Case History

On December 29, 2011, the Department received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of garment hangers from Vietnam filed in proper form by M&B Metal Products Company, Inc., Innovative Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger, and US Hanger Company, LLC (collectively, petitioners).3 The Department initiated an investigation on January 18, 2012.4 In theInitiation,the Department stated that it intended to rely on data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for purposes of selecting the mandatory respondents.5 On January 18, 2012, the Department released the results of a query performed on the CBP's database for calendar year 2011.6 Due to the large number of producers and exporters of garment hangers in Vietnam, we determined that it was not practicable to individually investigate each producer and/or exporter. We, therefore, selected the following two producers and/or exporters of garment hangers to be mandatory respondents: Infinite and SEA Hamico, the largest publicly identifiable producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise.7 On February 10, 2012, we issued the initial CVD questionnaire to the Government of the Vietnam (GOV) and the selected mandatory respondents. We also issued a confirmation of shipment questionnaire on the same date to Infinite and SEA Hamico.

On February 14, 2012, Infinite and SEA Hamico confirmed that they shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). On March 2, 2012, the Department postponed the deadlinefor the preliminary determination by 65 days to no later than May 29, 2012.8

On February 3, 2012, petitioners submitted untimely new subsidy allegations concerning electricity that the GOV allegedly provided for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR). On March 29, 2012, the Department issued a decision memorandum in which it declined to initiate an investigation into petitioners' allegation.9

The GOV submitted its response to the initial questionnaire on March 30, 2012. SEA Hamico submitted its questionnaire response on behalf of the Hamico Companies on April 2, 2012. Infinite submitted its questionnaire response on behalf of the Infinite Companies on April 3, 2012. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to GOV, the Hamico Companies, and the Infinite Companies from April 25 through May 14, 2012. The Department received the supplemental questionnaire responses from May 4 through May 22, 2012.

The POI for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, which corresponds to the most recently completed fiscal year.10

The merchandise subject to the investigation is steel wire garment hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper covers or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such as saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex (industrial) hangers.

Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are (a) wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are not made of steel wire; (b) steel wire garment hangers with swivel hooks; (c) steel wire garment hangers with clips permanently affixed; and (d) chrome-plated steel wire garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4mm or greater.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) subheadings 7326.20.0020 and 7323.99.9080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

As discussed in theInitiation,we set aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage.11 However, no parties submitted scope comments on the records of the AD or CVD investigations.

Because Vietnam is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (the ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On February 10, 2012, the ITC made a preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of garment hangers from Vietnam.12

On May 9, 2012, petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, requesting alignment of the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of garment hangers from Vietnam. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of garment hangers from Vietnam. The final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on or about October 9, 2012.

On April 1, 2010, the Department published theCarrier Bags from Vietnam Final Determinationin which we found the CVD law applicable to Vietnam.13 Furthermore, on March 13, 2012, the President signed into law HR 4105, which makes clear that the Department has the authority to apply the CVD law to non-market economies such as Vietnam. The effective date of the enacted legislation makes clear that this provision applies to this proceeding.14 Additionally, for reasons stated in the Carrier Bags from Vietnam Decision Memorandum at Comment 3, we are using the date of January 11, 2007, the date on which Vietnam became a member of the WTO, as the date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in Vietnam for purposes of CVD investigations.

The average useful life (AUL) period in this proceeding, as described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 12 years according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System.15 No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation period.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (v) directs that the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the companies, and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company.

According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that this standard will normally be met where there is amajority voting interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. The Court of International Trade (CIT) has upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy benefits.16

SEA Hamico, Nam A, and Linh Sa all produce subject merchandise. SEA Hamico owns a majority stake in Nam A and Linh Sa. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), we preliminarily determine that SEA Hamico, Nam A, and Linh Sa are cross-owned companies. Further, because all three firms produce subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we have attributed subsidies received by SEA Hamico, Nam A, and Linh Sa to the combined sales of the three firms, net of intra-company sales.

Infinite and Supreme are owned by the same individual, Person A.17 Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), we preliminarily determine that Infinite and Supreme are cross-owned. Because Infinite and Supreme both produce subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we have attributed subsidies received by Infinite and Supreme to the combined sales of the two firms, net of intra-company sales.

For purposes of this preliminary determine we require the use of a short-term loan benchmark denominated in U.S. dollars. Section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act explains that the benefit for loans is the “difference between the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market,” indicating that a benchmark must be a market-based rate. Normally, the Department uses comparable commercial loans reported by the company for benchmarking purposes.18 If the firm does not receive any comparable commercial loans during the relevant periods, the Department's regulations provide that we “may use a national average interest rate for comparable commercial loans.”19 In theCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination,the Department determined that loans provided by Vietnamese banks reflect significant government intervention in the banking sector and do not reflect rates that would be found in a functioning market.20 We preliminarily determine that there is no information on the record of the instant investigation that warrants a reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, we continue to find that the benchmarks that are described under 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) and (ii) are not appropriate and that we must use an external, market-based benchmark interest rate.

For short-term U.S. dollar loans, we have followed the methodology developed over a number of successive PRC investigations. Specifically, for U.S. dollar loans, the Department used as a benchmark the one-year dollar interest rates from the London-Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) indexes, plus the average spread between LIBOR and the one-year corporate bond rates for companies with a BB rating.

Section 351.511(a)(2) of the Department's regulations sets forth the basis for identifying comparative benchmarks for determining whether a government good or service is provided for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR). These potential benchmarks are listed in hierarchical order by preference: (1) Market prices from actual transactions within the country under investigation; (2) world market prices that would be available to purchasers in the country under investigation; or (3) an assessment of whether the government price is consistent with market principles.

InPolyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination,74 FR 45811, 45815-16 (September 4, 2009) (Carrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination), the Department had also examined land rent exemptions and established a benchmark for land in Vietnam. The Department explained that it could not rely on the use of so-called “first-tier” and “second-tier benchmarks” to assess the benefits from the provision of land at LTAR in Vietnam. It also determined that the purchase of land-use rights in Vietnam is not conducted in accordance with market principles.Id.at 45815, referencing the Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Land Markets in Vietnam” (August 28, 2009) (Land Market Memorandum).21 Therefore, in selecting a benchmark for land, the Department analyzed comparable market-based prices in another country at a comparable level of economic development within the geographic vicinity of Vietnam. As a result of this analysis, the Department selected the cities of Pune and Bangalore in India as providing the closest match among options on the record to Vietnam in terms of per capita GNI and population density, and derived a simple average of all rental rates for industrial property in both cities to use as the appropriate land benchmark for Vietnam.Id.at 45816.

In the final determination of retail carrier bags, the Department retained this land benchmark methodology unchanged from the preliminary determination.22

We find no information on the record of the instant investigation that warrants a revision to the land benchmark methodology developed inCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination.Therefore, we continue to find that we cannot rely on the use of “first” and “second-tier” benchmarks for purposes of the land for LTAR benchmark because the GOV continuesto retain land-use pricing authority (including lease rates) for land leased directly from the government, restrictions are still in place with regard to land that is sub-leased by private parties, and the land-use contracts held by private parties, that serve as the basis for sub-leases, have been granted by government agencies that have been set under government decrees.23 For the same reasons, we further continue to find that that the purchase of land-use rights in Vietnam is not conducted in accordance with market principles.

Accordingly, to measure the benefit for land for LTAR in this preliminary determination, we are using a land benchmark based on the rental rates for industrial property in Pune and Bangalore. Using the same data sources used inCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination,we sought 2011 data on those rental rates. We find that the 2008 data fromCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determinationremain the latest data available. Therefore, we are using the same simple average of all rental rates for industrial property in the cities of Pune and Bangalore that was calculated inCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determinationand adopted inCarrier Bags from Vietnam Final Determination,indexed forward to 2011 using consumer price index data for India, as published by the International Monetary Fund.

Decree No. 142/2005/NC-CP (Decree 142) of November 14, 2005, provides for the collection of land rents and water surface rents in connection with land leased by the GOV.Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 34. Decree 142 states that land rent shall be reduced or exempted under certain circumstances enumerated under the law and also where the Prime Minister determines it is appropriate to do so, based on the recommendation of the agency heads and provincial and municipal governments.Id.at Articles 13-15. For example, Decree 142 provides for land exemptions for firms located in certain geographical areas facing socio-economic difficulties.Id.at Article 14.

The Hamico Companies reported that on January 12, 2004, the GOV's Department of Natural Resources and Environment granted SEA Hamico land-use rights for its facility in the Chau Son Industrial Zone Area located in Phuong Le Hong Phong, Phu Ly City of Ha Nam Province. The Hamico Companies state that SEA Hamico signed a “new land lease contract” with the GOV with regard to the same plot of land on August 11, 2009. The lease contract in effect during the POI establishes an annual rent charged to SEA Hamico. The lease contract further specifies that the annual rent is subject to the provisions of Decree 142.Seethe Hamico Companies' April 2, 2012, Questionnaire Response, Exhibit 7 at 15. However, the preferential investment certificate issued to SEA Hamico indicates that SEA Hamico is exempted from paying the annual rent on the land for ten years, a period that extends into the POI, and shall enjoy a 50 percent reduction in rent during the second ten years of the lease.SeeThe GOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 43. Further, Decision No. 2459/QD-CT, December 28, 2011, (Decision No. 2459) issued by the GOV's Department of Taxation of Ha Nam Province specifies the amount of rent exemption that SEA Hamico received during the POI.SeeThe GOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 47. Decision No. 2459 states that the rent exemption was provided pursuant to the “encouraged investment provisions” of Article 14.4 of Decree 142, which deals with rent exemptions provided to investment projects located in geographic areas facing socio-economic difficulties.Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 34.

The Hamico Companies report that Nam A also received exemptions on annual lease payments in connection with its land lease with People's Committee of Ha Nam Province during the POI.Seethe Hamico Companies May 16, 2012, supplemental questionnaire response at 5 and Exhibit 3, which contains Nam A's lease contract. The Hamico Companies state that Nam A's benefit is “similar” to that received by SEA Hamico in that the GOV provided the lease exemption contingent upon Nam A leasing land in a geographically designated area. Id. at 5.

As explained above, we have adopted January 11, 2007, the date on which Vietnam became a member of the WTO, as the date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in Vietnam. In the case of SEA Hamico, the lease contract in question was signed prior to the cut-off date. However, as indicated by the Hamico Companies, SEA Hamico signed a “new lease contract” with the GOV concerning the plot of land at issue on August 11, 2009, which established the relevant terms of the lease after the cut-off date. Therefore, we find that it is appropriate to consider the land rent exemptions received by SEA Hamico during the POI in connection with the lease contract for purposes of our subsidy analysis.

Information on the record indicates that SEA Hamico and Nam A received the rent exemptions because the land plots were located in designated geographical areas and, thus, we preliminarily determine that the exemptions are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We also preliminarily determine that the leasing of the land constitutes a financial contribution, in the form of a provision of a good, within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. In addition, we find that the rent exemptions confer a benefit in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.511(a).

The land contracts SEA Hamico and Nam A signed with the GOV did not require lump-sum payments at the time the original leases were signed. Rather, the contracts call for annual rent payments, which the GOV subsequently exempted. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we preliminarily determine that the rent exemptions received by SEA Hamico and Nam A constitute recurring subsidies. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(a), we have allocated benefits from the rent exemptions to the year in which the exemptions were received.Seealso 351.511(b). As a result, for purposes of this preliminary determination, the benefit calculations for the rent exemptions are limited to those SEA Hamico and Nam A received during the POI.

As discussed above in the “Land Benchmark” section, we continue to find that land prices in Vietnam are not based on market principles, consistent with the findings in theCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination;unchanged in Carrier Bags from Vietnam Decision Memorandum at “Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for Exporters.”

Consequently, we continue to find that we cannot rely on the use of “first” and “second-tier” benchmarks for purposes of the land for LTAR benchmark and, as was done inCarrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination,we must use a benchmark based on comparable market-based prices outside Vietnam. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary determination, we have used as our benchmark the calculatedaverage of the rental rates for Pune and Bangalore, which corresponds to $6.088 per square meter per month.SeeLand Memorandum. This rate corresponds to rental prices during calendar year 2008, which we determine to be the latest such data available. Therefore, in our preliminary calculations, we indexed the 2008 price into a 2011 price using consumer price index data for India, as published by the International Monetary Fund.

To calculate the benefit, we multiplied the land benchmark discussed above by the total area of the land plots at issue. In this manner, we derived the benefit attributable to the land lease exemptions enjoyed by SEA Hamico and Nam A during the POI. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we converted the benefits into Vietnamese Dong and divided the total benefit by the total sales of the Hamico Companies, net of intra-company sales. On this basis, we determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 18.59 percentad valoremfor the Hamico Companies.

Regarding Linh Sa, the Hamico Companies reported that it signed its lease with cross-owned affiliate SEA Hamico and not with a GOV entity.Seethe Hamico Companies May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 6 and Exhibit 1, which contains the lease Lihn Sa signed with SEA Hamico. Based on this information, we preliminarily determine that Lihn Sa's lease with SEA Hamico does not constitute a government financial contribution as described under section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the Act.

Similarly, the Infinite Companies reported that Infinite leased land from Vinh Hung Limited Liability (Vinh Hung), which the Infinite Companies claim is a private company. The Infinite Companies also reported that Supreme leased land from a private party.Seethe Infinite Companies' April 3, 2012, initial questionnaire response at pages 21 through 24 and Exhibits 8-9. We obtained ownership information from the GOV regarding the party that leased land to Infinite and Supreme. Our review of this ownership information leads us to preliminarily determine that the lessors are private companies and, as such, its leases of land to Infinite and Supreme do not constitute a government financial contribution as described under section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the Act.Seethe GOV's May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 3-5 and Exhibit GOV S2-7.

We started an investigation of corporate income tax exemptions and reductions pursuant to alleged income tax preferences in industrial zones, and sought relevant information from the GOV and the respondents. The Hamico Companies reported that SEA Hamico received a 50 percent reduction in income taxes payable with regard to the 2010 tax return that it filed during the POI. The 2010 tax returns of Nam A and Linh Sa indicate that the firms were in a tax-loss position and, therefore, had no taxable income to exempt. The 2010 tax returns of the Infinite Companies filed during the POI indicate that the firms did not receive any income tax deductions or exemptions.

Information from the Hamico Companies and the GOV indicate that SEA Hamico received the exemption pursuant to the 1997 Law on Enterprise Income Tax, No. 57/L-CTN (Law No. 57), Law on Domestic Investment Encouragement, No. 03/1998/QH10 (Law No. 03) and the Implementing Decree of Law on Domestic Investment Encouragement of 1998, Decree No. 51/1999/ND-CP (Decree No. 51).Seethe GOV's May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 3;see alsothe Hamico Companies' May 14, 2012, questionnaire response, Exhibit 1 at 9. This income tax exemption is also referenced in the certificate of investment incentives issued to SEA Hamico by the People's Committee of Ha Nam Province.Id.at Exhibit 4. According to the GOV, SEA Hamico was entitled to an income tax exemption for two years and a 50 percent reduction in income taxes for the subsequent four years pursuant to Article 17, Clause 1, Point b of Law No. 57; Articles 15.7 and 21.1 of Law No. 3; and List A of Decree No. 51.Seethe GOV's May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 3-4. Specifically, the GOV states that this entitlement is based on Law No. 3, Article 15.7, “Branches and trades that should be given priority in each period of socio-economic development.”

The GOV submitted Hamico's Preferential Investment Certificate No. 1107/GCNUD (September 23, 2003) and Certificate of Amendment to Investment Certificate No. 06221000076 (February 5, 2010), which describe the incentives applicable to Hamico's investment project.Seethe GOV's May 22, 2012, Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit GOVS3-3. We note that while these investment certificates identify the applicable laws and regulations, including Law No. 57, Law No. 3, and Decree 51, they do not identify the specific sections of the laws or decree. Thus, while the GOV has specified Article 15.7 of Law No. 3 as defining the entitlement, we note that Article 15 contains other investment activities with equal entitlement to the same incentives,e.g.,Article 15.3, investment projects related to “the production of and trading in export goods,” under which Hamico could qualify for the same exemption and reduction in income tax. Consequently, we will continue to seek information to clarify the precise basis on which Hamico benefited from this program.

As noted above, we initially examined the income tax exemption and reduction program pursuant to alleged tax preferences in industrial zones. As discussed above, the facts on the record thus far indicate the program provides benefits based on investment activities or certain enterprises, specifically “branches and trades that should be given priority in each period of socio-economic development” with regard to Hamico. To the extent that this constitutes a different program from among those that we enumerated in our initiation, 19 CFR 351.311(b) allows the Department to investigate other possible countervailable subsidies discovered during the course of a proceeding. This approach is consistent with the Department's practice.24

We preliminarily determine that the tax reduction provided to SEA Hamico under this program is specific to a group of enterprises, namely “branches and trades that should be given priority in each period of socio-economic development” specified under Article 15.7 of Law No. 3 within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. The income tax reduction and exemption are financial contributions in the form of revenue forgone by the government under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and provide a benefit to SEA Hamico in the amount of tax savings pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1).

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the amount of SEA Hamico's tax savings, as indicated on the 2010 tax return it filed during the POI, by the combined total sales of SEA Hamico, Nam A, and Linh Sa, net of intra-company sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 0.93 percentad valoremfor the Hamico Companies.

Duty exemptions on raw materials are addressed in the Law on Import Duty and Export Duty, Law No. 45/2005/QH-11 (Law No. 45) and Decree No. 87/2010/ND-CP (Decree 87).Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, questionnaire response at Exhibits 60. Specifically, under Law No. 45, Chapter IV, import duty exemption is provided for “raw materials and supplies used for manufacture of equipment and machinery” (Article 16.6(d)) and “Raw materials, supplies and accessories imported for production activities of investment projects on the list of domains where investment is particularly encouraged or the list of geographical areas meeting with exceptional socio-economic difficulties” (Article 16.9).Id.at Exhibit 60. We believe raw materials may also be imported duty-free under Article 16.4, “goods imported for processing for foreign partners then exported or goods exported to foreign countries for processing for Vietnam then re-imported under processing contracts.”Id.Additionally, Article 19 provides for reimbursement of duties on raw materials or supplies imported for the production of export goods, for which import tax has been paid.”Id.

Decree No. 87, enacted in August 2010 reflects the implementation of Law No. 45 that was in effect during the POI.Id.at Exhibit 61. Article 12 of Decree 87 provides additional detail for the duty exemptions on raw materials originally provided under Law No. 45. Articles 12.6(d) and 12.14 specify that the exemptions for “raw materials and supplies used for manufacture of equipment and machinery” and “raw materials, supplies and accessories imported for production activities of investment projects on the list of domains where investment is particularly encouraged or the list of geographical areas meeting with exceptional socio-economic difficulties” will apply only where such raw materials and supplies “cannot be domestically produced yet.”Id.With regard to “goods imported for processing for foreign parties,” Article 12.4 leaves the import duty exemption unchanged, but adds that the exported processed products are also exempt from export duty.

Infinite and the GOV state that Infinite received exemptions on raw material imports based the export processing contracts it had with foreign firms. SEA Hamico and Lihn Sa also state that they received duty exemptions on raw materials. The Hamico Companies reported that Nam A did not import raw materials during the POI. Most, if not all, of the sales of the Infinite Companies and Hamico Companies are devoted to exports.

For import duty exemptions on raw materials for exported goods, the exemptions cannot exceed the amount of duty levied; otherwise, the excess amounts exempted confer a countervailable benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(i). Moreover, under 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4), the government must have a system to confirm which inputs are consumed in production and in what amounts; otherwise, the exemptions confer a benefit equal to the total amount of duties exempted. In theRetail Carrier Bags from Vietnam Final Determination,the Department concluded that the GOV does not have in place a system to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, including a normal allowance for waste.SeeCarrier Bags from Vietnam Decision Memorandum at “Import Duty Exemptions for Imported Raw Materials for Exported Goods.” No information on the record of the instant proceeding warrants a reconsideration of that finding; therefore, we find that the import duty exemptions on raw materials confer a benefit equal to the total amount of the duties exempted, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4).

Because the receipt of import duty exemptions on raw materials was contingent upon export performance as one or more criteria, we preliminarily determine that they are specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. We further preliminarily determine that the exemptions constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone, as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we summed the amount of duties saved during the POI. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by respondents' total export sales, net of intra-company sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 1.34 percentad valoremfor the Hamico Companies and 11.03 percentad valoremfor the Infinite Companies.

The Hamico Companies reported that SEA Hamico and Linh SA had loans outstanding during the POI that were issued by the Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Industry and Trade (Vietinbank) as well as an additional lendinginstitution.25 Seethe Hamico Companies' April 2, 2012, questionnaire response at Attachment 1;see alsothe Hamico Companies May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Attachment I, which contains the loan information of the additional lending institution. The GOV states that SEA Hamico and Linh Sa received these loans in connection with an “export loan program” operated by the respective lending institutions.Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, questionnaire response at 24. According to the GOV, under this program, the lending institutions offered “supported” interest rates to exporters, provided that they use the proceeds of the loan in the manner specified in the contract, follow the payment schedule specified in the contract, conduct payment for exporting through the lending institution, and sell the foreign exchange earned from the export sale through the lending institution.Id.Regarding the Vietinbank, information from the GOV specifically indicates that Vietinbank offered the “preferential” interest rates to exporters in an effort to implement its “Export Loan Program.”Seethe GOV's May 16, 2012, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 2. The Hamico Companies reported that Nam A did not have any loans outstanding during the POI. The Infinite Companies similarly reported that they did not have any loans outstanding during the POI.

In past CVD proceedings involving Vietnam, the Department has found Vietinbank to be a state-owned commercial bank (SOCB) and thus, a government authority capable of providing a financial contribution as described under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.See Carrier Bags from Vietnam Preliminary Determination,74 FR at 45817.26 Information provided by the GOV indicates that it owned approximately 80 percent of Vietinbank during the POI.Seethe GOV's May 16, 2012, supplemental questionnaire response at 4. Hence, we continue to find that Vietinbank is a government authority. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the loans issued to SEA Hamico and Lihn Sa by Vietinbank constitute a financial contribution by a government authority within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Regarding the additional lending institution, because the Hamico Companies identified loans outstanding from this institution as financing offered“under the export loan program” we find, for purposes of the preliminary determination, that such loans constitute a financial contribution by a government authority within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.

We further preliminarily determine that, pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, loans issued to SEA Hamico and Lihn Sa under this program confer a benefit equal to the difference between what the recipients paid on the loans from the lending institutions and the amount they would have paid on comparable, commercial loans. In determining the amount SEA Hamico and Lihn Sa would have paid on comparable, commercial loans, we employed the interest rate benchmark discussed above in the “Interest Rate Benchmark” section. Information from the GOV indicates that receipt of the Vietinbank loans are contingent, in part, upon export activities and, thus, we preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.

Next, we summed the benefit calculated on each loan the firms had outstanding under the program during the POI and divided the total benefit by the combined total export sales of SEA Hamico, Nam A, and Lihn Sa, net of intra-company sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 0.39 percentad valoremfor the Hamico Companies.

Article 12.6 of Decree 87 allows firms with investment in encouraged projects and/or located in certain geographical areas (which includes industrial zones) to receive duty exemptions on import of goods to create fixed assets and equipment. Infinite, SEA Hamico, and Lihn Sa are located in industrial zones. We preliminarily determine that information from Infinite indicates that it received duty exemptions under this program. Regarding the Hamico Companies, though they qualified for duty exemptions under the program, information provided thus far indicates that, absent the program, the duty rates on the equipment the Hamico Companies imported were zero.

Because the receipt of import duty exemptions on fixed assets was contingent upon the firms' location in a designated geographic area, we preliminarily determine that they are regionally-specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We further preliminarily determine that the exemptions constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone, as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confer a benefit under section 771(5(E) and 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4).

Normally, we treat exemptions from indirect taxes and import charges, such as tariff exemptions, as recurring benefits, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1) and allocate these benefits only in the year that they were received. However, when an indirect tax or import charge exemption is provided for, or tied to, the capital structure or capital assets of a firm, the Department may treat it as a non-recurring benefit and allocate the benefit to the firm over the AUL.See19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii) and 19 CFR 351.524(d)(1). Therefore, because these exemptions are for goods used in creating capital equipment, we find that the duty exemptions are tied to the company's capital assets, and we have examined the tariff exemptions that respondents received under the program throughout the period between January 11, 2007, (the “cut-off” date for Vietnam) and the POI.

To calculate the amount of import duties exempted under the program, we multiplied the value of the imported equipment by the import duty rate that would have been levied absent the program. Next, we summed the amount of duty exemptions received in each year. Then we divided the total amount of tariff exemptions by the corresponding total sales for the year in which the exemptions were received. Those exemptions that were less than 0.5 percent of total sales were expensed to the year of receipt. Those exemptions that were greater than 0.5 percent of total sales were allocated over the AUL using the methodology described under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) and then divided by respondents' total sales during the POI, net of intra-company sales. In the case of Infinite, the benefits received under the program were fully expensed prior to the POI.

The GOV self-reported the existence of this program in which it provides grants to firms that employ more than 50 employees.Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, questionnaire response at 101. The GOV further reported that the Hamico Companies may have received benefits under the program given that the investment certificate for Nam A indicates that Nam A is eligible to receive funds under the program.Id.; see alsothe Hamico Companies' May 14, 2012, questionnaire response at Exhibit 5, which contains Nam A's investment certificate.

There is no evidence of the Infinite Companies' use of this program in its questionnaire response, investment certificate, or financial statements. Regarding the Hamico Companies, they explain that though they are eligible to participate in the program, they have not received any funds under the program from the GOV.Seethe Hamico Companies May 16, 2012, questionnaire response at 7. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that this program was not used by the Hamico and Infinite Companies.

The Infinite Companies reported that they draw their water from their own well located on site and, thus, do not pay water fees to the GOV.Seethe Infinite Companies May 11, 2012, supplemental questionnaire response at 11. Regarding the Hamico Companies, source documents for SEA Hamico indicate that it paid water fees to the GOV during the POI and that these fees were equal to those fees charged to businesses engaged in commercial and production activities, as set by the provincial government.Seethe Hamico Companies' April 2, 2012, questionnaire response at 28 and Exhibits 11-13. Concerning Nam A, its investment certificate provides that it is eligible to receive exemptions on its “water rent.”Seethe Hamico Companies' May 14, 2012, questionnaire response at Exhibit 5. However, despite qualifying for such an exemption, the Hamico Companies state that Nam A did not use the program because it did not use “surface water” (i.e.,water sources rented from the GOV) in its production process.Seethe Hamico Companies' May 16, 2012, questionnaire response at 6-7. Notwithstanding the Hamico Companies' claims regarding Nam A, information from the Hamico Companies indicates that Nam A paid water fees to the GOV during the POI and that these fees were equal to those fees charged to businesses engaged in commercial and production activities, as set by the provincial government.Seethe Hamico Companies May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 9. Similarly, information from Lihn Sa and the GOV indicates that the firm paid a water usage rate equal to the rate charged to businesses engaged in commercial and production activities.Seethe GOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire response at Exhibit 3 andthe Hamico Companies' May 22, 2012, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 10. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the provision of water is not specific to the industrial zones in which the respondents are located, and find that the Infinite Companies and the Hamico Companies did not use the program.

We note that, based on the record information thus far, the level of government at which the actual rate-setting authority rests remains unclear. While the GOV issues a national pricing framework for water supply, distribution and consumption, the actual published rate schedules are issued at the provincial levels on approval by the provincial governments.SeeGOV's March 30, 2012, Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 6. Hence, we will continue to examine the price-setting regime for water in Vietnam.

The Infinite Companies state that they only purchased wire from foreign sources during the POI.Seethe Infinite Companies' May 11, 2012, at 9 and Attachment 3. The Hamico Companies state that they did not purchase wire rod from Vietnamese sources during the POI. Instead, they report that they either imported wire rod from foreign sources or purchased wire from domestic sources.

The allegation on which the Department initiated its investigation centers on the provision of wire rod not drawn wire. We find that wire is a good that is distinct from wire rod. On this point, we note that the Hamico Companies have submitted source documents (e.g.,invoices) which indicate the specifications (e.g.,diameter) of the wire they purchased from domestic sources during the POI.Seethe Hamico Companies' May 16, 2012, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibits 1-4. Our review of these source documents, confirms our preliminary finding that the inputs the Hamico Companies purchased from domestic sources constitute wire products and not wire rod. Thus, we find that purchases of wire rod from non-Vietnamese sources are not subject to our subsidy analysis. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that respondents did not use the provision of wire rod for LTAR program during the POI.

In addition, we preliminarily determine that respondents did not use the programs listed below:

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated individual rates for the respondents individually investigated, the Hamico Companies and the Infinite Companies. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

Sections 703(d), 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I), and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate by weight-averaging the individual subsidy rates by each company's exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. However, the all-others rate may not include zero andde minimisrates or any rates based solely on the facts available.27 In this preliminary determination, the calculated net subsidy rate for the Hamico Companies and the Infinite Companies are abovede minimis.Notwithstanding the language of sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I), and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have not calculated the all others rate by weight averaging the rates of the Hamico and Infinite Companies because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the all others rate, we have calculated a simple average of the respondents' net subsidy rates.

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in theFederal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above.28

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly, or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five days of its announcement. Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last verification report.See19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs.See19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to theDepartment. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in theFederal Registerto the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Parties will be notified of the schedule for the hearing, and parties should confirm the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) Party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Background

In September 2010, the Department published in theFederal Registeran antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan.1 On September 2, 2011, the Department published in theFederal Registera notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan for the period September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.2 In response to a timely request from the petitioner, Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc., pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Department initiated an administrative review for the following ten companies: (1) Apex Ribbon; (2) Apex Trimmings; (3) FinerRibbon.com; (4) Hubschercorp; (5) Intercontinental Skyline; (6) Multicolor Inc.; (7) Pacific Imports; (8) Papillon Ribbon & Bow (Canada); (9) Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., Ltd./Hsien Chan Enterprise Co., Ltd./Novelty Handicrafts Co., Ltd.; and (10) Supreme Laces, Inc.3

In November 2011 and January 2012, we requested that each company named in theInitiation Noticeprovide data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We received responses to the Q&V questionnaires during the period November 2011 through January 2012.

On January 30, 2012, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review for all companies named in theInitiation Noticeexcept Hubschercorp. On this same date, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Hubschercorp.

On February 17, 2012, we rescinded the review with respect to the following companies: (1) Apex Ribbon; (2) Apex Trimmings; (3) FinerRibbon.com; (4) Intercontinental Skyline; (5) Multicolor Inc.; (6) Pacific Imports; (7) Papillon Ribbon & Bow (Canada); (8) Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., Ltd./Hsien Chan Enterprise Co., Ltd./Novelty Handicrafts Co., Ltd.; and (9) Supreme Laces, Inc.4

Also on February 17, 2012, Hubschercorp contacted the Department to inform us that it was having difficulty in responding to the Department's questionnaire and that it may not be able to participate in this review. On February 21, 2012 (i.e.,the due date for the first portion of the questionnaire response), we followed up with Hubschercorp to determine whether the company intended to participate in the administrative review. On February 24, 2012, Hubschercorp informed the Department that it did not intend to respond to the questionnaire or participate in the administrative review.5 Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), for these preliminary results, the Department has applied facts otherwise available with an adverse inference when determining Hubschercorp's rate.Seethe section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA,” below, for further discussion.

The scope of this order covers narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge, in any length, but with a width (measured at the narrowest span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 12 centimeters, composed of, in whole or in part, man-made fibers (whether artificial or synthetic, including but not limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, polypropylene, and polyethylene teraphthalate), metal threads and/or metalized yarns, or any combination thereof. Narrow woven ribbons subject to the order may:

• Also include natural or other non-man-made fibers;

• Be of any color, style, pattern, or weave construction, including but not limited to single-faced satin, double-faced satin, grosgrain, sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a combination of two or more colors, styles, patterns, and/or weave constructions;

• Have been subjected to, or composed of materials that have been subjected to, various treatments, including but not limited to dyeing, printing, foil stamping, embossing, flocking, coating, and/or sizing;

• Have embellishments, including but not limited to appliqué, fringes, embroidery, buttons, glitter, sequins, laminates, and/or adhesive backing;

• Have wire and/or monofilament in, on, or along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon;

• Have ends of any shape or dimension, including but not limited to straight ends that are perpendicular to the longitudinal edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, flared ends or shaped ends, and the ends of such woven ribbons may or may not be hemmed;

• Have longitudinal edges that are straight or of any shape, and the longitudinal edges of such woven ribbon may or may not be parallel to each other;

• Consist of such ribbons affixed to like ribbon and/or cut-edge woven ribbon, a configuration also known as an “ornamental trimming;”

• Be wound on spools; attached to a card; hanked (i.e.,coiled or bundled); packaged in boxes, trays or bags; or configured as skeins, balls, bateaus or folds; and/or

• Be included within a kit or set such as when packaged with other products, including but not limited to gift bags, gift boxes and/or other types of ribbon.

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the order include all narrow woven fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within this written description of the scope of this antidumping duty order.

Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:

(1) Formed bows composed of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge;

(2) “Pull-bows” (i.e.,an assemblage of ribbons connected to one another, folded flat and equipped with a means to form such ribbons into the shape of a bow by pulling on a length of material affixed to such assemblage) composed of narrow woven ribbons;

(3) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 20 percent by weight of elastomeric yarn (i.e.,filament yarn, including monofilament, of synthetic textile material, other than textured yarn, which does not break on being extended to three times its original length and which returns, after being extended to twice its original length, within a period of five minutes, to a length not greater than one and a half times its original length as defined in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), Section XI, Note 13) or rubber thread;

(4) Narrow woven ribbons of a kind used for the manufacture of typewriter or printer ribbons;

(5) Narrow woven labels and apparel tapes, cut-to-length or cut-to-shape, having a length (when measured across the longest edge-to-edge span) not exceeding eight centimeters;

(6) Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge attached to and forming the handle of a gift bag;

(7) Cut-edge narrow woven ribbons formed by cutting broad woven fabric into strips of ribbon, with or without treatments to prevent the longitudinal edges of the ribbon from fraying (such as by merrowing, lamination, sono-bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), and with or without wire running lengthwise along the longitudinal edges of the ribbon;

(8) Narrow woven ribbons comprised at least 85 percent by weight of threads having a denier of 225 or higher;

(9) Narrow woven ribbons constructed from pile fabrics (i.e.,fabrics with a surface effect formed by tufts or loops of yarn that stand up from the body of the fabric);

(10) Narrow woven ribbon affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to non-subject merchandise, such as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting card or plush toy, or affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to packaging containing non-subject merchandise;

(11) Narrow woven ribbon that is (a) affixed to non-subject merchandise as a working component of such non-subject merchandise, such as where narrow woven ribbon comprises an apparel trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or part of an identity card holder, or (b) affixed (including by tying) to non-subject merchandise as a working component that holds or packages such non-subject merchandise or attaches packaging or labeling to such non-subject merchandise, such as a “belly band” around a pair of pajamas, a pair of socks or a blanket;

(12) Narrow woven ribbon(s) comprising a belt attached to and imported with an item of wearing apparel, whether or not such belt is removable from such item of wearing apparel; and

(13) Narrow woven ribbon(s) included with non-subject merchandise in kits, such as a holiday ornament craft kit or a scrapbook kit, in which the individual lengths of narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the kit are each no greater than eight inches, the aggregate amount of narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the kit does not exceed 48 linear inches, none of the narrow woven ribbon(s) included in the kit is on a spool, and the narrow woven ribbon(s) is only one of multiple items included in the kit.

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under the HTSUS statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.

As noted in the “Background” section, above, Hubschercorp did not respond to the Department's questionnaire in this administrative review and informed the Department that it did not intend to participate in this review.SeeHubschercorp Memo. As a result, Hubschercorp did not provide requested information that is necessary for the Department tocalculate an antidumping duty rate for the company in this administrative review. Therefore, in reaching these preliminary results, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has based Hubschercorp's antidumping duty rate on facts otherwise available on the record.

By only responding to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and failing to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, Hubschercorp withheld requested information and significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate.

According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available.See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India,70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005);Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil,67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.”SeeStatement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.”See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997);see also Nippon Steel Corp.v.United States,337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We preliminarily find that Hubschercorp did not act to the best of its ability in this administrative review, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to the Department's requests for information and provide timely information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect to this company.See Nippon,337 F.3d at 1382-83.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other information placed on the record.

The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to select the highest rate on the record of the proceeding and to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.”See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,71 FR 65082, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006).

As a result, we have preliminarily assigned to Hubschercorp a rate of 137.20 percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition, as noted in the initiation of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations,74 FR 39291 (Aug. 6, 2009) (LTFV Initiation).

Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.See19 CFR 351.308(d);see alsoSAA at 870. To be considered corroborated, the Department must find the secondary information is both reliable and relevant.6

To determine whether the information is reliable, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for purposes of these preliminary results.See LTFV Initiationat 39294-39295. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of these preliminary results. Based on our examination of the information, as discussed in detail inLTFV Initiation,we consider the petitioner's calculation of the export price and normal value to be reliable. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition by examining source documents as well as publicly available information, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the petition are reliable for the purposes of this administrative review.

To determine the relevance of the petition margin, we compared it to the model-specific rates calculated for the respondents in the LTFV investigation. We find that this margin is relevant because this is the first review under this order (i.e.,only one segment removed from the LTFV investigation), and the petition rate fell within the range of model-specific margins calculated for two of the three mandatory respondents in the LTFV investigation.See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,73 FR 12088, 12092 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged inCertain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,73 FR 50933 (Aug. 29, 2008).See alsothe Memorandum to the File from Holly Phelps, Analyst, entitled, “Placement of Proprietary Model-Specific Margins from the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation on the Record and Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Results in the 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan,” dated May 29, 2012 (Corroboration Memo). Therefore, we have determined that the 137.20 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to Hubschercorp.

Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that theselected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. We were unable to find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate.

Based on the above, for these preliminary results, the Department finds the highest rate derived from the petition (i.e.,137.20 percent) is therefore corroborated to the extent practicable. Thus, we have assigned Hubschercorp this rate as AFA in this administrative review. For further discussion of the corroboration of this rate, see the Corroboration Memo.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011:

The Department will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.See19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than the later of 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.See19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.See19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

For Hubschercorp's U.S. sales, we will base the assessment rate assigned to the corresponding entries on AFA, determined as noted above.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.Seesection 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hubschercorp will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.37 percent, the all-others rate made effective by theNotice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan,75 FR 41804 (July 19, 2010). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Background

On February 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in theFederal Registera notice of “Opportunity to RequestAdministrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India for the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2011, through January 31, 2012.1

On February 29, 2012, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. (the petitioner), a petitioner and a domestic interested party, to conduct an administrative review of the sales of Agro Dutch Foods Limited (Agro Dutch Industries Limited) (Agro Dutch), Himalya International Ltd. (Himalya), Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly Ponds India, Ltd.) (Hindustan), Transchem Ltd. (Transchem), and Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd (Weikfield). The petitioner was the only party to request this administrative review.

On March 30, 2012, the Department published in theFederal Registera notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India with respect to the above-named companies.2

On May 10, 2012, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for a review of Himalya, Hindustan, Transchem and Weikfield.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner withdrew its request for review before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India for the POR. Therefore, in response to the petitioner's withdrawal of its request for review of Himalya, Hindustan, Transchem and Weikfield and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with regard to these companies. The instant review will continue with respect to Agro Dutch.

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

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

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

This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specific geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is published in theFederal Registerand provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) further established a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

On February 22, 2011, NMFS received an application from the Port of Vancouver, USA (Port), requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and Steller sea lions (Eumatopius jubatus)incidental to pile driving activities conducted during the construction of the Terminal 5 Bulk Potash Handling Facility. In accordance with MMPA implementing regulations, NMFS issued a notice in theFederal Registeron August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51947), requesting comments from the public on the proposed IHA.

A complete description of the specified activity may be found in NMFS' proposed IHA document in theFederal Register(76 FR 51947, August 19, 2011). A summary of that document, along with some minor project changes, is provided here. The project will involve construction of a potash handling facility at river mile 103.3 along the Columbia River in Vancouver, Washington. To support the new facility, a maximum of 195 (as opposed to the originally proposed 203) steel piles will be installed in the Columbia River at the project site (specifically, Terminal 5) using vibratory and impact pile driving. These piles are necessary for construction of a ship loading system and marine berthing facilities. The originally proposed installation of piles for stormwater outfall is no longer planned. A breakdown of pile size and associated activity are shown in Table 1.

The 100 48-54-in (1,220-1,372-mm) steel pipe piles will be used for quadrant beams and pivot supports, the mooring dolphins and maintenance platform, access trestles, and as a contingency should additional piles be required. Approximately two piles will be installed per day over a four-month period. Although the exact duration of pile driving will vary depending on the installation procedures and geotechnical conditions, the applicant estimates that each permanent pile will require between two and three hours of vibratory installation and between one and two hours of impact driving to install. To the extent possible, all piles will be installed with an APE Model 200 (or similar) vibratory hammer; however, it may be necessary to seat a pile using an impact hammer. The temporary piles (18- to 24-in diameter) will be driven solely with a vibratory hammer. Should an impact hammer be necessary for finishing the installation of permanent piles, the Port will use a DELMAG D46-32 with 60-80 maximum blows per foot, a DELMAG D80 with 20-30 maximum blows per foot, or a similar model. Sound attenuation devices, such as a bubble curtain, will be used during any impact hammering.

In addition to pile installation, a total of 303 piles will also be removed using vibratory extraction or a crane. These consist of the 95 temporary piles and 31 existing wood piles at Terminal 5 and 177 old wood piles upstream of Terminal 5 (Table 1). The 177 wood piles are located at Terminal 2, about two miles upstream from Terminal 5, and do not have much structural capacity. A pneumatic underwater chainsaw may be used if a pile breaks in the process, but associated noise is expected to be negligible. Above-water work will also be necessary to complete construction of each project component. There could be barges in the water to support construction activities; however, these will be concentrated in the direct vicinity of Terminal 5. Because pile repair, pile removal, and use of barges do not release loud sounds into the environment, marine mammal harassment from these activities is not anticipated.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's recommended in-water work window for this area is November 1 through February 28. Timing restrictions such as this are used to avoid in-water work when listed species are most likely to be present. Proposed pile installation and removal activities are scheduled to occur between November 1, 2012, and February 28, 2013, with the possible exception of the five 54-in (1,372-mm) piles. These five piles may be installed outside of the in-water work window if they can be installed during low water periods under dry conditions.

For background, sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 μPa” and “re: 1 μPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.

Data from a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) test pile project for the Columbia River Interstate 5 project (also known as the Columbia River Crossing project) was used for the impact and vibratory pile driving noise analysis for 48-in (1,220-mm) steel pipe piles (DEA, 2011). There is a lack of information related to sound levels for 54-in (1,372-mm) pile installations; therefore, noise levels recorded for and the installation of 60-in (1,524-mm) piles (attenuated) at Port Townsend, Washington, using similar equipment were used to estimate sound levels (WSDOT, 2011). Based on the sound levels identified during this study, and a 10-dB reduction recommended by WSDOT for the use of a bubble curtain, it was determined that the estimated sound levels for a 60-in (1,524-mm) diameter pile in the dry during low water would be similar to the sound levels produced by a 48-in attenuated pile in the Columbia River for both impact and vibratory methods. Maximum sound levels for impact and vibratory pile driving are shown in Table 2. No reference underwater sound levels are available for this area, so 120 dB RMS (the lowest potential impact threshold for marine mammals) was used as a surrogate (WSDOT, 2010a). The Port applied a practical spreading loss model to calculate sound propagation, which assumes that noise attenuates at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling distance, and this attenuation rate increases to 10 dB per doubling distance beyond 0.6 mile (1 km) (WSDOT, 2010a). Using this model, the largest noise impact zone is expected to result from vibratory pile driving of 48-in (1,220-mm) steel pipe piles. It may take up to 7 miles (11 km) for underwater sound to attenuate to below 120 dB. Because of the project area's location on a river bend and across from Hayden Island, sound transmission will be stopped by land masses much earlier in certain directions. In-air sound from pile driving also has the potential to affect marine mammals. However, in-air sound is not a concern here because there are no pinniped haul-out sites near the project area.

A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51947). During the 30-day public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) provided the only comments.

Comment 1:The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Port to measure in-situ sound propagation for driving and removing the various sizes and types of piles using the vibratory hammer, impact hammer, and both hammers concurrently at the beginning of the project and use that information to establish appropriate exclusion and buffer zones.

Response:The Port intends to conduct hydroacoustic monitoring to record the sound generated during impact pile driving. Hydroacoustic monitoring will take place while the first five piles are installed using an impact hammer at the Terminal 5 location. Information gained from this monitoring effort will be used to verify the exclusion and harassment zones.

Comment 2:The Commission recommends that NMFS require the presence of approved observers before, during, and after all soft-starts of pile driving activities, including when the vibratory hammer is used, to gather the data needed to determine the effectiveness of this technique as a mitigation measure.

Response:NMFS disagrees that the Port needs to monitor for marine mammals before, during, and after all soft-starts. Protected species observers will be on-site and monitoring for marine mammals at least 20 minutes prior to, during, and after all impact hammering (including during soft-starts) and at least two full days per week during all vibratory pile hammering. NMFS believes that monitoring for at least two pile driving days per week will allow for adequate interpretation of how marine mammals are behaving in response to pile hammering, including during soft-starts.

Comment 3:The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Port to monitor the presence and behavior of marine mammals during all impact and vibratory pile driving and pile removal activities.

Response:As stated in the proposed IHA, marine mammal monitoring will occur 20 minutes before, during, and 20 minutes after all impact pile driving activities. In addition, at least two protected species observers will conduct behavioral monitoring at least two days per week during vibratory pile driving to estimate take and evaluate the behavioral impacts that pile driving has on marine mammals. NMFS believes this is an adequate effort of monitoring because sounds from vibratory pile driving will not exceed the Level A harassment threshold and sounds from impact pile driving only exceed the Level A harassment threshold 21 m (70 ft) from the source.

Comment 4:The Commission recommends that NMFS condition the IHA to require the Port to (1) immediately report all injured or dead marine mammals to NMFS and local stranding network and (2) suspend the construction activities if a marine mammal is seriously injured or killed and the injury or death could have been caused by those activities (e.g., a fresh carcass). If additional measures are not likely to reduce the risk of additional serious injuries or deaths to a very low level, the Commission recommends that NMFS require the Port to obtain the necessary authorization for such takings before resuming construction activities.

Response:NMFS includes language in Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs) that requires the applicant to immediately report any taking of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization. The applicant is required to postpone activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the take. Furthermore, if the applicant discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, but the cause of such injury or death is not related to the specified activities, the applicant must contact NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery.

Three marine mammal species have known distribution ranges that include the proposed project area: Pacific harbor seal, California sea lion, and Steller sea lion. These species may use the proposed project area as a seasonal transit corridor to and from the Bonneville Dam. Information on these species was provided in the August 19, 2011,Federal Registerdocument (76 FR 51947). Since that notice published, NMFS has proposed to delist the eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions after determining that this distinct population segment has recovered and no longer meets the definition of a threatened species under the ESA (77 FR 23209, April 18, 2012).

Pile driving and removal at the Terminal 5 site may temporarily impact marine mammal behavior within the action area due to elevated in-water noise levels. A detailed description of potential impacts to marine mammals can be found in NMFS' August 19, 2011,Federal Registerdocument (76 FR 51947) and are summarized here.

Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to, (1) social interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance or received levels will depend on the sound source, ambient noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Richardsonet al.,1995). Marine mammal reactions to sound may depend on sound frequency, ambient sound, what the animal is doing, and the animal's distance from the sound source (Southallet al.,2007).

Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for when PTS first occurs in marine mammals; therefore, it must be estimated from when TTS first occurs and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels. PTS is likely if the animal's hearing threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB of TTS. PTS is considered auditory injury (Southallet al.,2007) and occurs in a specific frequency range and amount. Due to proposed mitigation measures and source levels in the proposed project area, NMFS does not expect marine mammals to be exposed to PTS levels.

TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to days, occurs in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can occur to varying degrees (e.g., an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced by 6 dB or by 30 dB). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals. Southallet al.(2007) considers a 6 dB TTS (i.e., baseline thresholds are elevated by 6 dB) sufficient to be recognized as an unequivocal deviation and thus a sufficient definition of TTS-onset. Because it is non-injurious, NMFS considers TTS as Level B harassment that is mediated by physiological effects on the auditory system; however, NMFS does not consider onset TTS to be the lowest level at which Level B harassment may occur. Southallet al.(2007) summarizes underwater pinniped data from Kastaket al.(2005), indicating that a tested harbor seal showed a TTS of around 6 dB when exposed to a non-pulse noise at SPL 152 dB re: 1 μPa for 25 minutes. In contrast, a tested sea lion exhibited TTS-onset at 174 dB re: 1 μPa under the same conditions as the harbor seal. Data from a single study on underwater pulses found no signs of TTS-onset in sea lions at exposures up to 183 dB re: 1 μPa (peak-to-peak) (Finneranet al.,2003).

There are limited data available on the effects of non-pulse noise (for example, vibratory pile driving) on pinnipeds while underwater; however, field and captive studies to date collectively suggest that pinnipeds do not react strongly to exposures between 90 and 140 dB re: 1 microPa; no data exist from exposures at higher levels. Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed wild harbor seal reactions to high-frequency acoustic harassment devices around nine sites. Seals came within 44 m of the active acoustic harassment devices and failed to demonstrate any behavioral response when received SPLs were estimated at 120-130 dB. In a captive study (Kastelein, 2006), scientists subjected a group of seals to non-pulse sounds between 8 and 16 kHz. Exposures between 80 and 107 dB did not induce strong behavioral responses; however, a single observation from 100 to 110 dB indicated an avoidance response. The seals returned to baseline conditions shortly following exposure. Southallet al.(2007) notes contextual differences between these two studies; the captive animals were not reinforced with food for remaining in the noise fields, whereas free-ranging animals may have been more tolerant of exposures because of motivation to return to a safe location or approach enclosures holding prey items. While most of the pile driving at the proposed project site would be vibratory, an impact hammer (pulse noise) may be used to complete installation and to verify the piles' strength. Vibratory and impact pile driving may result in anticipated hydroacoustic levels between 174 and 195 dB root mean square. Southallet al.(2007) reviewed relevant data from studies involving pinnipeds exposed to pulse noise and concluded that exposures to 150 to 180 dB generally have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior.

Vibratory pile driving emits low-frequency broadband noise, which may be detectable by marine mammals within the proposed project area. The average value of 174 dB RMS from a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) monitoring project of vibratory installation of a 48-inch (1,220-mm) steel pipe pile for the Columbia River Crossing test pile project was used in the noise analysis for vibratory and impact pile installation (DEA, 2011). There is a lack of information for the 54-inch (1,372-mm) pile installations. However, available data from WSDOT suggests that noise levels from driving of 60-in (1,524-mm) steel piles (with 10-dB reduction for the use of attenuation for impact pile driving) in the dry will be similar to that for 48-in (1,220-mm) piles installed in the Columbia River for both impact and vibratory methods (WSDOT, 2011).

No impacts to pinniped reproduction are anticipated because there are no known haul-outs or rookeries within the proposed project area. NMFS expects any impacts to marine mammal behavior to be temporary, Level B harassment, for two reasons: First, animals may avoid the area around the hammer, thereby reducing their exposure to elevated sound levels; and second, pile driving will not occur continuously throughout the day; the vibratory hammer will operate for about 2-3 hours per pile and the impact hammer will operate for about 1-2 hours per pile. Pile driving activities will only occur during daylight hours. The applicant anticipates an average of two pilings to be driven per day, resulting in a total of 6-10 hours of pile driving within a 24-hour period. Disturbance to marine mammal behavior may be in the form of temporary avoidance or alteration of transiting near the pile driving location. In addition, because a vibratory hammer will be used as much as possible, and the 190 dB isopleth for the impact hammer is 10 ft (3 m), marine mammal injury or mortality is not likely. Impact pile driving will cease if a marine mammal is observed nearing or within the 190 dB isopleth. For these reasons, NMFS expects any changes to marinemammal behavior to be temporary and result in a negligible impact to affected species and stocks.

A small area of shallow water habitat with silt/sand substrate will be shaded (possibly affecting if/how the area is used by marine mammal prey species) by the proposed structure, but this will be minimized by placing the structure at a height which will allow for some light penetration and by lessening the width of the structure. A deep water area and shallow water area with riprap substrate will also be shaded, but these habitats provide few functions and are plentiful in the surrounding ecosystem. Pile installation and removal will result in some disturbance of the river substrate; however, this disturbance is expected to be local and temporary. Pile driving activities (i.e., temporary ensonification) may impact prey species and marine mammals by resulting in avoidance or abandonment of the area; however these impacts are also expected to be local and temporary. Overall, the proposed activity is not expected to cause significant or long-term impacts on marine mammal habitat.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, consulted with the NMFS Northwest Region on both Essential Fish Habitat and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS Northwest Region believes that the ESA Terms and Conditions are necessary and sufficient to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed actions on designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. There are no subsistence hunting grounds within the action area and since the activity will not result in marine mammal mortality, the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses will not be impacted.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends an in-water work window of November 1 through February 28, annually. This work window was designed to protect fish species, particularly salmonid eggs and fry. However, by limiting pile driving activities to this period of time, the peak sea lion run to and from the Bonneville Dam is also avoided. The Port will install at least 95 of their 100 piles during this in-water work window. The remaining five piles may be installed outside of the in-water work window if they can be installed during low water periods under dry conditions.

To the extent possible, a vibratory hammer will be used to drive all piles. In the event that an impact hammer is necessary, a bubble curtain or similar noise attenuation method will be used as an attenuation device to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels to avoid the potential for injury.

During all in-water impact pile driving, the Port will establish a preliminary marine mammal exclusion zone of 10 ft (3 m) around each pile to avoid exposure to sounds at or above 190 dB. The exclusion zone will be monitored during all impact pile driving to ensure that no marine mammals enter the 10 ft (3 m) radius. The purpose of this area is to prevent Level A harassment (injury) of any marine mammal species. An exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving is unnecessary to prevent Level A harassment as source levels will not exceed the Level A harassment threshold. The exclusion zone will be increased if hydroacoustic monitoring at the beginning of installation shows that the 190 dB isopleth is farther than 10 ft (3 m).

If a protected species observer sees a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone prior to start of impact pile driving, the observer will notify the on-site construction manager (or other authorized individual), who will then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved outside of the exclusion zone or if the animal has not been resighted within 15 minutes. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward the exclusion zone during pile driving, pile driving will cease until that animal has cleared and is on a path away from the exclusion zone or 15 minutes has lapsed since the last sighting.

A “soft-start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. For vibratory pile driving, the soft-start procedure requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40-60 percent reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times before full energy may be achieved. For impact hammering, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. The soft-start procedure will be conducted prior to driving each pile if vibratory hammering ceases for more than 30 minutes.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the above mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures and the Commission's comments, NMFS has determined that the above mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.

The Port must designate at least one biologically-trained, on-site individual, approved in advance by NMFS, to monitor the area for marine mammals20 minutes before, during, and 20 minutes after all impact pile driving activities and call for shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or approaching the designated exclusion zone (preliminarily set at 10 ft [3 m]). In addition, at least two NMFS-approved protected species observers will conduct behavioral monitoring at least 2 days per week to estimate take and evaluate the behavioral impacts pile driving has on marine mammals out to the Level B harassment isopleths. Note that for impact hammering, this distance is about 2,070 ft (631 m). For vibratory hammering, this estimated distance is about 7 mi (11 km); however, sound will dissipate before then (in about 6 mi [9.7 km]) due to the shape and configuration of the river. Protected species observers will be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals (for example, high-quality binoculars, spotting scopes, compass, and range-finder) in order to determine if animals have entered into the exclusion zone or Level B harassment isopleth and to record species, behaviors, and responses to pile driving. In addition to visual monitoring, the Port will conduct hydroacoustic monitoring during impact hammering of the first five piles at the Terminal 5 location. This information will be used to verify the Level A exclusion zone as well as the Level B harassment isopleths.

Protected species observers will be required to submit a report to NMFS within 120 days of expiration of the IHA or completion of pile driving, whichever comes first. The report will include data from marine mammal sightings (such as species, group size, and behavior), any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting. Furthermore, the report will include data from the hydroacoustic monitoring program to help NMFS accurately analyze future pile driving activities.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), the Port shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email toMichael.Payne@noaa.govandMichelle.Magliocca@noaa.govand the Northwest Regional Stranding Coordinator at 206-526-6550 (Brent.Norberg@noaa.gov). The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the Port to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Port may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that the Port discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), the Port will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email toMichael.Payne@noaa.govandMichelle.Magliocca@noaa.govand the Northwest Regional Stranding Coordinator at 206-526-6550 (Brent.Norberg@noaa.gov). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the Port to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that the Port discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the Port will report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email toMichael.Payne@noaa.govandMichelle.Magliocca@noaa.govand the Northwest Regional Stranding Coordinator at 206-526-6550 (Brent.Norberg@noaa.gov), within 24 hours of the discovery. The Port will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

Based on the Port's application and subsequent analysis, the impact of the described pile driving operations may result in, at most, short-term modification of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. Marine mammals may avoid the area or temporarily alter their behavior at time of exposure.

Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise is that in order to avoid the potential for injury (PTS), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB or above, respectively. This level is considered precautionary as it is likely that more intense sounds would be required before injury would actually occur (Southallet al.,2007). Potential for behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving) and 120 dB for non-pulse noise (such as vibratory pile driving), but below the aforementioned thresholds. These levels are also considered precautionary.

Based on empirical measurements taken by WSDOT and Caltrans (which are presented in theDescription of Specified Activitiessection above), estimated distances to NMFS' current threshold sound levels from pile driving during the proposed construction activities are presented in Table 3. Effects from the removal of the 177 wood piles upstream from the main construction site are included in the 6-mi (9.7 km) Level B isopleth (based at Terminal 5) due to the river bend. The 10-ft (3-m) distance to the Level A harassment threshold provides protected species observers plenty oftime and adequate visibility to prevent marine mammals from entering the area during impact pile driving. This will prevent marine mammals from being exposed to sound levels that reach the Level A harassment threshold.

The estimated number of marine mammals that could be harassed is based on the Army Corps of Engineers' evaluation of pinniped predation on fish near the Bonneville Dam in 2010. Based on the 2010 Steller sea lion counts at Bonneville Dam, the Port requested a total take of 50 Steller sea lions. This number was reached based on the estimated 75 individuals that passed through the action area in 2010 during their migration to and from Bonneville Dam, for a total of 150 individual trips through the action area. Since almost all pile installation would occur between November 1 and February 28, the peak of the run in April and May will be avoided. The only piles that may be installed outside of this window would be installed in the dry at low water. Steller sea lion presence at the dam in January and February 2010 represented (conservatively) less than a third of the total run for the year. Therefore, the Port estimated that no more than one-third of the total run of Steller sea lions (approximately 25 individuals) could be exposed to Level B harassment. Since each individual could potentially be exposed on both the upstream and downstream trip, a total of 50 takes of Steller sea lions could occur. Upon further consultation with NMFS Northwest Regional Office, and in consideration of steadily increasing numbers of Steller sea lions since 2008, NMFS is increasing the number of Steller sea lions that could be exposed to Level B harassment. This is based on the fact that abundance estimates increased three-fold between 2009 and 2010, and may continue. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that 2,025 individuals may make the trip to and from the dam during the proposed activity (based on a conservative three-fold increase in 2011, 2012, and again in 2013). Considering the avoidance of the peak run and potential exposure during the upstream and downstream migration, NMFS is authorizing the incidental take by Level B harassment only of 1,350 Steller sea lion exposures (accounting for one-third of the total run—about 675 animals—traveling to and from the dam). In addition, the Port requested take of 60 California sea lions (based on the same analysis that was applied for Steller sea lions) and six harbor seals (the maximum number of harbor seals documented at Bonneville Dam since 2002). These numbers take the proposed mitigation measures into consideration, but are conservative and represent the maximum number of animals expected to occur within the Level B harassment isopleth. The actual number of animals that may be harassed is likely to be significantly less.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.

As described above, marine mammals will not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Pile driving will occur in shallow coastal waters of the Columbia River. The action area (waters around Terminal 5) is not considered significant habitat for pinnipeds. The closest haul-out is 50 mi (80 km) away, which is outside the project area's largest harassment zone. Marine mammals approaching the action area will likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. The amount of take the Port requested for each species, and NMFS is authorizing, is considered small (less than five percent) relative to the estimated populations of 22,380 Pacific harbor seals, 238,000 California sea lions, and 30,403 Steller sea lions. Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by pile driving noise. However, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area, thereby reducing exposure and impacts. Pile driving activities are expected to occur for approximately 101 days. Furthermore, this section of the Columbia River is a highly industrialized area, so animals are likely tolerant or habituated to anthropogenic disturbance, including low level vibratory pile driving operations, and noise from other anthropogenic sources (such as vessels) may mask construction related sounds. There is no anticipated effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals.

Based on the analysis contained in this notice, the proposed IHA document (76 FR 51947, August 19, 2011), and the IHA application, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that pile driving in the project area will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals by Level B harassment only and that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.

The Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed occurrence within the action area. However, on April 18, 2012, NMFS published a proposed rule to delist the eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions (77 FR 23209). A public comment period is open until June 18, 2012. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated Essential Fish Habitat and section 7 consultations with the NMFS Northwest Region. NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for the take of Steller sea lions incidental to the proposed activity. The NMFS Northwest Region concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lionsor result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS released an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Terminal 5 project. NMFS determined that issuance of the IHA will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/.

Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 74 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location which first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

1. July 12, 2012, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 999 W. Cypress Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.

2. August 9, 2012, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 28332 SW Freeway 59, Rosenberg, TX 77471.

3. September 6, 2012, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72E, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander atesander@peoplepc.comor at (386) 852-8588.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-accesspermit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 130 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

1. July 11, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 1102 South Shoreline Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78401.

2. July 18, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.

3. August 22, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886.

4. August 29, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Embassy Suites, 5055 International Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418.

5. September 5, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72E, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

6. September 19, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 3535 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, FL 33762.

To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.

To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain abetter understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal ofthese workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”) (15 U.S.C. 2053(j)) requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws it administers and, to the extent feasible, to select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that before establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission conduct a public hearing and provide anopportunity for the submission of comments.

The Commission is in the process of preparing its fiscal year 2014 Congressional Budget Request. Fiscal year 2014 begins on October 1, 2013. Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to comment on the following questions:

1. What are the priorities the Commission should consider emphasizing and dedicating resources toward in the fiscal year 2014 Congressional Budget Request?

2. What activities should the Commission consider deemphasizing in the fiscal year 2014 Congressional Budget Request?

3. How should the Commission consider measuring its progress toward achieving its priorities in the fiscal year 2014 Congressional Budget Request?

Persons who desire to make oral presentations at the hearing on June 20, 2012, should send an email, call, or write Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:cpsc-os@cpsc.gov,telephone (301) 504-7923, facsimile (301) 504-0127, not later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 13, 2012. Presentations should be limited to approximately 10 minutes.

Persons desiring to make presentations must submit the text of their presentations to the Office of the Secretary not later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 13, 2012. The Commission reserves the right to impose further time limitations on all presentations and further restrictions to avoid duplication of presentations. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on June 20, 2012, and it will conclude the same day.

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b(c)(1), Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the National Intelligence University.

Purpose

This request for information offers States, tribal governments, local entities, community-based and other non-profit organizations, private-sector partners, philanthropic organizations, faith-based organizations, researchers, and other interested individuals and entities the opportunity to provide recommendations on effective approaches for improving outcomes for disconnected youth by working across programs and systems that provide relevant services to them. For the purposes of this RFI, “to improve outcomes for disconnected youth” means to increase the rate at which young people ages 14 to 24 who are homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, or are neither employed nor enrolled in an educational institution achieve success in meeting educational, employment, and other key lifelong development goals.

The public input provided in response to this notice will inform the deliberations of the Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth about determining the best use of the authority requested in the President's FY 2013 budget for the Performance Partnership Pilots.1 If legislation provides this authority, these pilots would create innovative and comprehensive reengagement strategies that encourage additional academic and non-academic supports and support multiple pathways to prepare disconnected youth for college and career success. Responses to the RFI will also inform how the Department of Education (ED), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Labor (DOL) could deploy other resources for disconnected youth that have been requested in the FY 2013 budget. In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are interested in how their programsserving disconnected youth could contribute to Performance Partnership Pilots and other efforts to improve outcomes for this population.

Several reports indicate that there are millions of disconnected young people in the U.S. who are out of school, have not attained a high school diploma, and are out of work.2 The consequences of being disconnected are serious for both the individual and society, as these young people not only fail to meet their personal potential, but also cost the Nation billions of dollars every year in lost earnings, crime/incarceration, and expenditures on social and other services.3

Youth who are living in poverty, low-income households, or foster care, or who are homeless or transitioning back to the community from incarceration, are disproportionately at risk of poor educational achievement, unemployment, or underemployment. Disconnected youth are not a homogenous group. Disconnected youth struggle with a range of barriers to positive education, employment, and other life-goal outcomes including, but not limited to single parenthood, lack of adequate housing, lack of secondary education, lack of job-skills training, physical or mental health challenges, substance abuse, and learning disabilities. Addressing the needs of these disconnected youth is critical to America's economic future.

The Administration's discussions with States and local entities following the February 28, 2011, release of the presidential memorandum on administrative flexibility, lower costs, and better results for State, local, and tribal governments4 suggests these young people might not be receiving the full benefits of the Federal, State, and local community programs, services, and resources available. The Administration's discussions with States and local entities focused on five overarching challenges to the systems serving this population:

• Limited evidence about effective models and strategies that support positive outcomes;

• Lack of knowledge about the evidence that exists;

• A relative lack of attention to this population at the Federal, State, and local levels;

• Lack of coordination in addressing this population's needs; and,

• The need for more comprehensive approaches that meet the multi-faceted needs of this population.

The President's FY 2013 budget proposes a Government-wide authority to establish up to 13 Performance Partnership Pilots to improve outcomes for disconnected youth involving up to $130 million in existing discretionary Federal resources.5 The proposed authority would enable States and local entities to seek Federal approval to blend funds from multiple funding sources and obtain waivers, such as for program design, performance, and other requirements, that enable more effective uses of funding from programs serving disconnected youth. This proposal responds to requests from States and local entities for greater flexibility in managing resources provided by multiple Federal programs.6 The pilot would allow flexibility if communities can demonstrate how they will achieve better results for the high-need disconnected youth population. A State or local community could not propose to achieve its goals by reducing services to youth, particularly those who have multiple barriers to employment and education and are consequently the most difficult to serve.

The FY 2013 budget does not request dedicated funding for Performance Partnership Pilots as they are designed to facilitate flexibility in use of existing program funds. However, outside of the Performance Partnerships authority, the Budget proposes program authority for new approaches to streamlining and improving delivery systems to provide better services to assist disconnected youth, including $5 million at ED, $5 million at HHS, and a $10 million set-aside within the DOL's Workforce Innovation Fund. These funds, if approved by Congress, could potentially be used to enhance and support the State and local community activities undertaken in a Performance Partnership Pilot, such as activities that provide better information and tools to enable communities to direct their resources to strategies that work and to measure and evaluate successful practices.

To further develop ideas on how the Performance Partnerships authority and the FY 2013 funding request for disconnected youth could support innovative approaches that improve service delivery, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), ED, HHS, DOL, DOJ, and HUD have established an Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth to:

• Align evidence standards across Federal agencies and programs;

• Disseminate to policymakers and practitioners tools for measuring and evaluating outcomes for disconnected youth served by multiple systems;

• Share best practices for effectively coordinating multiple systems and programs serving disconnected youth at the Federal, State, and local levels;

• Solicit ideas from a broad array of stakeholders on strategies for improving outcomes for disconnected youth, including on how to facilitate comprehensive, multi-systems approaches and on how to use existing resources more effectively;

• Assess the potential for the development of public-private partnerships through which foundations and other private-sector partners could support promising pilot projects and focus attention on the disconnected youth population; and

• Work with States and local entities to align State and Federal rules and regulations in order to support implementation of the pilot projects and better outcomes for disconnected youth.

The work of the Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth will build on existing work done by the White House Council on Community Solutions7 during 2011 and 2012 in order to identify effective collaborations and support educators and employers in reaching out to disconnected youth. It will also build on the work of the longstanding Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs8 and various related initiatives.

Through this RFI, the Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth and participating Federal agencies are soliciting ideas and information from a broad array of stakeholders on strategies for improving outcomes for disconnected youth, including on how to facilitate comprehensive, multi-system approaches and on how to use existing resources in more coordinated and comprehensive ways. Responses tothis RFI will inform the work of the Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth on the design, logistics, and feasibility of Performance Partnership Pilots.

This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth or participating Federal agencies.

We ask respondents to address the following questions, where possible, in the context of the discussion in this document. You do not need to address every question and should focus on those where you have relevant expertise. You may also address the questions in the context of a detailed pilot proposal outlining how a State, local, or tribal government could use the Performance Partnership authority to implement a comprehensive strategy for achieving better outcomes for disconnected youth.

To the extent possible, please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response.

Key Questions:

1. What programs and strategies at the State or local level have shown great promise or have been proven to improve educational, employment, or other key outcomes for disconnected youth?

2. How can we better align resources and administrative, regulatory, and statutory requirements to allow for more effective use of existing resources serving disconnected youth and stronger partnerships across levels of government and the private and non-profit sectors?

3. What key outcomes or indicators for individuals and communities are most important for measuring both short- and long-term progress for disconnected youth?

Detailed Questions:

1. What Federal, State, and local programs or community collaborative efforts have improved outcomes for disconnected youth? What is the objective evidence of their success (e.g., evidence from rigorous evaluations using, for instance, random assignment and regression discontinuity design)?

2. What program designs have great promise of improving educational, employment, or other key outcomes for disconnected youth? What is the best evidence to support these program designs (e.g., correlational or longitudinal outcomes analyses)?

3. What discrete interventions, strategies, or practices would need to be included in pilot designs or innovative programs to increase the likelihood of their success, particularly untested designs?

4. What are the best ways to involve youth in planning and implementation in order to help ensure that projects will be effective in meeting their needs?

1. Which State, local, non-profit, and business partners have been involved in the successful initiative(s) addressing the needs of disconnected youth that you may have described in response to one or more of the questions in this RFI? Which partners should be involved in the future?

2. What role did or what role could philanthropic organizations play in supporting these types of initiatives you may have described in response to one or more of the questions in this RFI?

3. How were the partnerships involved in those initiatives structured (e.g., governance models, provision of services, shared funding, collaborative professional development)?

4. Which Federal programs should be involved in performance partnership pilots for disconnected youth?

5. What has been your experience with other Federal initiatives that address issues related to disconnected youth by facilitating comprehensive, multi-system approaches and using existing resources in more coordinated and comprehensive ways, such as Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods within the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative?9

6. Do you see an opportunity to use the Pay for Success10 model which is currently being pursued under existing authority by the Departments of Labor and Justice, but which could potentially be expanded to other areas such as programs serving disconnected youth?

1. What are the key outcomes that pilots should measure, and what indicators should be used to track intermediate and long-term success for youth?

2. What existing data collection mechanisms can be harnessed to track indicators, outcomes, and participant characteristics?

3. What are examples of frameworks and protocols for sharing data efficiently across programs while meeting privacy and confidentiality requirements? What should be the specifications for additional frameworks or protocols for effective sharing of information?

4. What are the best examples of communities and programs using data to track progress, inform course corrections, and evaluate program effectiveness?

5. What evaluation designs should be used to demonstrate improved outcomes or improved cost-effectiveness of Performance Partnership Pilots?

6. How do the Federal Government, States, and local entities ensure that the flexibility provided through the pilots does not have any adverse effect on the most vulnerable populations?

1. What are the legislative, regulatory, or other barriers that impede a community's ability to implement the most cost-effective strategies to assist disconnected youth?

2. Are the barriers created at the Federal, State, or local level?

3. Could the barriers be overcome through administrative action?

4. Would overcoming the barriers require changes in Federal or State laws?

1. Which of the following design models would best enable effective pilots at the community level?

• Formula Grant Model: Communities would carve out a portion of funds from multiple formula grants serving youth and use the funds for a coherent, focused strategy to improve outcomes for disconnected youth. The community, the State, and Federal agencies would negotiate an agreement that would include a limited set of key outcomes and performance measures, a streamlined set of reporting requirements, and a strong evaluation strategy.

• Competitive Grant Model: The Federal Government would issue a joint solicitation for grant applications that would pool funds from multiple competitive programs for outcome-focused projects.

• Hybrid Model: The Federal Government would use a joint solicitation for grant applications to fund competitive grants for pilots. Competitive preference would be given to applicants proposing to achieve better results by blending their formula funds to support a more effective service strategy.

2. What is the recommended duration of the performance partnership pilot projects for the model or models you selected as effective?

We ask that each respondent include the name and address of his or her institution or affiliation, and the name, title, mailing and email addresses, and telephone number of a contact person for his or her institution or affiliation, if any.

By submitting material (e.g., descriptions of strategies for improving outcomes for disconnected youth) in response to this RFI, you agree to grant the Administration a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use the material, and to post it. Further, you agree that you own, have a valid license, or are otherwise authorized to provide the material to the Administration.

The Administration will not provide any compensation for material submitted in response to this RFI.

To make the best use of the information submitted in response to this RFI and to make it easier for interested parties to search, the Administration will include specific words or phrases—also known as “keywords” or metadata “tags”—with the material submitted. Therefore, you are strongly encouraged to use keywords or tags to identify components of the strategies described in your responses. The keywords or tags should be linked to, and accurately reflect substantial components of, the strategies, practices, programs, or other activities described in your submission. To simplify searches of the responses, Appendix A of this RFI provides a list of standard keywords and tags. You are encouraged to select from among these standard keywords and tags to the greatest extent possible. In the event that none of the words or phrases in Appendix A is sufficiently precise for the strategy that is the subject of your response, you may substitute other keywords or tags. Please do not provide more than eight keywords or tags for each strategy.

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

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

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

Gulf Coast is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Gulf Coast is owned by Michael Smith, the founder and current Chairman and CEO of Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (97 percent), the Kaily Morgan Smith Irrevocable Trust (1.5 percent), and the Tara Marielle Smith Irrevocable Trust (1.5 percent).

Gulf Coast plans to develop, own and operate a natural gas liquefaction facility and LNG export terminal at the Port of Brownsville, in Brownsville, Texas (Brownsville Terminal). Gulf Coast states that the Brownsville Terminal will include four trains capable of liquefying up to 2.8 Bcf/d of natural gas, a marine berth, full containment LNG storage tanks, a pipeline connection to natural gas transportation lines, and associated utilities.

In the instant Application, Gulf Coast seeks long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced LNG up to the equivalent of 1,022 Bcf of natural gas per year (2.8 Bcf/d), up to a total of 25.55 Tcf, for a period of twenty-five years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. Gulf Coast seeks authorization to export domestically produced LNG to countries from the United States to any country which has or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. In the alternative, Gulf Coast requests authorization for that portion of Gulf Coast's requested authorization quantity or term that DOE/FE determines to be in the public interest.

When submitted in January 2012, the Application did not contain evidence that Gulf Coast had established a business relationship with the Port of Brownsville where the proposed liquefaction facility and LNG export terminal are to be constructed. Absent some credible evidence that an applicant for an LNG export authorization has taken meaningful steps toward establishing the sorts of business relationships essential for performing the services for which authorization is sought from this agency (for example, securing a means of obtaining LNG for export, contracting for capacity at an existing LNG terminal, or initiating the process of securing property to construct such a terminal), DOE/FE will generally consider such an application deficient and, if the deficiency is not corrected in a reasonable time, the application may be dismissed without prejudice to refilling at a later time.See,10 CFR 590.203.

On March 27, 2012, Gulf Coast sent DOE/FE a copy of an option agreement between Gulf Coast and the Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron County, Texas, to demonstrate its commercial relationship with the owner of the property on which the proposed facility would be built. Gulf Coast requested the agreement be afforded confidential treatment and not posted to the public docket. Subsequently, Gulf Coast agreed to allow a redacted version of the option agreement to be placed in the public docket of the proceeding. On May 16, 2012, Gulf Coast submitted the redacted agreement, and DOE/FE deemed the application complete at that time.

Gulf Coast states that rather than entering into long-term natural gas supply or LNG export contracts, it contemplates that its business model will be based primarily on Liquefaction Tolling Agreements (LTAs), under which individual customers who hold title to natural gas will have the right to deliver that gas to Gulf Coast and receive LNG. Gulf Coast states that in the current natural gas market, LTAs fulfill the role previously performed by long-term supply contracts, in that they provide stable commercial arrangements between companies involved in natural gas services.

Gulf Coast requests long-term multi-contract authorization to engage in exports of LNG on its own behalf or as agent for others. Gulf Coast contemplates that the title holder at the point of export1 may be Gulf Coast or one of Gulf Coast's LTA customers, or another party that has purchased LNG from an LTA customer pursuant to a long-term contract. Gulf Coast requests authorization to register each LNG title holder for whom Gulf Coast seeks to export as agent, and proposes that this registration include a written statement by the title holder acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all applicable requirements included by DOE/FE in Gulf Coast's export authorization, and to include those requirements in any subsequent purchase or sale agreement entered into by that title holder. In addition to its registration of any LNG title holder for whom Gulf Coast seeks to export as agent, Gulf Coast states that it will file under seal with DOE/FE any relevant long-term commercial agreements between Gulf Coast and such LNG title holder, including LTAs, once they have been executed.2

Gulf Coast states that the natural gas supply underlying the proposed exports will come from the interconnected and highly liquid domestic market for natural gas. Gulf Coast states that given the size of the traditional natural gas market in Texas, and the exponential growth of unconventional resources in the region, a diverse and reliable source of natural gas will be available to support the requested authorization.Gulf Coast provides further discussion of the gas supply markets in the Application.

In the instant Application, Gulf Coast requests authorization to export to any country which has or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. Gulf Coast states that this may include countries with which the United States has an FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas or LNG, as well as non-FTA countries. Gulf Coast acknowledges that in the review of its Application, DOE/FE will be guided by the individual statutory provisions that apply separately to the export of LNG to FTA and non-FTA countries. In either case, Gulf Coast contends that the requested authorization would not be inconsistent with the public interest and should be granted by DOE/FE.

Gulf Coast asserts that applications submitted to DOE/FE that seek to export LNG to FTA countries should be reviewed pursuant to the public interest standard in Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).3 Gulf Coast maintains that these exports are deemed to be in the public interest and must be granted without modification or delay.

With regard to exports of LNG to non-FTA countries, Gulf Coast states that DOE/FE has consistently ruled that section 3(a) of the NGA creates a rebuttable presumption that proposed exports of natural gas are in the public interest. Gulf Coast asserts that unless opponents of an export license make an affirmative showing based on evidence in the record that the export would be inconsistent with the public interest, DOE/FE must grant the export application.4

Gulf Coast asserts that in evaluating whether the proposed exportation is within the public interest, DOE/FE applies the principles established by the Policy Guidelines,5 which promote free and open trade by minimizing federal control and involvement in energy markets, and DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111, which requires “consideration of the domestic need for the gas to be exported.” Gulf Coast cites DOE/FE Order No. 2961,6 in which DOE/FE stated that its public interest review of applications to export natural gas to countries with which the United States does not have an FTA “has continued to focus on the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported; whether the proposed exports pose a threat to the security of domestic natural gas supplies; and any other issue determined to be appropriate * * *”.

Gulf Coast states that as a result of technological advances, huge reserves of domestic shale gas that were previously infeasible or uneconomic to develop are now being profitably produced in many regions of the United States. Gulf Coast asserts that the United States is now estimated to have more natural gas resources than it can use in a century.7 Gulf Coast also states that large volumes of domestic shale gas reserves and continued low production costs will enable the United States to export LNG while also meeting domestic demand for natural gas for decades to come.

Gulf Coast asserts that as U.S. natural gas reserves and production have risen, U.S. natural gas prices have fallen to the point where they are among the lowest in the developed world. Gulf Coast states that LNG supply contracts in Asian markets are pegged to crude oil prices. Gulf Coast asserts that while Europe receives pipeline gas from various sources, the long supply chains and relative inflexibility of markets have made diversification of supply a high priority. Gulf Coast states that domestic natural gas prices are projected to remain low relative to European and Asian markets well into the future, thereby making exports of LNG by vessel a viable long-term opportunity for the United States.

Gulf Coast states the project is positioned to provide the Gulf Coast region and the United States with significant economic benefits by increasing domestic natural gas production. Gulf Coast states that these benefits will be obtained with only a minimal effect on domestic natural gas prices. Gulf Coast states that at current and forecasted rates of demand, the United States' natural gas reserves will meet demand for 100 years. Gulf Coast states that the project allows the United States to benefit now from the natural gas resources that may not otherwise be produced for many decades, if ever. Gulf Coast provides further discussion on why the proposed export authorization is in the public interest.

First, Gulf Coast contends that the project will cause direct and indirect job creation through construction (3,000 onsite jobs over five to six years) and operation (more than 250 permanent jobs) of the planned project, and indirect jobs as a result of increased drilling for and production of natural gas (34,000 to 42,000 jobs).8

Second, Gulf Coast maintains the project would create significant economic stimulus, with the total economic benefits to the American economy estimated to be between $7.2 and $10.4 billion per year from 2018 to 2043, or $90 to $130 billion over the requested 25-year export term.9

Third, Gulf Coast contends that there will be a material improvement in the U.S. balance of trade. Gulf Coast states that assuming an average value of $7 per million Btu, exporting approximately 2.8 Bcf/d of LNG through the project will improve the U.S. balance of payments by approximately $7.3 billion per year, or $183 billion over the requested 25-year export term.

Fourth, Gulf Coast states that the project will have significant environmental benefits by reducing global greenhouse gas emissions if the natural gas exported is used as a substitute for coal and fuel oil.

Fifth, Gulf Coast states that the project supports American energy security. Gulf Coast maintains that the United States has developed a massive natural gas resource base that is sufficient to supply domestic demand for a century, even with significant exports of LNG. Gulf Coast contends that the project will not adversely affect U.S. energy security. Gulf Coast references a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative, which concludes that “[t]he U.S. should sustain North American energy market integration and support development of a global `liquid' natural gas market with diversity of supply. A corollary is that the U.S. should not erect barriers to gas imports or exports.”10

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1.Submitting CBI.Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2.Tips for preparing your comments.When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,Federal Registerdate and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived atyour estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to:http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:http://www.epa.gov/opt/newchems.

Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in theFederal Registera notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in theFederal Registerperiodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from April 9, 2012 to April 30, 2012, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

Two PMN's, P-12-214 and P-12-215 from a previous date, which were inadvertently omitted, are included in this notice.

In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

OMB Control Number:3060-0297.

Title:Section 80.503, Cooperative Use of Facilities.

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government and State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents:100 respondents; 100 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:16 hours.

Frequency of Response:Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151-155, 301-609 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.

Total Annual Burden:1,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment:N/A.

Needs and Uses:The Commission is seeking OMB approval for an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from them. There are no changes to the recordkeeping requirements. The Commission is reporting no change in their 2009 burden estimates.

The recordkeeping requirements contained in 47 CFR 80.503 of the Commission's rules are necessary to ensure licensees which share private facilities operate within the specified scope of service, on a non-profit basis, and do not function as communicationscommon carriers providing ship-shore pubic correspondence services.

The information is used by FCC personnel during inspection and investigations to insure compliance with applicable rules. If this information was not available, enforcement efforts could be hindered; frequency congestion in certain bands could increase; and the financial viability of some public coast radiotelephone stations could be threatened.

Abstract:As mentioned above in theCurrent Actionssection, the Federal Reserve will not require BHCs to submit legal reserves data as part of the June collection. Instead, the Federal Reserve is re-opening the public comment period for 30 days and requesting comments on collecting these data in one or more of the following ways:

1. Collect the data on an aggregate level rather than on a granular loss event-level (for example, the number of loss events and the average estimated reserve amount for these events);

2. Collect data on legal reserves in an anonymous fashion such that neither the identity of the BHC or the loss event would be known; and

3. Collect the data in a way such that BHCs would submit a combination of actual and randomized data,2 so as not to reveal how any particular data item would or could tie back to an actual loss event for a particular BHC.

In addition, the Federal Reserve also is requesting comment on other methods that would allow the Federal Reserve to measure, understand, and analyze these types of legal risk without requiring a BHC to submit data on specific legal reserves.

The collection of these data or any new reporting requirements related to these data would take effect no sooner than the September 30, 2012, report date.

Additional comments are also invited on:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection request.

Background

The Patient Safety Act, Public Law 109-41, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21—b-26, provides for the formation of PSOs, which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. The Patient Safety Rule, 42 CFR part 3, authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs. Accordingly, The American Cancer Biorepository, Inc. d/b/a American Collaborative Biorepository or “ACB”, PSO number P0036, was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on April 21, 2012.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site athttp://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

These workgroups are being formed as part of a structured approach for converting theexisting QI specifications from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS, incorporating coding expertise, clinical expertise, and health services research/quality measurement expertise. The workgroups will evaluate the results of automated “code mapping” from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS, providing input and advice regarding similarities and differences between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS codes that are mapped to each other. This workgroup process will lead to recommendations regarding how the existing AHRQ QIs should be re-specified using ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, retaining the original clinical intent of each indicator while taking advantage of the greater specificity of ICD-10-CM/PCS to improve the indicator's validity. Workgroup participation will be uncompensated.

For additional information about the AHRQ QIs, please visit the AHRQ Web site athttp://www.QUALITYindicators.AHRQ.gov.

Specifically, each Workgroup on ICD-10-CM/PCS Conversion of Quality Indicators will consist of:

• At least three individuals with relevant clinical expertise (e.g., cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, orthopedic and musculoskeletal disease, obstetrics and gynecologic disease, surgery, critical care and pulmonary disease, diabetes and endocrine disease, infectious disease, neonatology and pediatric disease, miscellaneous) and at least two individuals with relevant coding expertise.

• One or more individuals with field experience using AHRQ QI measures for assessing hospital performance.

• One or more individuals with expertise in validating ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM/PCS codes using chart abstraction (to assess criterion validity), or otherwise assessing their accuracy and usefulness in identifying individuals with specific adverse outcomes.

• One or more individuals with experience using data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project or similar data for the purpose of calculating AHRQ QIs.

To be considered for membership on a QI ICD-10-CM/PCS Conversion Workgroup, please send the following information for each nominee:

1. A brief nomination letter highlighting experience and knowledge relevant to the development, refinement, or testing of quality measures based on ICD9-CM and/or ICD-10-CM/PCS coded data, and demonstrating familiarity with the AHRQ QIs and health care administrative data. (See selection criteria below.) The nominee's clinical or coding profession and specialty, and the spectrum of his or her clinical or coding expertise, should be described. Please include full contact information of nominee: name, title, organization, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address.

2. Curriculum vita (with citations to any pertinent publications related to quality measure specification, ICD-9-CM, or ICD-10-CM/PCS).

3. Description of any financial interest, recent conduct, or current or planned commercial, non-commercial, institutional, intellectual, public service, or other activities pertinent to the potential scope of the workgroups, which could be perceived as influencing the workgroup's process or recommendations. The objective is not to prevent nominees with potential conflicts of interest from serving on the panels, but to obtain such information so as to best inform the selection of workgroup members, and to help minimize such conflicts.

Nominees should have technical expertise in health care quality measure development, refinement, or application, and familiarity with the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS code sets (especially insofar as they are used to specify quality measures).

More specifically, each candidate will be evaluated using the following criteria:

• Knowledge of health care quality measurement using administrative data in specific, relevant clinical domains (e.g., cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, orthopedic and musculoskeletal disease, obstetrics and gynecologic disease, surgery, critical care and pulmonary disease, diabetes and endocrine disease, infectious disease, neonatology and pediatric disease, miscellaneous);

• Peer-reviewed publications relevant to developing, refining, testing, or applying health care quality measures based on ICD-coded administrative data;

• Other experience developing, refining, testing, or applying health care quality measures based on ICD-coded administrative data;

• Expertise in ICD-9-CM and/or ICD-10-CM/PCS coding;

• Expertise in hospital quality improvement, patient safety, and/or clinical documentation improvement;

• Familiarity with the AHRQ Quality Indicators and their application; and,

• Availability to participate in conference calls and provide written comments starting from late July through October 2012.

In an effort to solicit expert input and recommendations on conversion of the AHRQ QIs from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS, we are initiating a technical review process that will require participation in approximately three to five conference calls with some pre and post evaluation time (estimated at 13 hours). Results from this process will influence the conversion of the AHRQ QI from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS. Beginning in late July through October, selected nominees will be asked to participate in the following activities:

1. Review the current ICD-9-CM specifications of AHRQ QIs within the workgroup's clinical domain (e.g., cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, orthopedic and musculoskeletal disease, obstetrics and gynecologic disease, surgery, critical care and pulmonary disease, diabetes and endocrine disease, infectious disease, neonatology and pediatric disease, miscellaneous), along with background documents justifying or explaining those specifications (about 1.5 hours).

2. Participate in teleconference to explain the workgroup activities and processes, and to discuss current QI specifications and their justification (1.0 hours).

3. Review proposed mapping of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS codes and identify relevant questions and concerns (about 3 hours).

4. Participate in teleconference to discuss the proposed mappings, including relevant questions and concerns (1.5 hours).

5. Following a structured process (e.g., modified Delphi), provide specific input to support or modify the proposed mappings (about 2.5 hours).

6. Participate in teleconference to discuss areas of disagreement among workgroup members, and to achieve consensus when possible (1.5 hours).

7. Following a structured process (e.g., modified Delphi), provide specific input to support or modify the proposed mappings, incorporating changes accepted in previous steps (about 1.0 hour).

8. Participate in final (optional) teleconference to review final recommendations and discuss contextual issues (1.0 hour).

Please note that should additional conference calls be necessary, workgroup members are expected to make every effort to participate. The workgroups will conduct business bytelephone, email, or other electronic means as needed.

The AHRQ Quality Indicators (AHRQ QIs) are a unique set of measures of health care quality that make use of readily available hospital inpatient administrative data. The QIs have been used for various purposes. Some of these include tracking, hospital self-assessment, reporting of hospital-specific quality or pay for performance. The AHRQ QIs are provider- and area-level quality indicators and currently consist of four modules: the Prevention Quality Indicators (PQI), the Inpatient Quality Indicators, the Patient Safety Indicators (PSI), and the Pediatric Quality Indicators (PedQIs). AHRQ is committed to converting the QIs from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS in an accurate and transparent manner, taking advantage of the additional specificity of ICD-10-CM/PCS to improve the validity and usefulness of the QIs, from October 2014 onward.

The purpose of the Choice research grants program is to fund research related to Choice Neighborhoods that complements other Choice Neighborhoods research being pursued by HUD. On January 19, 2012, HUD published the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) announcing $500,000 in funds available for the Choice research grants program. On February 22, 2012, HUD published a technical correction to the NOFA, to provide additional details about otherHUD-funded research on Choice Neighborhoods. Applications were due on March 27, 2012. The Department reviewed, evaluated, and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the NOFA. As a result, and in accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the HUD Reform Act of 1989, HUD has funded the applications announced below.

1. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). Address: 1115 Washington Street SE., Olympia, WA 98504-5204. Principal Investigator: Martha Galvez. Grant: $198,027.

2. Portland State University (PSU). Address: PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751. Principal Investigator: Matthew Gebhardt. Grant: $76,948.

3. University of California—Berkeley (UC). Address: 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300, Berkeley, CA 94794-5940. Co-Principal Investigators: Karen Chapple, Jason Corburn, and Malo Hutson. Grant: $131,148.

4. International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Address: 777 North Capitol Street NE., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002-4201. Principal Investigator: Ron Carlee. Grant: $93,877.

The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement ofUnited States of Americav.State of Alaska,Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include discussions and recommendations on the Trustee Council's Fiscal Year 2013 annual budget and work plan.

The Committee conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of FACA. It reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and functions solely as an advisory body. The Committee provides recommendations and advice to the Department and the FGDC on policy and management issues related to the effective operation of Federal geospatial programs.

The NGAC includes up to 30 members, selected to generally achieve a balanced representation of the viewpoints of the various partners involved in national geospatial activities. NGAC members are appointed for staggered terms, and approximately 10 positions on the committee will be appointed during this round of appointments. Nominations will be reviewed by the FGDC and additional information may be requested from nominees. Final selection and appointment of committee members will be made by the Secretary of the Interior. Individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils.

The Committee meets approximately 3-4 times per year. Committee members will serve without compensation, but travel and per diem costs will be provided by USGS. The USGS will also provide necessary support services to the Committee. Committee meetings are open to the public. Notice of committee meetings are published in theFederal Registerat least 15 days before the dateof the meeting. The public will have an opportunity to provide input at these meetings.

This survey was executed at the request of the Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Region, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and was necessary to determine individual and tribal trust lands.

The lands we surveyed are:

This survey was executed at the request of the Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, and was necessary to determine Federal Leasable Mineral Lands.

The lands we surveyed are:

This survey was executed at the request of the Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Region, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and was necessary to determine individual and tribal trust lands.

The lands we surveyed are:

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the TVA and in the custody of the McClung Museum that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B).

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

In the summer of 1965, 1 lot of unassociated funerary objects were removed from burial unit 8 at the Westmoreland-Barber site, 40MI11, in Marion County, TN. The Westmoreland-Barber site is located at river mile 429 on the Tennessee River. Archeological excavations at Westmoreland-Barber were stimulated by the TVA's construction of the Nickajack Dam and the impending inundation of the resulting reservoir. In August 1964, the University of Tennessee (UT) under the direction of J.B. Graham and under contract with the National Park Service (NPS), excavated sites located within the confines of the proposed Nickajack Reservoir, including site 40MI11. A second season of excavations by UT took place from June 29 to August 18, 1965, at the Westmoreland-Barber site, under a contract with the NPS. The excavation of burial units 5 through 17 took place after the TVA completed the process of purchasing the land tracts where the burial units are located.

One historic burial, burial unit 8, was excavated during the second season. Although disturbed by agricultural plowing, UT archaeologists concluded at the time that the individual in the burial was laid to rest around 1775 and the remains were likely associated with the historically known 18th century Cherokee Lower Town occupation in this area. The human remains from burial unit 8 are no longer present in the McClung Museum. As these remains are no longer in the possession of the TVAor the McClung Museum, the funerary objects from burial unit 8 are now considered unassociated. These objects include 1 string of glass beads (approximately 329 beads), 1 string of tubular shell beads (approximately 39 beads), approximately 5 silver rings or spirals, approximately 6 silver cones or tinklers, 1 shell spoon, 40 ceramic sherds, 1 chert scraper, 5 utilized chert flakes, and 12 unutilized chert flakes.

Officials of the TVA and McClung Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), 1 lot of cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects above and the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; and the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The TVA is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the TVA and in the custody of the McClung Museum that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

On June 21, 1937 unassociated funerary objects were removed by archeologist from the University of Tennessee's Division of Anthropology on Hiwassee Island, site 40MG031, from burial unit 063MG001. No human remains were recovered from this burial unit. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 lot of approximately 150 glass trade beads, which were found in this badly disturbed burial unit. The TVA and the McClung Museum do not have control or possession of any human remains from this burial unit. Since excavation, the unassociated funerary objects have been curated at the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee.

Hiwassee Island is located seven miles south of the town of Dayton, TN, and is approximately 29 miles upstream of the TVA's Chickamauga Dam. The archeologists were working under a “Permit for Archeological Exploration” between the landowner and the TVA, and the excavations were undertaken in connection with the TVA's construction of Chickamauga Dam and Reservoir. Details regarding the excavations and analysis can be found inHiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples,by Thomas M.N. Lewis and Madeline Kneberg, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

Officials of the TVA and McClung Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 1 lot of cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects above and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865-632-7458), before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The TVA is responsible for notifying the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the TVA and in the custody of the McClung Museum, Knoxville, TN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Hiwassee Island site in Meigs County, TN.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the TVA and McClung Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

Between April 23, 1937 and January 5, 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 37 individuals were removed by archeologist from the University of Tennessee's Division of Anthropology on Hiwassee Island, site 40MG31. Hiwassee Island is located seven miles south of the town of Dayton, TN, and is approximately 29 miles upstream of the TVA's Chickamauga Dam. The archeologists were working under a “Permit for Archeological Exploration” between the landowner and the TVA, and the excavations were undertaken in connection with the TVA's construction of Chickamauga Dam and Reservoir. Details regarding the excavations and analysis can be found inHiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples,by Thomas M.N. Lewis and Madeline Kneberg, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

Since excavation, the human remains and associated funerary objects from site 40MG31 have been curated at the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee. The human remains were removed from 32 burial units which date to the historic period. Other burial units were excavated at the site but are not included in this notice. No known individuals were identified. The 1 lot of associated funerary objects includes approximately 2,524 beads, 4 bells, approximately 17 clasps, 4 cones, 1 brass spoon, 1 iron snuff box, 3 worked shells, 1 shell gorget, 1 shell hairpin, 1 ceramic pot, iron wire, 1 lead shot, approximately 2 discoidals, copper wire, and 2 copper ornaments.

Officials of the TVA and McClung Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 37 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the approximately 2,564 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458 before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The TVA is responsible for notifying the of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis. The human remains were removed from Lassen County, CA.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pit River Tribe, California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Redding Rancheria, California; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.

In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Bare Cave (site CA-LAS-989), in Lassen County, CA, by the University of California, Davis, archeological field school. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis have determined that:

• Based on archeological context, the human remains are Native American.

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

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

• Other credible lines of evidence indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

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

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

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Lisa Deitz, Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis, 330 Young Hall, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, telephone (530) 752-8280, before July 5, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis is responsible for notifying the Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pit River Tribe, California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Redding Rancheria, California; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum. The human remains were removed from unknown sites in the state of Maine.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from unknown sites in the state of Maine. The remains were a part of a collection loan to the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, by the former Portland Society of Natural History and subsequently donated to the University of Maine, Hudson Museum by the Maine Audubon Society. The human remains are identified at the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, as numbers 12 and 13. Number 12 is a mandible from a female, age 18-40, and number 13 is a mandible from a male, age 18-40. Number 13 is consistent with archaeological remains, while number 12 is not likely from an archaeological context. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

All human remains in the possession of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, were reviewed by forensic anthropologist Marcella Sorg, Ph.D., D-ABFA on July 16, 2002, who was assisted by former Hudson Museum Director Stephen Whittington, Lisa Hunter, and Kentra Gleuck. The resulting report indicates the minimum number of individuals, age, sex, ancestry, and provenience if available. The human remains represented by #12 and #13 were determined to be of Native American ancestry and have provenience to the ancestral territories of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

Officials of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Gretchen Faulkner, Director, University of Maine, Hudson Museum, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5746, telephone (207) 581-1904, before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The University of Maine, Hudson Museum is responsible for notifying the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Museum of the Plains Indian. The human remains were removed from an unknown location.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board's professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana; Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho; Crow Tribe of Montana; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Washington; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho (previously listed as Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho); Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location and through testing, were determined to be the remains of Native American ancestry. The human remains, a scalp lock attached to a lance, were likely acquired from Mrs. Madge Hardin Walters of San Diego, CA, by Mr. Earl Horter of Philadelphia, PA, and subsequently sold to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by Ms. Elizabeth Lentz Horter. The Bureau of Indian Affairs purchased these items in 1941 for its Museum of the Plains Indian. The Museum of the Plains Indian was transferred to the Indian Arts and Crafts Board in 1965. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board have determined that:

• Based on the results of laboratory testing, the human remains are consistent with Native American origin.

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

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

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact David Dragonfly, Museum of the Plains Indian, P.O. Box 410, Browning, MT 59417, telephone (406) 338-2230, before July 5, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, U.S. Marine Corps, San Diego County, CA. The human remains were removed from the construction site of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) on MCB CampPendleton, San Diego County, California.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by MCB Camp Pendleton Environmental Security Cultural Resources Branch professional staff in consultation with representatives of the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California (formerly the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation); Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, California; Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California; Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California; Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation, California; and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”). Consultation was also conducted with representatives of non-Federally recognized Indian groups including the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.

In the late 1960s or early 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a burial site by a Bechtel engineer, Mr. Brock, during the construction of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) at MCB Camp Pendleton. Bechtel relocated the human remains at the time of discovery, but they were subsequently removed by Mr. Brock during an engineering survey. Mr. Brock took the remains to his home, and after his death, his wife engaged a neighbor to return the remains to a local tribe. The neighbor contacted the Native American Heritage Commission who subsequently contacted Mr. David Belardes of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. Mr. Belardes turned over the remains to the MCB Camp Pendleton Cultural Resources Branch for proper disposition. On August 29, 2007, MCB Camp Pendleton took possession of the human remains. The remains include the cranium of a Native American male, age 18-25 years old, three cranial fragments, two mandible fragments, one pelvic fragment, one humerus fragment, and one femur fragment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Based on the geographical location reported by Mr. Belardes and an examination of the remains during inventory these individuals have been identified as Native American. Consultation evidence presented by representatives of the Luiseno tribes identified adjacent sites in the northern coastal region of MCB Camp Pendleton as pre-contact gathering, occupation, and burial areas. Ethnographic sources and present archeological theory place the Luiseno tribes within this geographic area of San Diego County from about 2000 B.P. to the present-day. The geographical location within ethnographically recorded Luiseno tribal territory as well as the late time period archeologically associated with the Luiseno strongly affiliated the human remains with the Luiseno tribes.

Officials of the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes it may be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Danielle Page, Cultural Resources Branch Head and Base Archaeologist, AC/S Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base, Box 555008, Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5008, telephone (760) 725-9738, before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains to the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California, on behalf of The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the University of Alabama Museums. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the eight sites in Talladega, St. Clair, Cherokee, and Etowah counties in Alabama.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Alabama Museums professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

In September 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (HRID 4473) were removed from the Williams site (1Ta200), in Talladega County, AL. The remains were exposed by a landowner bulldozing a road through a cotton field. University of Alabama professional staff removed the remains, which have since been curated at the University of Alabama Museums. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were documented as being present.

The mortuary practices exhibited by this burial are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the McKee Island and Childersburg series. The remains date to the 18th century and are associated historically with the Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns. No artifacts of European manufacture were observed.

In 1948, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from the Childersburg site, (1Ta1), in Talladega County, AL. These remains include skeletons 1-12 (HRID 3636-3647) as well as other human remains from the excavation of Unit 2 (HRID 4468). The Childersburg site was excavated by the Alabama Museum of Natural History to test the assertion by the United States De Soto Commission that this was the town of Coosa visited by De Soto. The remains and associated funerary objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The 58 associated funerary objects documented are 4 brass buckles/keepers, 1 lot of over 70 brass buttons, 1 lot of over 44 brass cones, 1 brass cylinder, 1 brass ring, 3 brass wire bracelets, 7 unidentified brass fragments, 1 copper and wood earring, 1 lot of more than 2,032 glass beads, 1 lot of more than 17 shell beads, 1 unidentified bead, 1 gun lock, 1 gun butt plate, 1 gun stock, 2 gun barrels, 1 brass ramrod support, 8 musket balls, 2 iron buckles, 1 iron handle, 1 iron hasp, 2 iron knife blades, 2 iron nails, 1 silver wire ring, 2 trade pipes, 1 lot of wood fragments with red paint, 1 aboriginal ceramic pipe, 1 pottery vessel fragment, 1 quartz crystal, 1 projectile point, 1 chipped scraper, 1 animal scapula hoe, 1 unmodified animal tooth, 1 unmodified deer scapula, 1 lot of charred nutshells, and 1 lot of unmodified quartz pebbles. The objects are fragmentary or lack complete data in the records. Some objects that appear in the inventory have not been found in the collections. These objects are 1 brass button, 1 brass cylinder, 3 unidentified brass fragments, 1 unidentified bead, 2 glass beads, 1 gun flint, 1 iron knife blade, 1 iron nail, 1 musket ball, 1 projectile point, 1 animal scapula hoe, 1 unmodified animal tooth, 1 unmodified deer scapula, 1 lot of charred nut shells, and 1 lot of unmodified quartz pebbles could not be located in the collections. Of the total collection, 40 associated funerary objects have been located and are available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at Childersburg are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the McKee Island and Childersburg series. This human remains and associated funerary objects date to the 18th century and are associated historically with the Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns. The associated European goods are consistent with this date.

In 1962, human remains representing, at minimum, 18 individuals were removed from the Woods Island site (1Sc40), in St. Clair County, AL. These remains include Burials 1-5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 24, 25, 33, 39-41, 44, and 46 (HRID 3649-3659, 3662, 3664, and 3667-3671). The Woods Island site was excavated by the University of Alabama under contract with Alabama Power Company during the construction of Lock 3 Reservoir, now H. Neeley Henry Lake. The site was encountered by construction crews during clearing for construction of Lock 3 Dam, which would be positioned across the island. The remains and associated funerary objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The 101 associated funerary objects documented include 1 lot of brass arm bands, 1 lot of brass beads, 19 brass bells, 1 lot of more than 40 brass bracelets, 1 lot of brass collars, 1 lot of about 27 brass cones, 3 brass disks, 1 brass spoon, 1 brass sword hilt and handle, 1 brass wrist band, 5 fragments of sheet brass, 1 chert abrader, 8 chert bifaces, 1 chert flake, 2 chert hammerstones, 15 chert projectile points, 1 chert scraper, 1 fragment of fabric with brass beads, 1 lot of about 26,000 glass beads, 1 glass biface, 1 unidentified gorget, 1 ground hematite, 7 gun flints, 1 iron axe, 1 iron buckle, 2 iron harpoons, 2 iron hoes, 6 iron knives, 3 iron nails, 1 iron pin, 2 iron scissors, 1 lead bead, 1 lot of ochre, 1 lot of pottery vessels, 1 quartzite anvilstone, 1 lot of silver buttons, 2 steatite pipes, and 1 trade pipe. The objects are fragmentary or lack complete data in the records. Some objects that appear in the inventory have not beenfound in the collections. These objects are 1 brass bell, 2 brass bracelets, 1 iron buckle, 1 iron hoe, 1 iron nail, 1 iron pin, 1 lot of ocher, and 1 unidentified gorget. Of the total collection, 92 associated funerary objects have been located and are available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at Woods Island are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the McKee Island series. The Woods Island ceramic assemblage dates to the period of the late 17th to the early 18th century. This site is considered to be directly related to the Childersburg series, which is associated historically with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns. The associated European goods are consistent with this date.

In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from the Bradford Ferry site, (1Ce73), in Cherokee County, AL. The remains were removed from nine known burials and three other locations (HRID 4453-4462, 4495-4496). The site was excavated by the University of Alabama under contract with the Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. The excavations were conducted in conjunction with the creation of Weiss Lake, which would inundate the site. The remains and associated objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The 15 associated funerary objects documented as having been removed from the nine burials are 1 boat stone, 3 brass disks, 1 brass ear plug, 1 lot of brass and glass beads, 1 lot of glass beads, 2 iron objects (possible knife blade and breach plate), 2 chert projectile points, 1 lot of chert projectile points, 1 charred wooden object, 1 lot of pottery sherds, and 1 lot of ocher. One object that appears in the inventory has not been found in the collections. The object is the lot of chert projectile points. Of the total collection, 14 associated funerary objects have been located and are available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at the Bradford Ferry site are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the Weiss-area McKee Island series. The Bradford Ferry site ceramic assemblage is dated to the early 17th century. The associated European goods are consistent with this date. This site is considered to be directly ancestral to Childersburg, which is historically associated with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns.

In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals (HRID 4463, 4493-4494, 4555-4556, 4559) were removed from the Seven Springs site, (1Ce101), in Cherokee County, AL. The site was excavated by the University of Alabama under contract with the Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. The excavations were conducted in conjunction with the creation of Weiss Lake, which would inundate the site. The remains and associated objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The 11 associated funerary objects documented are 1 stone bead, 1 stone projectile point, 1 unidentified projectile point, 6 pottery sherds, 1 bone awl, and 1 turtle shell. Some objects that appear in the inventory have not been found in the collections. These objects are the stone bead and unidentified projectile point. Of the total collection, nine associated funerary objects have been located and are available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at the Seven Springs site are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the Weiss-area McKee Island series. The Seven Springs site ceramic assemblage dates to the early 17th century. The European goods found elsewhere on the site are consistent with this date. This site is considered to be directly related to the Childersburg series, which is historically associated with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns.

In 1947, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals (HRID 3806-3809, 4805) were removed from the Milner site, (1Et1), in Etowah County, AL. In the spring of 1947, Mr. L. O. Milner of the Huff Sand and Coal Company reported that burials were being uncovered by heavy equipment. Personnel from the University of Alabama visited the site for two days in May and two days in August. During that time, four sets of remains were excavated. Mr. Milner provided a box of mixed remains and artifacts recovered by the steam shovel. Analysis of Mr. Milner's data and the excavations indicated that the human remains represent a minimum of five individuals. Many of the objects were subsequently returned to Mr. Milner and are in the possession of his heirs. The human remains and associated funerary objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The 67 associated funerary objects documented are 1 lot of glass beads, 2 brass arm bands, 8 brass bells with textile fragments attached, 1 brass collar, 4 brass cones, 1 iron ax, 1 iron knife, 2 iron pins, 3 stone pipes, 1 hammerstone, 1 abrading stone, 22 chert chunks, 3 chert flakes, 14 chert projectile points, 1 lump of galena, 1 occurrence of ocher, and 1 pebble. There are no clear records of which associated funerary objects were returned to Mr. Milner or retained by the University. Some objects that appear in the inventory have not been found in the collections. These objects are 1 lot of glass beads, 2 brass arm bands, 6 brass bells with textile fragments attached, 1 brass collar, 4 brass cones, 1 iron knife, 2 iron pins, 3 stone pipes, 1 hammerstone, 1 abrading stone, 22 chert chunks, 3 chert flakes, 14 chert projectile points, 1 lump of galena, 1 occurrence of ocher, and 1 pebble. Of the total collection, four associated funerary objects have been located and are available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at the Milner site are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the McKee Island series. The Milner site ceramic assemblage dates to the mid 17th century. The associated European goods are consistent with this date. This site is considered to be directly related to the Childersburg series, which is historically associated with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns.

In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (HRID 4469 and 4547) were removed from the Hurley site, (1Ce137), in Cherokee County, AL. The site was excavated by the University of Florida in conjunction with the University of Alabama excavations under contract with the Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. The excavations were conducted in conjunction with the creation of Weiss Lake, which would inundate the site. The remains and associated objects were apparently taken to the University of Florida for a period of time but they were returned to the University of Alabama, probably in the 1960s. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects documented are 1 charred bark and 1 ocher. One object that appears in the inventory has not been found in the collections. The object is the ocher. Of the total collection, one associated funerary object has been located and is available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at the Hurley site are consistent with known aboriginal practices. No temporally diagnostic artifacts were found with the remains, but the main reported components at the site areArchaic and Protohistoric. These remains are presumed to be Protohistoric. Archeologists have associated the Hurley site with the other Weiss area historic sites. Occupation of these sites date to the early 17th century and are considered to be directly related to the Childersburg series, which is historically associated with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns.

In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (HRID 4549-4550) were removed from the Gilmore Spring site, (1Ce173), in Cherokee County, AL. The site was excavated by the University of Alabama under contract with the Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL. The excavations were conducted in conjunction with the creation of Weiss Lake, which would inundate the site. The remains and associated objects have been curated at the University of Alabama since excavation. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object documented is 1 lot of undecorated shell tempered pottery sherds, described in the field notes as a “broken pot” which has been located and is available for repatriation.

The mortuary practices exhibited at the Gilmore Spring site are consistent with known aboriginal practices. Pottery sherds from the site are attributable to the Weiss-area McKee Island series. The Gilmore Spring site ceramic assemblage dates to the early 17th century. This site is considered to be directly related to the Childersburg series, which is historically associated with the 18th century Coosa-Abhika division of Creek towns.

Officials of the University of Alabama Museums have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 59 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 161 objects described above that are accounted for in the collections are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations); and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Robert Clouse, Executive Director, University of Alabama Museums, Box 870340, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, telephone (205) 348-7552, before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The University of Alabama Museums is responsible for notifying The Tribes and the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum. The human remains were removed from unknown sites in the state of Maine.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from unknown sites in the state of Maine. The remains were a part of a collection loan to the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, by the former Portland Society of Natural History and subsequently donated to the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, by the Maine Audubon Society. The human remains are identified at the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, as numbers 2, 11, and 16. Accession number AMUa2639 (#2) has provenience to the Portland Alms House which dates from A.D. 1803 to 1904. Accession number HM 5097 (#11) is from an unknown archaeological site. Number 16 is a cranium with no accession number and unknown provenience. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

All human remains in the possession of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, were reviewed by forensic anthropologist Marcella Sorg, Ph.D., D-ABFA on July 16, 2002, who was assisted by former Hudson Museum Director Stephen Whittington, Lisa Hunter, and Kentra Gleuck. The resulting report indicates the minimum number of individuals, age, sex, ancestry, and provenience if available. The human remains represented by #2, #11, and #16 were determined to be of Native American ancestry and have provenience to the ancestral territories of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

Officials of the University of Maine, Hudson Museum, have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Gretchen Faulkner, Director, University of Maine, Hudson Museum, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469-5746, telephone (207) 581-1904, before July 5, 2012. Repatriation of the human remains to the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The University of Maine, Hudson Museum, is responsible for notifying the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Indians of Maine, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and the Penobscot Tribe of Maine that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis. The human remains were removed from Lassen County, CA.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Indiansof the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pit River Tribe, California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Redding Rancheria, California; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.

In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in Lassen County, CA. To determine if the remains were related to a modern crime scene, the Police Department at the University of California at Davis brought the remains to the Department of Anthropology for analysis. Osteological analysis indicated that the remains exhibited Native American characteristics, and that they were at least 200 years old. The remains were subsequently donated to the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis, that same year. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis have determined that:

• Based on physical characteristics, the human remains are Native American.

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

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pit River Tribe, California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

• Other lines of evidence indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

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

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

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Lisa Deitz, Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis, 330 Young Hall, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, telephone (530) 752-8280, before July 5, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Department of Anthropology Museum at the University of California, Davis is responsible for notifying the Alturas Indian Rancheria, California; Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Bridgeport Indian Colony of California; Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pit River Tribe, California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Redding Rancheria, California; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, and in the possession of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anasazi Heritage Center.

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

In accordance with procedures detailed in a signed Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Memorandum of Understanding between these tribes and Federal land management agencies within the San Luis Valley, CO, initial letters were sent to the following tribes requesting their attendance at a planned consultation meeting sponsored by the Rio Grande National Forest to be held on April 5, 2011. Tribes initially contacted by letter included: the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (formerly the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

The Rio Grande National Forest professional staff, prior to this initial contact and consultation, made an assessment of the subject human remains with assistance from analyses by Colorado College Department of Anthropology, Colorado Springs, CO. Additional assessment was made in a consultation meeting held with the following tribes in Delores, CO, on April 5, 2011: The Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.

The consulting tribes were provided reports at this meeting giving detailed descriptions of the human remains, their discovery and condition, as well as the agency offices in possession and custody of the remains. All representatives of the tribes present requested that the Forest Service follow the procedures for repatriation outlined in the interagency/intertribal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) mentioned above. This MOU was signed by governmental officials from all of the above listed tribes, and the Bureau of Land Management (San Luis Public Lands Center), National Park Service (Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alamosa/Monte Vista and Baca National Wildlife Refuges), and the U.S. Forest Service (Rio Grande National Forest). The consultation meeting resulted in a consensus that the human remains listed in this notice maintain their status as culturally unidentifiable, and they be repatriated to the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.

Between 1950 and 2000, human remains were removed from various locations on U.S. Forest Service lands in southern Colorado and subsequently stored at the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anasazi Heritage Center, in southern Colorado. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were excavated from Cotton Creek, in Saguache County, CO. The remains are a cranial calotte consisting of the cranial vault but missing the facial skeleton and cranial base (catalogue # 5SH1047-01). Additional remains associated with this burial are seven human bone fragments, including: A right temporal bone fragment (5SH1047-02); a right temporal bone fragment containing the middle and inner ear (5SH1047-03); a left temporal bone fragment, petrous portion (5SH1047-04); a sphenoid fragment (5SH1047-05); a right temporal fragment (5SH1047-06) (fits with 5SH1047-02); a possible anterior wall of an external auditory meatus (5SH1047-07); and one unidentified bone fragment (5SH1047-08). Cotton Creek drains the high peak areas of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and flows into the San Luis Valley, and the remains were found eroding out of a bank between a road and a beaver pond in the Saguache Ranger District, on lands of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest. The remains were found by a member of a Student Conservation Corps work crew in the beaver pond near a foot trail and were removed by the Saguache Country Sheriff soon after discovery. The remains likely date to the late prehistoric or early historic period. At the time of discovery, the remains were tentatively classified as Native American due to the complex cranial suture patterns and the slight sagittal keeling of the vault.

On March 5, 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (catalogue # LB-90-01) werepart of a private donation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest. The remains were in the possession of a private collector 20 years prior to the donation. The original site of discovery is unknown. The remains consist of a nearly complete cranium plus two right parietal fragments that have been glued together. The entire cranium has been shellacked or varnished. The postero-inferior vault is darkly stained, indicative of having been in the ground. The remainder of the skull is bleached indicating exposure to the sun and elements, and weathering cracks are present in exposed areas. Four maxillary teeth are present plus one root fragment. Following examination, the remains were determined to be from an adult male, 30-40 years of age. Cultural affiliation and age of the remains could not be determined. The remains were determined to be Native American based on cranial morphology and the degree of dental attrition.

In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (catalogue # NA-94-A) was located by private citizens in Del Norte, in Saguache County, on the Rio Grande National Forest, CO. The private citizens found the remains in a secondary burial in a shallow recent gravesite in the foothills of Del Norte, CO. The discovery was reported to the Saguache County Sheriff's Department and the remains were removed by sheriff's representatives. The condition of the remains strongly suggests that the remains were coated with undetermined materials and used as a display for unknown purposes. The remains included a nearly complete cranium, mandible, and complete left humerus, left and right radii, right femur, left and right tibiae, right fibula, and several thoracic vertebrae. The remains are those of an adult male, over 40 years of age at the time of death. Cultural affiliation and age of the remains could not be determined. Based on cranial and dental morphology the remains were determined to be Native American.

In 1997, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (catalogue #2130 (07/03/96)) were turned over to the Rio Grande National Forest by the Saguache County Sheriff's Department. No details were provided on date or location of removal, and the remains were found on “a shelf in the East Storage Building” in the town of Saguache. The remains consist of a cranial calotte (or calva) consisting of the cranial vault but missing the facial skeleton and cranial base. No teeth were present. A moderate degree of polish is evident over the entire skull. Partial closure of sutures and the general small size of the cranial vault indicates the remains are of a sub-adult adolescent. A flattening of the lower occipital is noted, possibly from the use of a cradleboard, indicating Native American ancestry.

Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest have determined that:

• Based on two analyses of the human remains by the Department of Anthropology, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO, in 1986 and 1994, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

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

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission and other lines of evidence, the lands from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (formerly the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

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

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Ms. Angie M. Krall, Heritage Program Manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, 1803 W. Highway 160, Monte Vista, CO 81144, telephone (719) 852-6242 before July 5, 2012. Disposition of the human remains to the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest is responsible for notifying the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published.

This notice is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1503) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.(1988)).

The Draft PEIS considers G&G activities for the three program areas managed by BOEM: (1) Oil and gas exploration and development; (2) renewable energy; and (3) marine minerals. A Notice of Availability for the Draft PEIS was published in theFederal Registeron March 30, 2012 (see 77 FR 19321) opening a 60-day comment period originally scheduled to close on May 30, 2012. BOEM has now decided to extend the comment period for this draft PEIS until July 2, 2012.

To obtain a single printed or CD-ROM copy of the Draft PEIS, you may contact the BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 250, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). An electronic copy of the Draft PEIS is available at the BOEM's Internet Web site athttp://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx. Several libraries in Atlantic coastal states have also been sent copies of the Draft PEIS (CDs or hard copy; according to their preference and their selection criteria for receipt of government documents). To find out the libraries having copies of the Draft PEIS for review, you may contact the BOEM's Public Information Office at the number provided above.

Public Disclosure of Names and Addresses:Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of FlashPoint Technology, Inc. on May 23, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic imaging devices. The complaint names as respondents HTC Corporation of Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of WA; Pantech Co., Ltd. of Korea; Pantech Wireless, Inc. of GA; Future Wei Technologies, Inc., (d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA)) of TX; ZTE Corporation of China; ZTE (USA) Inc. of TX; and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China.

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date ofpublication of this notice in theFederal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2898”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.See19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The Commission instituted this investigation on April 25, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington. 76 FR 22918. The complaint, as amended, alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain handheld electronic computing devices, related software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,372 (“the '372 patent”); 5,889,522 (“the '522 patent”); 6,339,780 (“the '780 patent”); 6,891,551 (“the '551 patent”); and 6,957,233 (“the '233 patent”). The complaint further alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents including: Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. and Foxconn Electronics, Inc., both of Tucheng City, Taiwan; Foxconn Precision Component (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; and Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong (collectively, “the Foxconn/Hon Hai respondents”); Barnes & Noble; and Inventec.

On December 15, 2011, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting Microsoft's motion to terminate the investigation as to the Foxxconn/Hon Hai respondents based upon withdrawal of all allegations as to these respondents. On February 14, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting Microsoft's motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-26, and 29-42 of the '780 patent (terminating this patent from the investigation); claims 7, 9, and 11 of the '551 patent; claim 21 of the '233 patent; claims 1 and 2 of the '522 patent; and claim 1 of the '372 patent, based on withdrawal of these asserted claims. Also, on March 2 and 7, 2012, respectively, the Commission issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs granting Microsoft's motion for summary determination as to Barnes & Noble's patent misuse defense, and for summary determination as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

On May 1, 2012, Microsoft moved to terminate the investigation as to Inventec based upon withdrawal of all allegations as to this respondent. Separately, Microsoft and Barnes & Noble jointly moved to terminate the investigation as to the remaining respondents Barnes & Noble based on a settlement agreement. The Commission investigative attorney filed responses in support of each motion.

On May 11, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting Microsoft's motion for termination of the investigation as to Inventec and a separate ID granting the joint motion for termination of the remaining respondents Barnes & Noble based on a settlement agreement. He found that both motions satisfied Commission rule 210.21 and that the joint motion for termination based on a settlement agreement was not contrary to the public interest in accordance with Commission rule 210.50(b)(2). No party petitioned for review of the IDs. The Commission has determined not to review the IDs, and has terminated the investigation.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in sections 210.21 and 210.42(h) of theCommission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.21, 210.42(h).

Posting of Public Comments.Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online athttp://www.regulations.gov.Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this rule. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name and address) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment andidentify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted onhttp://www.regulations.gov.

Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the paragraph above entitledFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

For more than two centuries, the Federal Government has recognized Indian tribes as domestic sovereigns that have unique government-to-government relationships with the United States. Congress has broad authority to legislate with respect to Indian tribes, however, and has exercised this authority to establish a complex jurisdictional scheme for the prosecution of crimes committed in Indian country. (The term “Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.) Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country typically depends on several factors, including the nature of the crime; whether the alleged offender, the victim, or both are Indian; and whether a treaty, Federal statute, executive order, or judicial decision has conferred jurisdiction on a particular government.

The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) was enacted on July 29, 2010, as Title II of Public Law 111-211. The purpose of the TLOA is to help the Federal Government and tribal governments better address the unique public-safety challenges that confront tribal communities. Section 221(b) of the new law, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 1162(d), permits an Indian tribe with Indian country subject to State criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 280, Public Law 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) to request that the United States accept concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General Crimes Act and the Major Crimes Act within that tribe's Indian country.

On December 6, 2011, 76 FR 76037 the Department published final regulations that established the framework and procedures for a mandatory Public Law 280 tribe to request the assumption of concurrent Federal criminal jurisdiction within the Indian country of the tribe that is subject to Public Law 280. 28 CFR 50.25. Among other provisions, the regulations provide that upon receipt of a tribal request the Office of Tribal Justice shall publish a notice in theFederal Registerseeking comments from the general public.

By a request dated March 9, 2012, the Elk Valley Rancheria located in the State of California requested the United States to assume concurrent Federal jurisdiction to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 1152 (the General Crimes, or Indian Country Crimes, Act) and 18 U.S.C. 1153 (the Major Crimes Act) within the Indian country of the tribe. This would allow the United States to assume concurrent criminal jurisdiction over offenses within the Indian country of the tribe without eliminating or affecting the State's existing criminal jurisdiction.

This notice solicits public comments on the above request.

This meeting is being convened to brief the OJP Assistant Attorney General and the Board members on the progress of the subcommittees, and discuss any recommendations they may have for consideration by the full SAB. The final agenda is subject to adjustment, but it is anticipated that there will be a morning session and an afternoon session, with a break for lunch. These sessions will likely include briefings of the subcommittees' activities and discussion of future SAB actions and priorities.

This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Marlene Beckman at the above address at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. Persons interested in communicating with the Board should submit their written comments to the DFO, as the time available will not allow the public to directly address the Board at the meeting. Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Ms. Beckman at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.

Background:Local corrections facilities vary widely in size, geographic location, funding levels, operational philosophy, and design. Nonetheless, most corrections administrators make the same types of decisions critical to their operations, the safety and security of inmates/offenders and staff, and the responsible use of resources. For example, corrections administrators must make decisions related to: Resource needs; budget projections and requests; inmate/client population management (types and numbers of inmates/clients housed/enrolled, length of stay, average daily population); staffing levels, and; corrections activities and programs. It is not uncommon, however, for these and other decisions to be made in the absence of key data. Many corrections agencies do not have staff dedicated to data collection and analysis, information system management, or information technology. Given that many corrections agencies have severely limited resources, they are unlikely to acquire such staff. Corrections staff assigned to other duties usually do not have expertise in this area or the time to develop it.

Scope of Work:To develop the corrections data collection and analysis resources, the awardee will complete the following activities:

The awardee will meet with NIC staff for a project kick-off meeting shortly after receiving the award. Meeting participants will review all aspects of the project, further refine the list of topics that will be included in the resources for NIC Web site, and review all requirements related to cooperative agreement processes. This meeting will last up to 2 days and will be conducted at NIC's offices in Washington, DC.

The awardee should plan at least 2 more face-to-face meetings with NIC staff. These meetings will be up to 2 days long and held in Washington, DC. Web-Ex meetings will be planned during critical development points in the project. Awardee must have Web-Ex capabilities.

Based on the refined list of topics to be included on the NIC Web site, the awardee will research related materials in partnership with the NIC Information Center for inclusion on the Web site. As part of this task, the awardee will review documents or other web-based resources for applicability and appropriate use on the Web site. In many cases NIC will provide the resources for review. However, it is expected that the awardee will identify documents and other resources for the review. Original writing is required to provide a brief summary or annotation of recommended documents or materials.

The awardee will identify those topics for which they could find no suitable materials. NIC will determine how best to address the issue after discussion with the awardee.

These data applications will provide users with the capabilities to enter their own data and review the results in graphs or charts (a corrections dashboard). During the initial planning session and after research about available resources, the type and number of applications will be discussed. We anticipate that 3-5 of these applications will be developed initially.

Examples of possible data applications include:(1) Correctional Population Trends—Tracks daily number of inmates by categories gender, age, race, sentencing stats, Average Daily Population, Average length of stay, primary charge; (2) Staff Trends—Tracks number of staff post, number of employees, vacancies, types of leave, overtime usage; (3) Budget Status—Tracks budgets by standard categories, obligations, expenditures and balance; (4) Program Attendance—Tracks types of programs, enrollments and completions; (5) Incident Reports—Tracks daily incidents by categories like major, minor, reported and confirmed sexual assaults.

Brief tutorials will be developed to demonstrate the use of the statistical reporting applications. These segments will be specific to the applications and provide guidelines for appropriate data gathering and quality assurance of data collected.

Working with NIC's Information Center, Jails Division Staff and a pilot corrections facility chosen by NIC, the awardee will pilot the applications and tutorials to demonstrate its capabilities and usefulness.

After successful pilot of the applications and tutorials, they will be deployed from the NIC Web site. The applications may also be distributed via CD or mobile application. The awardee will provide assistance for the developed applications and tutorials for the first 30 days of deployment on NIC's Web site. The awardee will be responsible for any technical issues resulting from development of the applications and supporting tutorials.

In conjunction with the NIC Information Center and the Jails Division, during the term of the award, the awardee will provide continuous review of the Web site content as it is added to the site. It is expected that content (other than the applications under development) will be added regularly and that the awardee will provide reviews and recommendations to address any issues.

Application Requirements:An application package must include OMB Standard Form 425, Application for Federal Assistance; a cover letter that identifies the audit agency responsible for the applicant's financial accounts as well as the audit period or fiscal year under which the applicant operates (e.g., July 1 through June 30); and an outline of projected costs with the budget and strategy narratives described in this announcement. The following additional forms must also be included: OMB Standard Form 424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs; OMB Standard Form 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (both available atwww.grants.gov); DOJ/FBOP/NIC Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and the Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (available atwww.nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/certif-frm.pdf.)

Applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced, and reference the NIC opportunity number and title referenced in this announcement. If you are hand delivering or submitting via Fed-Ex, please include an original and three copies of your full proposal (program and budget narrative, application forms, assurances and other descriptions). The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. Electronic submissions will be accepted only viawww.grants.gov.

The narrative portion of the application should include, at a minimum: A brief paragraph indicating the applicant's understanding of the project's purpose; a brief paragraph that summarizes the project goals and objectives; a clear description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project and achieve its goals; a statement or chart of measurable project milestones and timelines for the completion of each milestone; a description of the qualifications of the applicant organization; a resume for the principal and each staff member assigned to the project (including developers) that documents relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out the project; and a budget that details all costs for the project, shows consideration for all contingencies for the project, and notes a commitment to work within the proposed budget.

In addition to the narrative and attachments, the applicant must submit a simple example of a proposed downloadable statistical analysis tool and slides representing a tutorial segment based on that tool.

Funds Available:NIC is seeking the applicant's best ideas regarding accomplishment of the scope of work and the related costs for achieving the goals of this solicitation. Funds may be used only for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. The funding amount should not exceed $135,000.00.

Eligibility of Applicants:An eligible applicant is any state or general unit of local government, private agency, educational institution, organization, individual, or team with expertise in the described areas. Applicants must have demonstrated ability to implement a project of this size and scope.

Review Considerations:Applications will be subject to the NIC review process. The criteria for the evaluation of each application will be as follows:

Is there a clear understanding of the purpose of the project and the nature and scope of project activities? Does the applicant give a clear and complete description of all work to be performed for this project? Does the applicant clearly describe a work plan, including objectives, tasks, and milestones necessary to project completion? Are the roles and the time required of project staff clearly defined?

Is there a description of the background and expertise of all project personnel as they relate to this project? Does the applicant have an established reputation or skill that makes the applicant particularly well qualified for the project? Do primary project personnel, individually or collectively, have in-depth knowledge of the purpose, functions, and operational complexities of local corrections agencies? Do the primary project personnel, individually or collectively, have expertise and experience specified in the “Summary” section of this Request for Proposal?

Does the application provide adequate cost detail to support the proposed budget? Does the application include a chart that aligns the budget with projectactivities along a timeline with, at minimum, quarterly benchmarks? In terms of program value, is the estimated cost reasonable in relation to work performed and project products?

Applicants may register in the CCR online at the CCR Web site atwww.ccr.gov.Applicants can also review a CCR handbook and worksheet at this Web site.

Number of Awards:One.

NIC Opportunity Number:12JA04. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter, where the opportunity number is requested on Standard Form 424, and on the outside of the envelope in which the application is sent.

Executive Order 12372:This project is not subject to the provisions of the executive order.

Under Section 101(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), and Title 5, United States Code, Section 553, the Secretary of Labor shall develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a probable carcinogen that consists of tiny particles present in diesel engine exhaust that can readily penetrate into the deepest recesses of the lungs. Despite ventilation, the confined underground mine work environment may contribute to significant concentrations of particles produced by equipment used in the mine. Underground miners are exposed to higher concentrations of DPM than any other occupational group. As a result, they face a significantly greater risk than other workers of developing such diseases as lung cancer, heart failure, serious allergic responses and other cardiopulmonary problems.

This information collection addresses the recordkeeping associated with:

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection related to the health standards for diesel particulates matter in underground metal and nonmetal mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

The public may examine publicly available documents, including the public comment version of the supporting statement, at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. OMB clearance requests are available on MSHA's Web site athttp://www.msha.govunder “Rules & Regs” on the right side of the screen by selectingInformation Collections Requests, Paperwork Reduction Act Supporting Statements. The document will be available on MSHA's Web site for 60 days after the publication date of this notice. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because comments will not be edited to removeany identifying or contact information, MSHA cautions the commenter against including any information in the submission that should not be publicly disclosed. Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATIONsection of this notice.

The information obtained from mine operators is used by MSHA during inspections to determine compliance with this health standard. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents and responses, as well as the total burden hours and burden costs supporting this information collection extension request.

Type of Review:Extension.

Agency:Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Title:Health Standards for Diesel Particulates Matter in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines.

OMB Number:1219-0135.

Affected Public:Business or other for-profit.

Cite/Reference/Form/etc.:30 CFR 57.5060, 57.5065, 57.5066, 57.5070, 57.5071, and 57.5075.

Total Number of Respondents:173.

Frequency:Various.

Total Number of Responses:28,022.

Total Burden Hours:3,329 hours.

Total Annual Cost Burden:$509,532.

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

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0124 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document by the following methods:

•Federal Rulemaking Web Site:Go tohttp://www.regulations.govand search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0124.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC Library athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email topdr.resource@nrc.gov.The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The application, dated November 18, 2011, is available electronically in ADAMS under Accession No. ML11340A077.

•NRC's PDR:You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0124 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions athttp://www.regulations.govas well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering the request for partial site release to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee, EGC) for operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), located in DeWitt County, Illinois.

The proposed partial site release would transfer 4-acres of property, owned by EGC, from CPS to Creek Township to expand the Lisenby Cemetery.

Before acceptance of the partial site release, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received on or before June 13, 2012 will be considered in making any final determination.

For further details with respect to this partial site release, see the application dated November 18, 2011, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email topdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Attorney for licensee:Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

RI 38-117, Rollover Election, is used to collect information from each payee affected by a change in the tax code so that OPM can make payment in accordance with the wishes of the payee. RI 38-118, Rollover Information, explains the election. RI 37-22, Special Tax Notice Regarding Rollovers, provides more detailed information.

Agency:Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

Title:Rollover Election, Rollover Information, and Special Tax Notice Regarding Rollover.

OMB Number:3206-0212.

Frequency:On occasion.

Affected Public:Individuals or Households.

Number of Respondents:1,500.

Estimated Time per Respondent:40 minutes.

Total Burden Hours:1,000.

RI 25-41, Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance, is used to determine whether a child is unmarried and a full-time student in a recognized school. OPM must determine this in order to pay survivor annuity benefits to children who are age 18 or older.

Agency:Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

Title:Initial Certification of Full-Time School Attendance.

OMB Number:3206-0099.

Frequency:On occasion.

Affected Public:Individuals or Households.

Number of Respondents:1,200.

Estimated Time per Respondent:90 minutes.

Total Burden Hours:1,800.

RI 30-9 informs former disability annuitants of their right to request restoration under title 5, U.S.C. 8337 and 8455. It also specifies the conditions to be met and the documentation required for a person to request reinstatement.

Agency:Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

Title:Reinstatement of Disability Annuity Previously Terminated Because of Restoration to Earning Capacity.

OMB Number:3206-0138.

Frequency:On occasion.

Affected Public:Individuals or Households.

Number of Respondents:200.

Estimated Time per Respondent:60 minutes.

Total Burden Hours:200.