cost of the lease of facilities, if any, for up to three years; and,

h. Associated engineering and environmental studies necessary to implementation.

2. Matching contributions: There is no requirement for matching funds in this program (see 7 CFR 1740.5).

3. The following are not eligible for grant funding (see 7 CFR 1740.7):

a. Funding for ongoing operations or for facilities that will not be owned by the applicant, except for leased facilities as provided above;

b. Costs of salaries, wages, and employee benefits of public television station personnel unless they are for construction or installation of eligible facilities;

c. Facilities for which other grant funding from any other source has been approved;

d. Expenditures made prior to the application deadline specified in this Notice of Funds Availability.

See paragraph IV.B of this notice for a summary discussion of the items that make up a completed application. You will find more complete information in the FY 2012 Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program Application Guide. You may also refer to 7 CFR 1740.9 for completed grant application items.

The application guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation are available from these sources:

1. The Internet:http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UTP_DTV.html,orhttp://www.grants.gov.

2. The RUS Advanced Services Division, for paper copies of these materials call (202) 690-4493.

1. Detailed information on each item required can be found in the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program regulation and application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide. This Notice does not change the requirements for a completed application specified in the program regulation. The program regulation and application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items listed and the application guide provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets.

2. A completed application must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information in form satisfactory to RUS. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions in 7 CFR part 1740, subpart A, and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must use the application guide for this program, which contains instructions and all necessary forms, as well as other important information, in preparing their application. Completed applications must include the following:

a. An application for Federal assistance, Standard Form 424.

b. An executive summary, not to exceed two pages, describing the public television station, its service area and offerings, its current digital transition status, and the proposed project.

c. Evidence of the applicant's eligibility to apply under this Notice, demonstrating that the applicant is a Public Television Station as defined in this Notice, and that it is required by the FCC to perform the digital transition.

d. A spreadsheet showing the total project cost, with a breakdown of items sufficient to enable RUS to determine individual item eligibility.

e. A coverage contour map showing the digital television coverage area of the application project. This map must show the counties (or county) comprising the Core Coverage Area by shading and by name. Partial counties included in the applicant's Core Coverage Area must be identified as partial and must contain an attachment with the applicant's estimate of the percentage that its coverage contour comprises of the total area of the county. (If the application is for a translator, the coverage area may be estimated by the applicant through computer modeling or some other reasonable method, and this estimate is subject to acceptance by RUS. (In the Application Guide, see Section C. 3 Project Core Coverage Area Map(s)).

f. The applicant's own calculation of its Rurality score, supported by a worksheet showing the population of its Core Coverage Area, and the urban and rural populations within the Core Coverage Area. The data source for the urban and rural components of that population must be identified. If the application includes computations made by a consultant or other organization outside the public television station, the application shall state the details of that collaboration. (In the Application Guide, see Section D. Scoring Documentation).

g. The applicant's own calculation of its Economic Need score, supported by a worksheet showing the National School Lunch Program eligibility levels for all school districts within the Core Coverage Area and averaging these eligibility percentages. The application must include a statement from the state or local organization that administers the NSLP program certifying that the school district scores used in the computations are accurate. Applicants are to use the most recent data available. Some official NSLP data is posted on state and/or local government Web sites, in which case a printout of the data may be provided as long as it documents the Web site source. (In the Application Guide, see Section D. Scoring Documentation)

h. A presentation not to exceed five pages demonstrating the Critical Need for the project.

i. Evidence that the FCC has authorized the initiation of digital broadcasting at the project sites. In the event that an FCC construction permit has not been issued for one or more sites, RUS may include those sites in the grant, and make advance of funds for that site conditional upon the submission of a construction permit.

j. Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence or certification that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following (Sample certifications are provided in the application guide.):

(i) Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination;

(ii) Architectural barriers;

(iii) Flood hazard area precautions;

(iv) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;

(v) Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 701);

(vi) Debarment, Suspension; and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions;

(vii) Lobbying for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352).

k. Environmental impact and historic preservation. The applicant must provide details of the digital transition's impact on the environment and historic preservation, and comply with 7 CFR Part 1794, which contains the Agency's policies and procedures for implementing a variety of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders generally pertaining to the protection of the quality of the human environment. This must be contained in a separate section entitled “Environmental Impact of the Digital Transition,” and must include the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification, available from RUS, describing the impact of its digital transition. Submission of the Environmental Questionnaire/Certification alone does not constitute compliance with 7 CFR part 1794.

3. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please seehttp://www.grants.gov/applicants/request_duns_number.jsp for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number.

4. Central Contractor Registration (CCR).

a. In accordance with 2 CFR part 25 applicants, whether applying electronically or by paper, must be registered in the CCR prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the CCR athttps://www.uscontractorregistration.com/orby calling 1-877-252-2700. Completing the CCR registration process takes up to five business days, and applicants are strongly encouraged to begin the processwell in advance of the deadline specified in this notice.

b. The CCR registration must remain active, with current information, at all times during which an entity has an application under consideration by an agency or has an active Federal Award.

To remain registered in the CCR database after the initial registration, the applicant is required to review and update, on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the CCR database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete.

1. Applications submitted on paper: Submit the original application and two (2) copies to RUS.

2. Electronically submitted applications: The additional paper copies for RUS are not necessary if you submit the application electronically throughhttp://www.grants.gov.

Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically.

a. Address paper applications for grants to the Telecommunications Program, RUS, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2844, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division.”

b. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping consisting of one of the following:

(i) A legibly dated postmark applied by the U. S. Postal Service;

(ii) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or

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

c. Non-USPS-applied postage dating, i.e. dated postage meter stamps, do not constitute proof of the date of mailing.

d. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method.

a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail.

b. Electronic applications for grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative athttp://www.grants.gov.

c. How to use Grants.gov:

(i) Navigate your Web browser tohttp://www.grants.gov.

(ii) Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant information.

(iii) Download a copy of the application package.

(iv) Complete the package off-line.

(v) Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site.

d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.

e. RUS encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadline. Difficulties encountered by applicants filing through Grants.gov will not justify filing deadline extensions.

f. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

1. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 17, 2012 to be eligible for FY 2012 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2012 grant funding.

2. Electronic grant applications must be received by July 17, 2012 to be eligible for FY 2012 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2012 grant funding.

1. Grant applications are scored competitively and subject to the criteria listed below.

2. Grant application scoring criteria are detailed in 7 CFR 1740.8. There are 100 points available, broken down as follows:

a. The Rurality of the Project (up to 50 points);

b. The Economic Need of the Project's Service Area (up to 25 points); and

c. The Critical Need for the project, and of the applicant, including the benefits derived from the proposed service (up to 25 points).

1. All applications for grants must be delivered to RUS at the address and by the date specified in this notice to be eligible for funding. RUS will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this part. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification.

2. Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned and will not be considered for FY 2012 funding.

3. Applications conforming with this part will be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator of RUS, and will be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria in 7 CFR 1740.8. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended.

4. Regardless of the score an application receives, if the RUS determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible, the Agency will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned and will not be considered for FY 2012 funding.

1. The applicant's calculated scores in Rurality and Economic Need will be checked and, if necessary, corrected by RUS.

2. The Critical Need score will be determined by RUS based on information presented in the application. The critical need score is a subjective score based on the reviewer's assessment of the supporting arguments made in the application. The score aims to assess how the specific digital transition purpose fits with the unique need of the television station as it moves all of its equipment through the digital transition. This score is intended to capture from the rural public's standpoint the necessity and usefulness of the proposed project. This scoring category will also recognize that at a specific time, some transition purposes are perceived to be more essential than others and that, over time, that perception changes. For example, during the transition from analog to digital transmitters, which concluded on June 12, 2009, a first time transition of a primary transmitter was the most essential project that could be undertaken for most stations and would have been scored accordingly. Now that all transmitters have completed the transition to digital, the focus may shift to some of the other eligible purposes such as translators, studio and production equipment, and master control equipment. But what equipment specifically is most essential may vary from station to station. Just to name one example, local production equipment can be a high priority especially if it produces an areas' only local news or if the station has been historically active in producing local programming. Inaddition to being a subjective score, the critical need score is also relative in the sense that each application is scored in comparison to other applications in the competition. These various factors explain why a similar application may receive a different critical need score in different years of this program.

The Agency generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. The Agency follows the award letter with a grant agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. A copy of the standard agreement is posted on the RUS Web site athttp://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UTP_DTVResources.html.

An applicant must execute and return the grant agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the grant agreement.

The items listed in the program regulation at 7 CFR 1740.9(j) implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements.

1. All recipients of Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program financial assistance must provide semiannual performance activity reports to RUS until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last semiannual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project.

The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR part 170, § 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:

a. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient tohttp://www.fsrs.govno later than the end of the month following the month the obligation was made.

b. The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) tohttp://www.ccr.govby the end of the month following the month in which the award was made.

c. The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made.

The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparence Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR part 170, 170.110(b).

A. Web site:http://www.usda.gov/rus/.The Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.

B. Phone: 202-690-4493.

C. Fax: 202-720-1051.

D. Main points of contact: Petra Schultze, Financial Analyst, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, RUS, telephone: 202-690-4493, fax: 202-720-1051, or email:petra.schultze@wdc.usda.gov.Additional point of contact at the same telephone number, or email:norberto.esteves@wdc.usda.gov:Norberto Esteves, Acting Director, Advanced Services Division.

The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6 continuing through Tuesday, June 12, 2012. Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, June 4 and continue through Friday, June 8 at the Elks Club, 102 Marine Way. The Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, June 4 and continue through Wednesday, June 6 at the Kodiak Inn, Harbor Room. The Enforcement Committee will meet Tuesday, June 5, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m., meeting room to be announced. All meetings are open to the public, except executive sessions.

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.

Review Halibut Workshop Report; Final action on Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Halibut Prohibited Species Catch (PSC); Discussion paper on GOA comprehensive halibut bycatch amendments; Discussion paper onBering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) halibut PSC limit (T).

Initial review of Bering Sea Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) skate egg sites.

Crab Plan Team report on Set catch Specifications for 4 stocks; Final action on Pribilof Bristol Bay Red King Crab rebuilding plan.

Discussion paper on revising FLL GOA cod sideboards (T); Initial review of FLL Vessel replacement.

Discussion paper on limiting other gear on jig vessels; Discussion paper on BSAI Greenland turbot allocation; Discussion paper on BSAI Flatfish specification flexibility (T); Discussion paper on Grenadiers; Review and approve a 5-Year Research Priorities; Review comments & reports on Programmatic Supplemental Impact Statement (PSEIS); action as necessary; review Pacific cod assessment models (SSC only); Receive report of the Recruitment Workshop (SSC only).

Review Committees and tasking.

The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except 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 and Management 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 meetings.

The Standing and Special Shrimp SSC will meet jointly on Tuesday and Wednesday, June 5-6, 2012 to review benchmark stock assessments on brown shrimp, white shrimp and pink shrimp, and may consider recommending definitions of overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) based on those assessments. On Thursday and Friday, June 7-8, 2012, the Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will meet jointly. The Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will receive a presentation on methods for setting ABC for stocks that have reliable catch data only (only reliable catch stocks—ORCS). The SSC will also review recommendations from the ABC Control Rule Working Group on possible modifications to the ABC control rule that was adopted as part of the Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment, and may make recommendations on modifications of the ABC control rule to the Council. The SSC will also reconsider it earlier ABC recommendation for vermilion snapper in light of concern that the P-star method used did not fully capture scientific uncertainty. The SSC will review proposed terms of reference for an upcoming SEDAR mutton snapper update assessment. The SSC will review barotrauma issues, including a summary of a recent workshop on developments in methods and devices for returning fish to the water, a presentation on physiological effects of barotrauma by Dr. Karen Burns, a presentation on marine mammal interactions with released fish by Dr. Greg Stuntz, and a review of a published report by Dr. Gene Wilde on the effectiveness of venting on improving survival of released fish. Based on these reviews, the SSC may make recommendations regarding the current rules requiring possession of venting tools on vessels catching reef fish. The SSC will also discuss establishing status determination criteria for determining when stocks are overfished or experiencing undergoing overfishing for stocks that do not currently have such criteria. In addition, the SSC will conduct a routine review of the schedule and priorities for upcoming SEDAR stock assessments. Under other business, the SSC will be asked to clarify a recent request that it be provided with an annual report on the status of Gulf gray triggerfish.

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site,ftp.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified ofthe Council's intent to take 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 Kathy Pereira at the Council (seeADDRESSES) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows:

The Herring Oversight Committee will meet to review and discuss public comments received regarding measures under consideration in Draft Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). They will review/discuss Enforcement Committee, Herring Plan Development Team, and Herring Advisory Panel recommendations regarding measures under consideration in Draft Amendment 5. They will also develop recommendations regarding the final selection of management measures for Amendment 5, scheduled for the June 19-21, 2012 Council meeting. The Committee will address other business as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified 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 and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

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

There are three major topics for Habitat Committee consideration at this meeting. First, the Committee will recommend updated boundaries for some of the potential adverse effects minimization areas that will be forwarded to a joint process with the Groundfish Committee (these measures are part of Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2). Updated boundary recommendations from the PDT were discussed at the April Committee meeting, but decision-making was deferred. Second, the Committee will consider (1) a draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council related to coordination of broad-scale coral management efforts and (2) the possibility of splitting coral alternatives out of Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 and into a separate management action. Coral alternatives were approved for analysis by the Council on April 26. Finally, the PDT will provide an update to the Committee about (1) the development of Dedicated Habitat Research Areas and (2) analysis of the coral measures.

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

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

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 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 procure the products and services listed below from 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 furnish the products and services to the Government.

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

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and 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 products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Under the Privacy Act of 1974 (“Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission has reviewed its Privacy Act systems of records, and is republishing its notices of Privacy Act systems of records with necessary changes and additions. Addresses have been changed throughout to reflect the Commission's current location and organizational structure, and a new general routine use has been added, which applies to all of CPSC's systems of records, allowing disclosure to appropriate persons and entities for purposes of response and remedial efforts in the event that there has been a breach of data contained in the systems of records.

The Commission is deleting five systems of records that do not meet the Privacy Act definition of “systems of records.” CPSC-1 Injury Investigation Files does not contain personally identifiable information. CPSC-5 Commissioners' Biographies contain information in the public domain. CPSC-6 Office of the Inspector General Files, CPSC-8 Integrated Field System, and CPSC-14 Corrective Actions and Sample Tracking System are systems where information is not retrieved by personally identifiable information.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is announcing seven new systems of records as follows:

CPSC-27Requests for Information. This system will be used to maintain records of consumers who contact the CPSC to request information and publications. Congress and the Office of Management and Budget have been notified of the new system of records.

CPSC-28Emergency Contact Information System for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This system will be used to maintain information about employees, former employees, and other individuals who have provided emergency contact information.

CPSC-29Tracking System for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests. This system will contain information from individuals who have requested CPSC records pursuant to the Freedom of Information and/or Privacy Acts.

CPSC-30Transit Subsidy Benefit Program. This system will contain information about employees who are applicants and recipients of fare subsidies issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

CPSC-31Contests, Challenges and Awards Program. This program will contain information from individuals who have entered contests or have been nominated for awards.

CPSC-32Correspondence Tracking System. This system will contain information from the public and the business community who contact the Commission, or members of Congress, or the President or Vice President of the United States on matters related to various product safety issues.

CPSC-33International Trade Data System Risk Assessment Methodology System. This system will be used to monitor and request examination for shipments that are potentially in violation of safety standards enforced by the Commission or potentially defective as part of a product group that has been designated by the Commission to have properties that are hazardous. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) could be used for monitoring and requesting exams, but only between government agencies (CPSC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection).

Other changes to existing systems of records include the following:

CPSC-4Hotline Database. The system location has been updated to reflect the current contractor information.

CPSC-13Personnel, Payroll, Financial Management, Retirement, Attendance and Leave. Changes have been made to include financial records, retirement, attendance and leave, and award information in the categories of records in the system. The title of this system of records was revised from “Personnel” to “Personnel, Payroll, Financial Management, Retirement, Attendance and Leave.” The primary uses of the records are for fiscal operations for payroll, attendance, leave, insurance, tax, retirement, business payments, budget, and cost accounting programs, and to prepare related reports to other federal agencies including the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management.

CPSC-15Employee Relations Files. The description of storage has been updated to include computer-based media storage.

A report of this system of records has been provided to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. The complete system of records with the above changes follows:

The Defense Intelligence Agency 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 changes to the record system being amended are set forth below. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in theFederal Registerand are available from 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 May 14, 2012, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Tarmac America L.L.C. (Tarmac) proposes to construct a limestone mine in Levy County, Florida to produce FDOT- and commercial-grade limestone aggregate for markets within west-central Florida. As proposed, direct impacts of up to 2,069 acres of wetlands and 1,818 acres of uplands would occur directly from limestone extraction, material stockpiling, roads, and other infrastructure over a period of approximately 100 years. At present, the majority of the property is an actively managed timber operation, with most of the site in varying developmental stages of pine plantation and mixed hardwood/pine forest. Much of the surrounding land is in silviculture use, with scattered residential parcels. The information compiled in this EIS will be used by the USACE to determine whether the proposed activities should be authorized and permitted by the USACE. Tarmac would need to obtain a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with a no action alternative, and seven onsite action alternatives, including Tarmac's preferred alternative above. Under the seven other alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS, mining activities involving discharges of fill material in wetlands could be authorized for varying acreages and lengths of time upon issuance of a Record of Decision.

1.Project Purpose and Need.Figure Eight Beach HOA has addressed the continuing oceanfront erosion problems associated with Rich Inlet and Nixon Channel erosion hot-spot on the estuarine side of the island over the past several decades. Past actions to protect the shorelines have provided some protection, however they are seeking a longer term solution to handle shoreline erosion in order to protect the island's $1,189,810,926 (based on the 2007 reappraisal) assessed property tax value. Their stated needs of the project are the following: (1) Reduce erosion along approximately 2.0 miles of oceanfront and 0.34 miles of back barrier shorelines, (2) Provide short-term protection to imminently threatened residential structures over the next five years, (3) Provide long-term protection to homes and infrastructure over the next 30 years, (4) Maintain the tax value of homes, properties, and infrastructure, (5) Use beach compatible material, (6) Maintain navigation conditions within Rich Inlet and Nixon Channel, (7) Maintain recreational resources, and (8) Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing natural resources.

2.Proposed Action.Within the Town's preferred alternative, the installation of the terminal groin is the main component in the protection of the oceanfront shoreline. The location of the structure will be just north of the existing homes along the shoulder of Rich Inlet. Its total length is approximately 1,600 feet, which approximately 700 feet will project seaward of the existing mean high watershoreline. The landward 900-foot anchor section would extend across the island and terminate near the Nixon Channel Shoreline. This section will be constructed of 14,000 to 18,000 square feet of sheet pile wrapped with rock. Although engineering design plans are not finalized, basic construction design of the seaward 700-foot part of the structure will be in the form of a typical rubble (rock) mound feature supported by a 1.5-foot thick stone foundation blanket. Crest height or elevation of this section is estimated to be +6.0 feet NAVD for the first 400 feet and would slope to a top elevation of +3.0 feet NAVD on the seaward end. Approximately 16,000 tons of stone would be used to construct the terminal groin. The concept design of the structure is intended to allow littoral sand transport to move over, around, and through the groin once the accretion fillet has completely filled in.

Construction of the terminal groin will be kept within a corridor varying in width from 100 feet to 200 feet. Within this corridor, a 40-70 foot wide trench will be excavated to a depth of −2.5 feet NAVD in order to construct the foundation of the landward section. The approximate 6,000 cubic yards of excavated material will be replaced on and around the structure once it's in place. Material used to build the groin will be barged down the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), through Nixon Channel, and either offloaded onto a temporary loading dock or directly onto shore. It will then be transported, via dump trucks, within the designated corridor to the construction site.

Material used for nourishment will be dredged, using a hydraulic cutterhead plant, from a designated borrow site within Nixon Channel, which has been previously used for beach fill needs. Approximately 289,800 cubic yards will be required for both the oceanfront (224,800 cubic yards) and the Nixon Channel shoreline (65,000 cubic yards) fill areas. Beach compatible material from (3) upland disposal islands would serve as a contingency sediment source.

Engineer modeling results have shown that periodic nourishment will be required approximately once every five years to maintain the beach and Nixon Channel shorelines. The combined estimated maintenance needs for both areas are 175,800 cubic yards of material every five years, equivalent to approximately 35,200 cubic yards per year. This material will come from the designated Nixon Channel borrow site and the (3) upland disposal areas.

3.Alternatives.Several alternatives have been identified and evaluated through the scoping process, and further detailed description of all alternatives is disclosed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIS. The applicant's preferred alternative, Alternative 5B, is to install a terminal groin structure, to conduct initial supplemental beach nourishment, and to implement a periodic beach nourishment plan over a 30-year period.

4.Scoping Process.A public scoping meeting was held on March 1, 2007 and a Project Delivery Team (PDT) was developed to provide input in the preparation of the EIS. The PDT comprised of local, state, and federal government officials, local residents and nonprofit organizations.

The COE is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the EIS assesses the potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and is coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) to insure the projects consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The COE is coordinating closely with DCM in the development of the EIS to ensure the process complies with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, as well as the NEPA requirements. The Draft EIS has been designed to consolidate both NEPA and SEPA processes to eliminate duplications.

This patent application claims a method by which a biologically-natural material can be produced in bioreactors and transformed for use as a dry solid. The resulting biopolymer material can be used in place of synthetic, petroleum-based polymers for soil amendment applications to achieve increased soil strength, reduced air transport, and decreased soil erosion. During processing, the biopolymer also can be functionalized to improve its adsorption of heavy metals.

The Department of the Navy notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in theFederal Registerand are available from 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 May 14, 2012, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the Board) is established by Executive Order 13532 (February 26, 2010). The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Board is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.

Agenda:

The Board will receive updates from the chairman of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs, the Board's subcommittees and the executive director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs on their respective activities, thus far, during Fiscal Year 2012 including activities that have occurred since the Board's last meeting, which was held on February 7, 2012. In addition, the Board will discuss possible strategies to meet its duties under its charter.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify John P. Brown, Associate Director, White House Initiative on HBCUs, at (202) 453-5645, no later than Friday, May 25, 2012. We will attempt to meet requests for such accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

An opportunity for public comment is available on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, from 1:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Individuals who wish to provide comments will be allowed three to five minutes to speak. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to the attention of John S. Wilson, Jr., White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, by Friday, June 1, 2012.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20202, Monday through Friday (excluding federal holidays) during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Electronic Access to the Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in theFederal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:www.ed.gov/fedregister/index.html.To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1830; or in the Washington, DC, area at 202-512-0000.

On June 4, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EasternStandard Time, the Equity and Excellence Commission will hold an open meeting in Washington, DC at the United States Department of Education at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, in Room 1W105/108.

The purpose of the Commission is to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input regarding how the Federal government can increase educational opportunity by improving school funding equity. The Commission will also make recommendations for restructuring school finance systems to achieve equity in the distribution of educational resources and further student performance, especially for the students at the lower end of the achievement gap. The Commission will examine the disparities in meaningful educational opportunities that give rise to the achievement gap, with a focus on systems of finance, and recommend appropriate ways in which Federal policies could address such disparities.

The agenda for the Commission's June 4, 2012 meeting will include reviewing and deliberating on a draft report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (Secretary), prepared by the Draft Review subcommittee, summarizing the Commission's findings and recommendations for appropriate ways in which Federal policies can improve equity in school finance. The Commission is also expected to discuss what materials, if any, will accompany its report to the Secretary and the timing of the release of the report. Due to time constraints, there will not be a public comment period. However, individuals wishing to provide written comments may send their comments to the Commission via email atequitycommission@ed.govor via U.S. mail to Guy Johnson, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. For comments related to the upcoming meeting, please submit comments for receipt no later than May 29, 2012.

Individuals interested in attending the meeting must register in advance, as meeting room seating may be limited. Please contact Guy Johnson at (202) 453-6567 or by email atequitycommission@ed.gov.Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Guy Johnson at (202) 453-6567 no later than May 29, 2012. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Records are kept of all Commission proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. You may contact Guy Johnson, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, atequitycommission@ed.gov,or at (202) 453-6567 if you have additional questions regarding inspection of records.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available athttp://www.regulations.gov.Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov,or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) in Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

Under Order Number EP-12-H-000389, a Student Services contractor will assist the Office of Science Policy (OSCP), Office of Research and Development (ORD) in the research on hydraulic fracturing impact on drinking water. This includes data analysis of data from nine hydraulic fracturing companies and nine well owner/operators. In time several other Student Services contractors will be involved in this activity under different order numbers. No further notice will be given for these persons clearances.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under Order Number EP-12-H-000389, Student Services contractors will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Student Services contractors personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under allsections of TSCA that EPA may provide Student Services contractors access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA'sTSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until August 30, 2014. If the contracts are extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contracts without further notice.

The Student Services contractors personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

EPA is seeking agencies to participate in its e-NEPA electronic EIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can fulfill all requirements for EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit paper copies to EPA Headquarters, by filing documents online and providing feedback on the process. To participate in the pilot, register at:https://cdx.epa.gov.

Revision to FR Notice Published 03/23/2012; Extending Comment Period from 05/07/12 to 05/22/2012.

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/04/2012; Correction to Title.

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012.

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any Non Government Organization.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket athttp://www.regulations.gov,or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

1. Office of Pesticide Programs update

2. Office of Compliance and Enforcement update

3. Responses to SFIREG Bed Bug and Endangered Species Act Consultation letters

4. Pollinator Protection issues

5. Methomyl fly bait restricted use classification

6. Pyrethroid Label Changes

7. Regional issues/responses to pre-SFIREG questionnaire

8. Report on “State Regulator in Residence” program—issues and opportunities

9. Tribal certification policy implementation—Issues and information exchange

10. Performance Measures Development

11. Imprelis update/discussion on “down stream” effects of pesticides outside control of applicator (e.g. hot compost, treated irrigation water)

12. Interactions of EPA Regions and State Lead Agencies on:

a. Support for/involvement with

b. Enforcement/compliance efforts

c. Certification/training efforts

d. Environmental programs

e. Registration issues

13. Grant Negotiation Procedures

14. Distributor Label Enforcement coordination

15. Update on progress of referred cases

This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.

This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 12-739, adopted and released on May 9, 2012. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. By theHearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for Forfeiture(“Order”), the Chief, Media Bureau (“Bureau”), pursuant to delegated authority, hereby designates for hearing before an ALJ the above-captioned program carriage complaint filed by GSN against Cablevision. The complaint alleges that Cablevision, a vertically integrated multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”), discriminated against GSN, a video programming vendor, on the basis of affiliation, with the effect of unreasonably restraining GSN's ability to compete fairly, in violation of section 616(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), and § 76.1301(c) of the Commission's Rules. The complaint arises from Cablevision's decision to move GSN from a basic tier to a premium sports tier, resulting in a loss of Cablevision subscribers for GSN.

2. After reviewing GSN's complaint, we find that GSN has put forth sufficient evidence supporting the elements of its program carriage discrimination claim to establish aprima faciecase. Below, we review the evidence from GSN's complaint establishing aprima faciecase. While we rule on a threshold procedural issue regarding application of the program carriage statute of limitations, we do not reach the merits on any of the other issues discussed below.1 While we do not summarize each of Cablevision's counter-arguments below, our review of the existing record, including Cablevision's Answer and other pleadings, makes clear that there are substantial and material questions of fact as to whether Cablevision has engaged in conduct that violates the program carriage provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules. We therefore initiate this hearing proceeding. We direct the Presiding Judge to develop a full and complete record and to conduct ade novoexamination of all relevant evidence in order to make an Initial Decision.

3. Section 616(a)(3) of the Act directs the Commission to establish rules governing program carriage agreements and related practices between cable operators or other MVPDs and video programming vendors that, among other things, “prevent [an MVPD] from engaging in conduct the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such vendors.” In implementing this statutory provision, the Commission adopted § 76.1301(c) of its rules, which closely tracks the language of section 616(a)(3).

4. The Commission has established specific procedures for the review of program carriage complaints. While those procedures provide for resolution on the basis of a complaint, answer, and reply, the Commission expected that, in most cases, it would be unable to resolve carriage complaints solely on the basis of a written record. Rather, it anticipated that the majority of complaints would require a hearing before an ALJ, given that alleged section 616 violations typically involve contested facts and behavior related to program carriage negotiations. In such cases, where the complainant is found to have established aprima faciecase but disposition of the complaint requires the resolution of factual disputes or extensive discovery, the parties can elect either ADR or an adjudicatory hearing before an ALJ. If the parties proceed to a hearing before an ALJ, any party aggrieved by the ALJ's Initial Decision may file an appeal directly with the Commission. The appropriate relief for violation of the program carriage provisions is determined on a case-by-case basis. Available sanctions and remedies include forfeiture and/or mandatory carriage and/or carriage on terms revised or specified by the Commission. For purposes of ourprima faciedetermination, we discuss below the factual bases for GSN's claim of program carriage discrimination.

5. Cablevision is a cable operator that owns or manages cable systems serving more than 3.3 million subscribers, primarily in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.2 Both prior to and after its repositioning of GSN to a premium sports tier in February 2011, Cablevision has been affiliated with the WE tv and Wedding Central national cable networks.3 WE tv was launched in the1990s as “Romance Classics,” rebranded in 2001 as “WE: Women's Entertainment,” and renamed WE tv in 2006. Cablevision states that WE tv features programming on topics of interest to women, including high-profile, original series and specials, as well as off-network licensed dramas and comedies. Cablevision states that Wedding Central, which was launched in August 2009 and subsequently closed in July 2011, featured series, specials, and movies related to weddings, dating, and relationships. Cablevision has carried WE tv on an expanded basic tier since its launch and also carried Wedding Central on an expanded basic tier from its launch until its closing in July 2011.

6. GSN is a national cable network launched on December 1, 1994 under the name “Game Show Network,”4 which was subsequently rebranded in 2004 as “GSN.” GSN characterizes itself as a “general interest network that features extensive female-oriented original programming (much, but not all of it, consisting of games of skill and chance and reality programs of various kinds), which typically accounts for more than 80% of its primetime schedule.” GSN's predecessor and Cablevision entered into an affiliation agreement. Cablevision claims that it did not believe that GSN's programming had the potential to add significant value to Cablevision's existing channel lineups, but it was willing to agree to a deal if GSN was willing to provide Cablevision certain favorable terms. One of these favorable terms provided Cablevision with “carriage flexibility.” For almost 14 years (June 1997-February 2011), Cablevision distributed GSN on an expanded basic tier.

7. On December 3, 2010, Cablevision notified GSN that Cablevision would reposition GSN from an expanded basic tier to a premium sports tier effective February 1, 2011. Cablevision claims that its decision was based on its efforts to find programming cost savings and that GSN was a good candidate for repositioning because, among other things, (i) GSN had historically received low viewership among Cablevision subscribers; and (ii) GSN, as a general family entertainment network, did not offer anything unusual to attract a particular segment of viewers. GSN's attempts to persuade Cablevision to reverse its decision were unsuccessful. Cablevision moved GSN to the premium sports tier on February 1, 2011.5 As a result of the repositioning, GSN's Cablevision subscribers fell.

8. Pursuant to § 76.1302(b) of the Commission's rules, GSN provided Cablevision with its pre-filing notice on September 26, 2011. On October 12, 2011, GSN filed its Complaint as well as a Petition for Temporary Relief asking the Commission to order Cablevision to restore GSN to basic tier carriage while GSN's program carriage complaint is pending. On December 7, 2011, the Bureau denied the Petition, finding that GSN had failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that interim relief was warranted.

9. Based on our review of the complaint and as explained more fully below, we conclude that GSN has established aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination pursuant to section 616(a)(3) of the Act and § 76.1301(c) of the Commission's Rules. When filing a program carriage complaint, the video programming vendor carries the burden of proof to establish aprima faciecase that the defendant MVPD has engaged in behavior prohibited by section 616 and the Commission's implementing rules. In previous cases assessing whether a complainant has established aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination, the Bureau has considered whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to support the elements of a program carriage discrimination claim.

10. As an initial matter, all complaints alleging a violation of any of the program carriage rules must contain evidence that (i) the complainant is a video programming vendor as defined in section 616(b) of the Act and § 76.1300(e) of the Commission's Rules or an MVPD as defined in section 602(13) of the Act and § 76.1300(d) of the Commission's Rules; and (ii) the defendant is an MVPD as defined in section 602(13) of the Act and § 76.1300(d) of the Commission's Rules. Aprima faciecase of discrimination “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation” can be based on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or both. A complaint relying on direct evidence requires documentary evidence or testimonial evidence (supported by an affidavit from a representative of the complainant) that supports the claim that the defendant discriminated on the basis of affiliation or non-affiliation of vendors. A complaint relying on circumstantial evidence requires (i) evidence that the complainant provides video programming that is similarly situated to video programming provided by a programming vendor affiliated with the defendant MVPD, based on a combination of factors, such as genre, ratings, license fee, target audience, target advertisers, target programming, and other factors; and (ii) evidence that the defendant MVPD has treated the video programming provided by the complainant differently than the similarly situated video programming provided by the programming vendor affiliated with the defendant MVPD with respect to the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage. Regardless of whether the complaint relies on direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation,” the complaint must also contain evidence that the defendant MVPD's conduct has the effect of unreasonably restraining the ability of the complainant to compete fairly.6

11. The parties do not dispute that GSN is a video programming vendor7 and that Cablevision is an MVPD as defined in the Act and the Commission's Rules.8 In addition, Cablevision does not contest that it was affiliated with the WE tv and Wedding Central cable networks pursuant to the Commission's attribution rules when it repositioned GSN to a premium sports tier in February 2011. With respect to the remaining factors, we conclude that GSN has put forth sufficient circumstantial evidence in its complaint to establish aprima faciecase that Cablevision has engaged in unlawful discrimination in the “selection of * * * video programming” byrepositioning GSN to a premium sports tier, while carrying comparable affiliated networks on a more widely distributed tier.9 We do not reach the merits of this claim. Rather, we find that the existing record, including Cablevision's Answer, makes clear that there are significant and material questions of fact warranting resolution at hearing.10

12. As a threshold matter, we reject Cablevision's contention that GSN's complaint is foreclosed as untimely filed under the program carriage statute of limitations. Pursuant to § 76.1302(f) of the Commission's Rules, an aggrieved programmer has a one-year period in which to file a program carriage complaint that commences upon the occurrence of one of three specified events. We find that the third of those triggering events—the provision of an aggrieved programmer's pre-filing notification pursuant to § 76.1302(b) of the Commission's Rules—is present in this case.11 The plain language of the rule allows a program carriage complaint to be filed within one year of the pre-filing notice. As the Commission and the Bureau have recognized previously, § 76.1302(f)(3) could be read to allow a complainant to file a program carriage complaint based on allegedly unlawful conduct that occurred years before the submission of the pre-filing notice provided the complaint was filed within one year of the pre-filing notice. We are not presented with such a case here. Cablevision informed GSN on December 3, 2010 that it would reposition the network to a premium sports tier and it subsequently took this allegedly impermissible discriminatory action on February 1, 2011. GSN filed its program carriage complaint on October 12, 2011, within one year of these dates, as well as within one year of its pre-filing notice. Accordingly, we conclude that the complaint was timely filed pursuant to § 76.1302(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules.12

13. We disagree with Cablevision that GSN's complaint is barred by § 76.1302(f)(1) of the Rules, which establishes a one-year period for the filing of a program carriage complaint that commences with the “[execution of] a contract with [an MVPD] that a party alleges to violate one or more of the [program carriage] rules.”13 Although the parties executed and extended their existing carriage agreement well over one year ago, GSN does not claim that this agreement contains unlawfully discriminatory prices, terms, or conditions. Nor do the parties dispute that Cablevision has abided by the explicit terms of the agreement. The agreement at issue does not specify the tier on which Cablevision must carry GSN. The gravamen of GSN's complaint is that Cablevision exercised this discretion in an impermissibly discriminatory manner by repositioning GSN to a premium sports tier while at the same time continuing to carry its allegedly similarly situated affiliated networks on a more widely distributed tier, and has thus failed to meet its obligation under section 616(a)(3) of the Act and § 76.1301(c) of the Commission's Rules to avoid discrimination on the basis of affiliation. It is this allegedly discriminatory act of repositioning of GSN, not the terms of the contract, which forms the basis for GSN's complaint.

14. This interpretation is consistent with Bureau precedent establishing that, despite the execution of a carriage contract more than one year prior to the filing of a program carriage complaint, the complaint may nonetheless be timely if the basis for the claim is an allegedly discriminatory decision made by the MVPD, such as tier placement, that the contract left to the MVPD's discretion. The exercise of such discretion is subject to the MVPD's obligations under the program carriage statute, which prohibits an MVPD from “discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage * * *.” As the Bureau explained in theNFL Enterprises HDO,“[w]hether or not [an MVPD] had the right to [make a tiering decision] pursuant to a private agreement is not relevant to the issue of whether doing so violated section 616 of the Act and the program carriage rules. Parties to a contract cannot insulate themselves from enforcement of the Act or our rules by agreeing to acts that violate the Act or rules.”14 As in theTennis Channel HDO, NFL Enterprises HDO,andMASN II HDO,we designate the present case for a hearing to determine whether Cablevision exercised its discretion consistent with its obligations under the program carriage statute and rules when it repositioned GSN to a premium sports tier.

15. This precedent is consistent with the decision of the Cable Services Bureau inEchoStardismissing a program access case on procedural grounds.15 The contract at issue inEchoStarspecified the rate the complainant would pay for the defendant's programming. Over one year after the parties entered into the contract, however, the complainant sought to renegotiate the rate set forth inthe contract. The Bureau found that the complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which requires that program access complaints be brought within one year of the date of execution of an affiliation agreement that allegedly violates the Commission's program access requirements. Thus, unlike the present case where the contract at issue does not specify the tier on which Cablevision will carry GSN and instead leaves tier placement to Cablevision's discretion,EchoStarinvolved a complainant's attempt to renegotiate a rate set forth in the contract more than one year after the contract's execution date. Here, GSN's complaint does not relate to any of the specific rates, terms, or conditions set forth in the parties' contract, but rather, Cablevision's allegedly discriminatory tiering decision that occurred subsequent to the contract's execution.

16. Notwithstanding this clear Bureau precedent, Cablevision argues that GSN should have filed its complaint within one year of the contract execution date. We disagree. Under Cablevision's interpretation of the program carriage statute of limitations, a programmer would be forever barred from bringing a discrimination claim unless the claim is brought within one year from the date the contract was executed. Such an interpretation would preclude programmers from bringing program carriage discrimination claims after the first year of a contract even if the MVPD exercises its discretion pursuant to the contract by moving the programmer to a less-distributed tier in order to favor its own affiliated network. Such an interpretation would allow even blatant affiliation-based discrimination to go unremediated, provided the defendant waits at least one year before taking the discriminatory action. Moreover, we note that Cablevision characterizes the pertinent term of the contract as “favorable” to Cablevision and that it sought such terms in particular from “new networks that were seeking to grow subscribers in the New York DMA.” Under Cablevision's interpretation of the program carriage statute of limitations, MVPDs could use their leverage over “new networks” to extract “favorable” terms that circumvent the protections provided by the program carriage statute. Under Cablevision's view of the program carriage statute of limitations, an MVPD could delete an unaffiliated network from all of its systems one year after the execution of the contract in order to favor its affiliated network and then claim that such conduct cannot be challenged under the program carriage rules because it occurred outside of the one-year window for filing a complaint. We find this view untenable as it would eviscerate the protections provided by the program carriage statute.

17. We find that GSN has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate for purposes of establishing aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination that it is similarly situated with Cablevision-affiliated networks—WE tv and Wedding Central. As discussed above, a complaint relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation” requires evidence that the complainant provides video programming that is similarly situated to video programming provided by a programming vendor affiliated with the defendant MVPD, based on a combination of factors, such as genre, ratings, license fee, target audience, target advertisers, target programming, and other factors.16 In its complaint, GSN provides evidence with respect to the following factors: Genre, ratings (on a national basis and within the New York DMA, as well as among specific demographic groups), license fee, target audience, competition for viewers (including audience duplication data), and competition for advertisers. (Cablevision disputes that GSN is similarly situated to WE tv and Wedding Central.)

18. We also find that GSN has put forth evidence sufficient to demonstrate for purposes of establishing aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination that Cablevision has treated GSN differently “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation” from Cablevision's similarly situated, affiliated networks. Cablevision distributes its affiliated WE tv network on an expanded basic tier, and such subscribers need not pay an additional fee to receive this programming network. Cablevision also distributed its affiliated Wedding Central network on an expanded basic tier, although GSN states that no other major distributor provided Wedding Central with this level of distribution. By contrast, Cablevision customers wishing to receive GSN must subscribe to the “iO Sports and Entertainment Pak,” for which subscribers must pay a fee of $6.95 per month in addition to the fees for purchasing an entry-level package of digital cable programming and a digital cable box. In addition, GSN claims that Cablevision places all of its affiliated cable networks (American Movie Classics (AMC), Fuse, Independent Film Channel, WE tv), including its affiliated sports network (MSG), on a highly penetrated tier, whereas Cablevision's premium sports tier is occupied only by unaffiliated networks. (Cablevision argues that its differential treatment of GSN is justified by various legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons.)

19. GSN has put forth evidence sufficient to demonstrate for purposes of establishing aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination that Cablevision's decision to reposition GSN to a premium sports tier and its disparate treatment of the network have unreasonably restrained GSN's ability to compete fairly. GSN claims that all of the harms resulting from the repositioning of GSN to a premium sports tier have “constrain[ed] GSN's ability to continue to grow—to develop itself as a network, to make adequate investments in content, promotion, and marketing, and to engage staff and talent—making it more difficult for GSN to compete effectively against other networks, including its competitor WE tv.” In its complaint, GSN provides the following evidence of how Cablevision's repositioning of GSN to a premium sports tier and its disparate treatment of the network have unreasonably restrained GSN's ability to compete fairly: (i) Loss of subscribers from repositioning results in reduced license fee revenue; (ii) loss of subscribers from repositioning results in reduced advertising revenue; (iii) loss of subscribers from repositioning impairs GSN's ability to compete for advertisers; (iv) placement on a premium sports tier impairs GSN's ability to compete for viewers; and (v) placement on a premium sports tier impairs GSN's ability to secure distribution agreements. (Cablevision disputes that GSN has been unreasonably restrained in its ability to compete fairly.)

20. In addition to circumstantial evidence, GSN also provides what it claims to be direct evidence of discrimination “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation.” Specifically, GSN provides a declarationfrom Derek Chang, Executive Vice President of Content Strategy and Development at DIRECTV and representative of DIRECTV on GSN's board of directors, setting forth the following facts regarding carriage negotiations with Cablevision. On December 3, 2010, Cablevision notified GSN that Cablevision would reposition GSN to a sports tier effective February 1, 2011. After receiving this notification, GSN's CEO asked Mr. Chang to contact Cablevision's Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) to persuade Cablevision to reconsider. In response to Mr. Chang's inquiry, Cablevision's COO asked Mr. Chang to speak with Josh Sapan, President and COO of Cablevision's programming subsidiary, Rainbow Media Holdings (“Rainbow”). Mr. Chang states that, during his conversations with Mr. Sapan and other Rainbow staff, “it was made clear to me that Cablevision would consider continuing GSN's broad distribution on Cablevision's systems if DIRECTV would consider giving distribution to Cablevision's new service, Wedding Central.” Mr. Chang declined because DIRECTV had previously decided that Wedding Central did not merit distribution on DIRECTV.

21. Based on the foregoing, we find it appropriate to designate the captioned complaint on the issues specified below for a hearing before an ALJ.17 While we question whether GSN's alleged direct evidence of discrimination, standing alone, is sufficient to establish aprima faciecase, we need not address this issue because GSN has put forth sufficient circumstantial evidence of discrimination “on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation” to warrant referral of this matter to an ALJ. We emphasize that our determination that GSN has offered sufficient evidence on each required element to meet the threshold for establishing aprima faciecase does not mean that we have found each evidentiary proffer set forth above necessarily persuasive, nor have we weighed GSN's evidence in light of rebuttal evidence offered by Cablevision. At hearing, the ALJ will be able to fully weigh all evidence offered by the parties.

22. Pursuant to § 76.7(g)(2) of the Commission's Rules, each party will have ten days following release of thisOrderto notify the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ, in writing, of its election to resolve this dispute through ADR. The hearing proceeding will be suspended during this ten-day period. In the event that both parties elect ADR, the hearing proceeding will remain suspended, and the parties shall update the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ on the first of each month, in writing, on the status of the ADR process. If both parties elect ADR but fail to reach a settlement, the parties shall promptly notify the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ in writing, and the proceeding before the ALJ will commence upon the receipt of such notification. If both parties elect ADR and reach a settlement, the parties shall promptly notify the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Chief ALJ, and Chief, Media Bureau in writing, and the hearing designation will be terminated upon the Media Bureau's order dismissing the complaint becoming a final order. If only one party elects ADR and the other elects to proceed with an adjudicatory hearing, then the hearing proceeding will commence the day after the ten-day period has lapsed.

23. Notwithstanding our determination that GSN has made out aprima faciecase of program carriage discrimination by Cablevision, we direct the Presiding Judge to develop a full and complete record in the instant hearing proceeding and to conduct ade novoexamination of all relevant evidence in order to make an Initial Decision on each of the outstanding factual and legal issues. In addition, we direct the Presiding Judge to make all reasonable efforts to issue his Initial Decision on an expedited basis.18 In furtherance of this goal, the Presiding Judge may consider placing limitations on the extent of discovery to which the parties may avail themselves.

24. Accordingly,it is ordered,that pursuant to section 409(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 409(a), and §§ 76.7(g) and 1.221 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 76.7(g), 1.221, the captioned program carriage complaint filed by Game Show Network, LLC against Cablevision Systems Corporation isDesignated for Hearingat a date and place to be specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge upon the following issues:

(a) To determine whether Cablevision has engaged in conduct the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of GSN to compete fairly by discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of the complainant's affiliation or non-affiliation in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by GSN, in violation of section 616(a)(3) of the Act and/or § 76.1301(c) of the Commission's Rules; and

(b) In light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issue, to determine whether Cablevision should be required to carry GSN on its cable systems on a specific tier or to a specific number or percentage of Cablevision subscribers and, if so, the price, terms, and conditions thereof; and/or whether Cablevision should be required to implement such other carriage-related remedial measures as are deemed appropriate.

25.It is further ordered,that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 76.7(g)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 76(g)(2), GSN and Cablevisionshall each filewith the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ, by May 21, 2012, its respective elections as to whether it wishes to proceed to Alternative Dispute Resolution. The hearing proceedingis hereby suspendedduring this time. If only one party elects ADR and the other elects to proceed with an adjudicatory hearing, then the hearing proceeding will commence on May 22, 2012. If both parties elect ADR, the hearing proceeding will remain suspended, and GSN and Cablevision shall update the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ on the first of each month, in writing, on the status of the ADR process. Such updates shall be provided in writing and shall reference the MB docket number and file number assigned to this proceeding.

26.It is further orderedthat, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), in order to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, GSN and Cablevision, in person or by their attorneys,shall each filewith the Commission, by May 29, 2012, a written appearance stating that it will appear on the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the issues specified herein, provided that, if both parties elect ADR, each party shall file such written appearance within five calendar days after notifying the Chief, Enforcement Bureau and Chief ALJ that it has failed to settle the dispute through ADR.19

27.It is further orderedthat, if GSN fails to file a written appearance by the deadline specified above, or fails to file prior to the deadline either a petition to dismiss the above-captioned proceeding without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond such deadline, the Administrative Law Judgeshall dismissthe above-captioned program carriage complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute andshall terminatethis proceeding.

28.It is further orderedthat, if Cablevision fails to file a written appearance by the deadline specified above, or fails to file prior to the deadline a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond such deadline, its opportunity to present evidence at hearing will be deemed to have been waived. If the hearing is so waived, the Presiding Judge expeditiouslyshall terminatethis hearing proceeding and certify to the Commission the above-captioned program carriage complaint for resolution based on the existing record.

29.It is further orderedthat in addition to the resolution of issues (a) and (b) in paragraph 39 above, the Presiding Judge shall also determine, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, whether an Order for Forfeiture shall be issued against Cablevision for each willful and/or repeated violation, except that the amount issued for any continuing violation shall not exceed the amount specified in section 503(b)(2)(A), 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(A), for any single act or failure to act.

30.It is further orderedthat for the purposes of issuing a forfeiture, this document constitutes notice, as required by section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503.

31.It is further orderedthat a copy of thisordershall be sent by Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested and regular first class mail to (i) Game Show Network, LLC, 2150 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404, with a copy (including a copy via email) to Stephen A. Weiswasser, Esq., Covington and Burling LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2401 (sweiswasser@cov.com); and (ii) Cablevision Systems Corporation, 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, NY 11714, with a copy (including a copy via email) to Howard J. Symons, Esq., Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (HJSymons@mintz.com).

32.It is further orderedthat the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, is made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written appearance, and she shall have the authority to determine the extent of her participation therein.

33.It is further orderedthat a copy of thisorderor a summary thereofshall be publishedin theFederal Register.

34. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by §§ 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283.

General Information:Please refer to file code (CMS-5052-N2) on the application. Proposals (an unbound original and 10 electronic copies on CD-ROM) must be typed for clarity and should not exceed 50 double-spaced pages, exclusive of cover letter, the executive summary, resumes, forms, and no more than 15 pages supporting documentation. Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept proposals by facsimile (FAX) transmission. Applicants may, but are not required to, submit a total of 10 copies to assure that each reviewer receives a proposal in the manner intended by the applicant (for example, collated, tabulated color copies). Hard copies and CD-ROM electronic copies must be identical.

Eligible Organizations:As set forth in section 5509 of the Affordable Care Act an “eligible hospital” may apply to perform the responsibilities specified. Section 5509(e)(5) of the Affordable Care Act defines an “eligible hospital” to mean a hospital (as defined in section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395x)) or a critical access hospital (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1) of the Act) that has a written agreement in place with—(A) 1 or more applicable schools of nursing; and (B) 2 or more applicable non-hospital community-based care settings. The written agreement must meet specific requirements set forth in section 5509 of the Affordable Care Act including—(1) The obligations of the eligible partners with respect to the provision of qualified training; and (2) the obligation of the eligible hospital to reimburse such eligible partners applicable (in a timely manner) for the costs of such qualified training attributable to partner. The Demonstration will include up to five eligible hospitals.

We are seeking eligible hospital applicants, which includes critical access hospitals, to partner with one or more applicable schools of nursing (SONs) and two or more applicable nonhospital community-based care settings (CCSs) to provide advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) students with qualified training. See section 5509(e) of the Affordable Care Act for the definitions of the terms used in the preceding sentence. At least half of the clinical training must be provided in non-hospital CCSs which may include federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), rural health clinics (RHCs), and other nonhospital settings as determined appropriate by the Secretary. However, the Secretary may waive the requirement under section 5509(e)(7)(A)(ii) of the Affordable Care Act with respect to eligible hospitals located in rural or medically underserved areas.

On March 22, 2012, we posted a solicitation for proposals on the Innovation Center Web site. In addition, in the March 22, 2012Federal Register(77 FR 16841) we published a notice of solicitation for proposals to participate in the Graduate Nurse Education (GNE) Demonstration. The Demonstration provides a source of Medicare funding for the reasonable costs for clinical training attributable to the incremental increase in the number of APRN students enrolled in participating SONs during the Demonstration relative to an established baseline. Section 5509 of the Affordable Care Act sets forth limitations on the reasonable costs reimbursable under the Demonstration. We will make interim payments to selected hospitals with a cost settlement process using Medicare reasonable cost principles. Participating eligible hospitals must establish written agreements with one or more applicable SONs and two or more applicable non-hospital CCSs that define the obligations of each partner with respect to the provision of qualified training and the corresponding eligible hospital's obligation to reimburse eligible partners applicable (in a timely manner) for the costs of such qualified training attributable to the partner and the mechanism for partner reimbursement. As outlined in the GNE Solicitation, applicant hospitals may partner with other hospitals in the Demonstration and we will support an expanded configuration of hospital relationships under certain circumstances. For more details, see the Solicitation, which is available on the Innovation Center Web site athttp://www.innovations.cms.gov/initiatives/GNE/index.html.

The CMS Innovation Center has received much interest and a large number of inquires about the GNE Demonstration announced on the CMS Web site and in theFederal Register. In response to requests from the community of potential applicants to allow for some additional time to prepare the proposals for participation in the Demonstration, and in light of our continued commitment to work in partnership with our stakeholders, the Innovation Center has modified the deadline for proposals so that the applications from eligible hospital applicants are due by the date specified in theDATESsection of this notice.

In accordance with section 5509(a)(4) of the Affordable Care Act, this information collection requirement is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under theauthority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in theFederal Registerconcerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comment on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under sections 735 and 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g and 379h), as amended, FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees for certain drug and biologics license applications and supplements. Under this authority, pharmaceutical companies pay a fee for certain new human drug applications, biologics license applications, or supplements submitted to the Agency for review. Because the submission of user fees concurrently with applications and supplements is required, review of an application by FDA cannot begin until the fee is submitted. Form FDA 3397, the user fee cover sheet, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference of the fee submitted for an application by using a unique number tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to initiate the administrative screening of new drug applications, biologics license applications, and supplemental applications.

Respondents to this collection of information are new drug and biologics manufacturers. Based on FDA's database system for fiscal year (FY) 2011, there are an estimated 260 manufacturers of products subject to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Public Law 105-115). The total number of annual responses is based on the number of submissions received by FDA in FY 2011. CDER received 3,363 annual responses that include the following submissions: 114 new drug applications; 4 biologics license applications; 1,900 manufacturing supplements; 1,209 labeling supplements; and 136 efficacy supplements. CBER received 768 annual responses that include the following submissions: 6 biologics license applications; 698 manufacturing supplements; 44 labeling supplements; and 20 efficacy supplements. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions.

FDA is revising Form FDA 3397 in the following ways: (1) By updating the applicable Web sites; (2) adding a Privacy Act Notice pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(3)j; (3) by adding 351(k) applications to the CDER and CBER lists of applications and supplements for which Form FDA 3397 need not be submitted; (4) by adding “or proper name” to instruction number 3; and (5) by making minor editorial changes.

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

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (21 CFR 314.161). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, is the subject of NDA 03-402, held by Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research (Parke-Davis). PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL is indicated for the control or prevention of the symptoms and complications of diabetes insipidus due to a deficiency of endogenous posterior pituitary antidiuretic hormone.

In a letter dated April 23, 1993, Parke-Davis requested the withdrawal of NDA 03-402 for PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL. In theFederal Registerof September 25, 1998 (63 FR 51359), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 03-402, effective September 25, 1998.

Lachman Consultant Services, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated November 19, 2010 (Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0604), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to PITRESSIN TANNATE IN OIL (vasopressin tannate) Injection, 5 pressor units/mL, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).

The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.

In theFederal Registerof December 17, 2009 (74 FR 66980), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Addendum to ICH S6: Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals (S6)(R1).” The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by February 1, 2010.

After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory agencies in June 2011.

The S6 addendum provides recommendations on nonclinical studies to support the safety of clinical trials and marketing applications for biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. Biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals include protein therapeutic, diagnostic, and prophylactic products derived from cell-culture systems such as bacteria, yeast, and eukaryotic cells, including organisms produced by recombinant DNA technology. The S6 addendum incorporates new knowledge and experience gained since the implementation of the ICH S6 guidance in 1997 and provides clarification of and greater detail to the nonclinical recommendations in ICH S6 to enable the development of safe and effective biopharmaceuticals. The S6 addendum is intended to be used in conjunction with the original ICH S6 guidance. In general, the S6 addendum is complementary to ICH S6, and where the S6 addendum differs from ICH S6, the guidance in the S6 addendum prevails. In addition, the S6 addendum harmonizes approaches given in both ICH S6 and the ICH guidance “M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals”

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document athttp://www.regulations.gov,

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm,or

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.