Title:Forest Service Law Enforcement Ride-Along Program.

OMB Number:0596-0170.

Type of Request:Extension with Revision.

Abstract:This information collection is necessary for Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LE&I) personnel to authorize a rider who applies to participate in the Ride-Along program. The information collection also provides additional protection for LE&I personnel who allow authorized riders to accompany them in boats, cars, trucks, or other vehicles. The purpose of this program is for citizens to learn about and observe Forest Service LE&I tasks and activities. The program is intended to enhance Forest Service law enforcement community relationships, improve the quality of Forest Service customer service, and provide LE&I personnel a recruitment tool. A rider shall complete two forms in order to participate. Form FS-5300-33 asks for the participant's name, address, social security number, driver's license number, work address, location of the Ride-Along, and the reason for the Ride-Along. Law enforcement officers use form FS-5300-33 to conduct a minimum background check before authorizing a person to ride along. Form FS-5300-34 is signed by riders to exempt law enforcement officers and the Forest Service from damage, loss, or injury liability incurred during the rider's participation in the program. If the information is not collected, riders will be denied permission to ride along with Forest Service law enforcement personnel.

FS-5300-33:6 minutes.

FS-5300-34:7 minutes.

Total:13 minutes.

Type of Respondents:Citizens who want to learn about and observe Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigation (LE&I) tasks and activities.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:500.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:108 hours per year.

Comment is invited on:(1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the information collection submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The Petitions

On June 5, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received antidumping duty (“AD”) petitions concerning imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by CP Kelco U.S. (“Petitioner”).1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of xanthan gum. On June 8, 2012, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions. Petitioner filed responses to these requests on June 13, 2012 (hereinafter, “Supplement to the Austria Petition” and “Supplement to the PRC Petition”). Additionally, on June 13, 2012, Archer Daniels Midland, a domestic producer of xanthan gum, submitted information regarding its 2011 production of xanthan gum (hereinafter, “ADM production letter”). On June 19, 2012, Petitioner submitted additional information regarding its constructed value surrogate financial ratios.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), Petitioner alleges that imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.Seethe “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

Because the Petitions were filed on June 5, 2012, the period of investigation (“POI”) for the PRC investigation is October 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012. The POI for the Austria investigation is April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.2

The products covered by these investigations are xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigations,seethe “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by July 16, 2012, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on the records of the Austria and the PRC AD investigations. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).3 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e.,in paper form) with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.

The period of scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of xanthan gum to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product characteristics and (2) the product-comparison criteria. We find that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products.In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe xanthan gum, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments filed in accordance with the Department's electronic filing requirements, available at 19 CFR 351.303(g), by July 16, 2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by July 23, 2012.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (seesection 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.4

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e.,the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that xanthan gum constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.5

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 2011 production of the domestic like product. In addition, we received a letter from the only other producer in the U.S. stating its 2011 production of the domestic like product.6

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.7 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,polling).8 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.9 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.10 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.11

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (“NV”). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.

Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales and revenues, reduced production, reduced shipments, reduced capacity utilization rate, underselling and price depression and suppression, reduced workforce, decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration.12 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.13

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Austria Initiation Checklist and the PRC Initiation Checklist.

Petitioner calculated export price (“EP”) using U.S. imports from Austria during the POI under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3913.90.20. To confirm the accuracy and reliability of the use of U.S. import statistics under this HTSUS subheading, Petitioner compared the U.S. import quantity by port for HTSUS subheading 3913.90.20 to the quantity of imports of xanthan gum from Austria captured in ship manifest data. Petitioner reviewed the manifest description of each shipment and correlated it to the import quantities from the U.S. import statistics under HTSUS subheadings 3913.90.20 such that the quantities are nearly identical for the POI. In addition, the ship manifest data also demonstrated that only food grade xanthan gum was imported from Austria into the United States during the POI. For this reason, Petitioner calculated the average unit value for the POI as the basis for U.S. price.14 As such, the EP provided by Petitioner is conservative.

Petitioner calculated EP based on purchased prices for xanthan gum during the POI from a Chinese producer.15 The terms of sale for these invoices were FOB China port but Petitioner did not make an adjustment for domestic brokerage and handling expenses or freight charges to the port. As such, the EP provided by Petitioner is conservative.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioner based NV on constructed value (“CV”) because it stated that Austrian home market and third-country market export pricing were not reasonably available to it.16 Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of its own xanthan gum production facility in Oklahoma.17 Petitioner asserts that, to the best of its knowledge, the production methods and consumption rates of its own domestic xanthan gum production facility are similar to the production methods and consumption rates of the Austrian producer.18

Petitioner valued all raw material factors of production (“FOP”) using publicly available Austrian import statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”).19 Petitioner relied on the POI for which data were available (i.e.,April 2011 through February 2012). Petitioner excluded from these GTA import statistics imports from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.20 In addition, Austrian imports from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand were excluded, as the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies.21 Also, if imports were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country, they were excluded from the average value, because Petitioner could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.22 For Austrian import values reported in Euros, Petitioner converted these values to U.S. dollars (“USD”) using the POI-average Euros/USD exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site.23

Petitioner valued labor utilized in the production of xanthan gum based upon data collected by the International Labor Organization (“ILO”) Geneva under the sub-classification of “24 Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products.”24 Petitioner utilized the total labor cost in manufacturing category. Because the data were collected in 2004, Petitioner inflated the reported hourly wage rate by the consumer price index inflation (“CPI”) rate in effect during the POI for Austria as reported by the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) and converted the wage rate from Euro/hour to USD/hour using the POI-average exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site.25

Petitioner derived an electricity surrogate value using rates from November 2011 as reported in Europe's Energy Portal, which was then converted from Euros to USD using the POI-average exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site.26 Petitioner derived a steam surrogate value using data from the same source and time period as the surrogate value for electricity.27 Petitioner converted the steam surrogate value from Euros to USD using the POI-average exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site.28

Petitioner stated that, to the best of its knowledge, the Austrian producer packages xanthan gum in cartons stacked on wooden pallets wrapped in plastic.29 Surrogate values for packingmaterials were derived from publicly available Austrian import statistics obtained from the GTA.30

Petitioner relied on the 2011 financial performance data of its own domestic xanthan gum facility to value factory overhead, selling, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit.31

Based on our review of Petitioner's submissions, the Department determines that the CV used by Petitioner is acceptable for purposes of initiation.32

Petitioner states that the Department has long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country and this designation remains in effect today.33 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on FOP valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner contends that Thailand is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; and (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.34 Further, surrogate values data from Thailand are available and reliable.35 Moreover, Petitioner notes that the Department has previously used Thailand as the surrogate country in previous investigations involving the PRC.36 In addition, Petitioner states that there are no known producers of xanthan gum from Thailand but there are Thai exports of comparable merchandise, which demonstrates that Thailand is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.37 Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After the initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOP within 40 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of its own xanthan gum production facility in the PRC.38 Petitioner asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge, production methods and consumption rates of its own Chinese xanthan gum production facility are similar to the production methods and consumption rates of other Chinese producers.39

Petitioner valued all raw material FOP using publicly available surrogate country data; specifically, Petitioner used Thai import statistics from the GTA.40 Petitioner relied on the POI for which data were available (i.e.,October 2011 through March 2012). Petitioner excluded from these GTA import statistics imports from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, imports from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand were excluded, as the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies.41 Also, if imports were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country, they were excluded from the average value, because Petitioner could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies.42

For Thai import values reported in baht, Petitioner converted these values to USD per kilogram using the POI-average Thai baht/USD exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site.43

Petitioner converted ethanol (ethyl alcohol) from liters to kilograms because the Thai surrogate value for ethanol was reported in liters but Petitioner's NV model for ethanol is in kilograms.44

Consistent with the Department's new methodology for the valuation of labor in non-market economies, Petitioner valued labor utilized in the production of xanthan gum based upon data collected by the ILO and disseminated in Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook of Labor Statistics.45 Petitioner utilized the total labor cost in manufacturing category. Petitioner converted the monthly wage rate to an hourly wage based upon Yearbook of Labor Statistics data for 2005 (the most recently published). Because the data were collected in 2005, Petitioner also inflated the reported wage rate by the consumer price index inflation rate in effect during the POI as reported by the IMF.46

Because Petitioner could not segregate energy costs from the surrogate financial statement, Petitioner accounted for the electricity, steam, and water costs in the calculation of surrogate financial ratios.47 This is consistent with the Department's recent decision inCitric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

Petitioner stated that, to the best of its knowledge, Chinese producers regularly package xanthan gum in 25 kilogram sacks.48 Surrogate values for packing materials were derived from publiclyavailable Thai import statistics obtained from the GTA.49

Petitioner used the financial statements of Ajinomoto (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“Ajinomoto”) to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit. Petitioner identified Ajinomoto as a Thai producer of l-lysine (“lysine”) and monosodium glutamate (“MSG”), which are comparable merchandise.50 According to Petitioner, lysine and MSG are both produced via fermentation, use similar production equipment as that required to produce xanthan gum, and the raw material inputs are similar or identical to those used to manufacture xanthan gum.51 However, as discussed above, Petitioner could not segregate energy costs from the calculation of surrogate financial ratios; therefore, Petitioner did not incorporate energy inputs into the calculation of NV in the cost of manufacturing.52

Based on our review of Petitioner's submissions, the Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation.53

Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to CVs in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for xanthan gum from Austria is 145.20 percent.54 Based on comparisons of EPs to NVs in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for xanthan gum from the PRC is 154.07 percent.55

Based upon the examination of the Petitions on xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in AD investigations, and the corresponding regulation governing the deadline for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5).56 The Department stated that “{w}ithdrawal will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.”57

In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in either of these investigations pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegations are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the country-specific preliminary determination.

For the Austria investigation, although the Department normally relies on import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to select respondents in AD investigations involving market-economy countries, the HTSUS category under which xanthan gum may enter is a basket category. Therefore, the CBP data cannot be isolated to identify imports of subject merchandise during the POI. Accordingly, the Department must rely on an alternate methodology for respondent selection, as described below.

The Petitions name one company as a producer and/or exporter in Austria of xanthan gum: Jungbunzlaer Austria AG (“JBL”).58 The Petitions identify this one company as accounting for virtually all of the imports of xanthan gum from Austria. Moreover, we currently know of no further exporters or producers of subject merchandise. Accordingly, the Department is selecting JBL as the mandatory respondent in this investigation pursuant to section 777A(c)(1) of the Act. We will consider comments from interested parties on this respondent selection. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in theFederal Register. 59

For the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from known exporters/producers identified with complete contact information in the Petitions.60 The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers in the PRC will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.

The Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.61 On the date of the publication of this initiation notice in theFederal Register, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaires, along with the filing instructions, on the Import Administration Web site athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html,and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is due no later than July 16, 2012.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (“APO”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application.62 The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will beavailable on the Department's Web site athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.htmlon the date of publication of this initiation notice in theFederal Register. The separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice. In the PRC investigation, for exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in the “Respondent Selection” section above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. The quantity and value questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.htmlon the date of the publication of this initiation notice in theFederal Register.

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the Government of the PRC and Austrian authorities. Because of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the Government of the PRC and Austrian authorities, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than July 20, 2012, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of xanthan gum from Austria and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department publishedAntidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures,73 FR 3634 (Jan. 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g.,the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Any party submitting factual information in an AD/countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.63 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011.64 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of theInterim Final Rule.The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in itsProcedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders,63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy Bulletin,63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998), and inAntidumping Proceedings:Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification,77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty orders:

As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and regulations, the Department schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Internet Web site at the following address: “http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures,76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.Seesection 782(b) of the Act. Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011.See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final Rule,76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (“Interim Final Rule”) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2) and supplemented byCertification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule,76 FR 54697 (September 2, 2011). The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of theInterim Final Rule.The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.See19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide thatall partieswishing to participate in the Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in theFederal Registerof this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 (c).

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, and the General Services Administration (GSA) rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has determined the renewal of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department by law.

The Committee was first established in May 2002, to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote-sensing industry and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's activities to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce set forth in set forth in the 51 U.S.C. 60121,et seq,the National and Commercial Space Programs Act and 15 CFR part 960 the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 5621-5625).

The Committee consists of generally not more than 15 members serving in a representative capacity. Each of these members shall be appointed by the Under Secretary to assure a balanced representation among remote sensing satellite operators, private users of data, academia and researchers.

The Committee will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the Committee's revised Charter has been filed with the appropriate committees of Congress and with the Library of Congress.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The applicant requests a five-year permit to continue long-term research on the demographics and movements of green, loggerhead, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles off the northwest coast of Florida. The objectives of the research are to (1) obtain information on sea turtle ecology and health status; (2) determine the genetic origin of sea turtle populations in the region; (3) monitor turtle foraging habits; and (4) address fine-scale and broad-scale temporal and spatial patterns of sea turtle use and movement patterns. Researchers would capture sea turtles annually by strike net, tangle net, dip net or hand capture. Captured sea turtles would be measured, weighed, passive integrated transponder tagged, flipper tagged, epibiota sampled, tissue sampled, blood sampled, gastric lavaged, carapace marked, photographed, and released. A subset of sea turtles would be fitted with telemetry tags—either a satellite tag or an acoustic tag with an accelerometer.

July 23, 2012, DoubleTree by Hilton San Juan, 105 De Diego Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00914.

July 24, 2012, Asociación de Pescadores, Villa Pesquera Playa Hucar, 66.7 Km Highway 3 Naguabo, Puerto Rico 00718.

July 25, 2012, Holiday Inn Mayagüez, 2701 Highway #2, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico 00680.

July 26, 2012, Ponce Holiday Inn, 3315 Ponce by Pass, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731.

July 24, 2012, Windward Passage Hotel, Veterans Drive, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804.

July 25, 2012, The Buccaneer Hotel, 5007 Estate Shoys, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00820.

The public hearings will be held from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., for seagrass; from 7:10 p.m. to 8 p.m., for parrotfish; and the scoping meeting for island-specific management from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold two public hearings and one scoping meeting to receive public input on the following management alternatives:

Alternative 1: No Action: Do not establish minimum size limits for the commercial sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery.

Alternative 2: Establish minimum size limits for the commercial sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery in St. Croix.

No Commercial Minimum Size Limit

a. 9 inches fork length (FL)

b. 10 inches FL

c. 11 inches FL

d. 12 inches FL

Alternative 3: Establish minimum size limits for the commercial sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery in St. Thomas/St. John.

a. No Commercial Minimum Size Limit

b. 9 inches FL

c. 10 inches FL

d. 11 inches FL

e. 12 inches FL

Alternative 4: Establish minimum size limits for the commercial sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery in Puerto Rico.

a. No Commercial Minimum Size Limit

b. 9 inches FL

c. 10 inches FL

d. 11 inches FL

e. 12 inches FL

Alternative 1: No Action: Do not establish minimum size limits for the recreational sector of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery.

Alternative 2: Establish minimum size limits for the recreational sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reeffish fishery in St. Croix.

No Recreational Minimum Size Limit

a. 9 inches FL

b. 10 inches FL

c. 11 inches FL

d. 12 inches FL

Alternative 3: Establish minimum size limits for the recreational sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery in St. Thomas/St. John.

a. No Recreational Minimum Size Limit

b. 9 inches FL

c. 10 inches FL

d. 11 inches FL

e. 12 inches FL

Alternative 4: Establish minimum size limits for the recreational sector harvest of the parrotfish unit of the reef fish fishery in Puerto Rico.

a. No Recreational Minimum Size Limit

b. 9 inches FL

c. 10 inches FL

d. 11 inches FL

e. 12 inches FL

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council proposes: To modify the management of seagrass species included in the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan. There are four alternatives proposed for this action:

Alternative 1: No Action. Do not modify the management of seagrass species listed in the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan. Retain current management reference points or proxies for seagrass species.

Alternative 2: Prohibit the harvest in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone of seagrass species listed in the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan.

Sub-Alternative 2(a): Prohibit harvest and establish an annual catch limit = 0 for seagrass species listed in the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan.

Sub-Alternative 2(b): Prohibit harvest and establish an annual catch limit≥1 lb. wet weight for the seagrass species listed in the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan to account for harvest associated with educational or restoration purposes.

Alternative 3: Designate the seagrass species listed in the Corals and ReefAssociated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan as Ecosystem Component species as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 Guidelines.

Alternative 4: (Preferred) Remove all species of seagrass from the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plan

Do not modify the existing species-specific FMPs. NOAA Fisheries and the Caribbean Council would continue to manage federal fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ under the Spiny Lobster, Reef Fish, Coral, and Queen Conch FMPs.

Create new island-specific FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. Under this option, the Caribbean Council and NOAA Fisheries would manage the EEZ resources under separate FMPs for each of these islands.

Create three new island-specific FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John. The Caribbean Council and NOAA Fisheries would combine management of the St. Thomas and St. John EEZ resources. The St. Croix and Puerto Rico EEZ resources would be managed under separate FMPs.

This option would allow the Caribbean Council and NOAA Fisheries to develop two island-specific FMPs. The Caribbean Council and NOAA Fisheries would combine management of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. John EEZ resources but would manage the St. Croix EEZ resources under separate FMPs.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1920, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least five days prior to the meeting date.

As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to conduct a study on reverse mortgages.3 In designing the study, the CFPB's objectives were to (1) provide an authoritative resource on reverse mortgage products, consumers, and markets; (2) identify and assess consumer protection concerns; and (3) explore critical unanswered questions and update the public body of knowledge to reflect new market realities. On June 28, 2012, the CFPB released the findings of the study in a Report to Congress (the Report).

The study identified four major topics where additional research would help determine if additional consumer education or regulatory action is needed. Those topics are: (a) Factors influencing consumer decisions; (b) consumer use of reverse mortgage proceeds; (c) the longer-term outcomes of reverse mortgages; and (d) the differences in market dynamics and business practices among the broker, correspondent, and retail channels. This request seeks comment and information from the public on these topics.

The Bureau seeks information from the public, including consumers, housing counselors, financial institutions, and others, regarding consumer use of reverse mortgages and consumer experiences during the reverse mortgage shopping process. This information will enable the Bureau to better understand and evaluate potential consumer protection issues raised by reverse mortgages and the shopping process.

The questions are grouped into four broad topics: (a) Factors influencing consumer decisions, (b) consumer use of reverse mortgage proceeds, (c) the longer-term outcomes of reverse mortgages, and (d) the differences in market dynamics and business practices among the broker, correspondent, and retail channels.

You may respond to all of the questions or only some questions. Please note the number of any question to which you are responding at the top of each response. If your responses are specific to a particular reverse mortgage product option (e.g., fixed-rate, lump-sum vs. adjustable-rate, line-of-credit products), please note in your response to which product your response relates.

Please note that the Bureau is not seeking personally identifying information (PII) in response to this request. Responses to this request should not contain any reverse mortgage account numbers, Social Security numbers or other personal information that could be used to identify an individual consumer or account, nor should they include any information that may otherwise reveal personally identifiable information.

Factors influencing consumer decisions:

1. What factors are most important to consumers in deciding whether to get a reverse mortgage?

2. What factors are most important to consumers in choosing among products? Among other things, comments could address the choice between fixed-rate, lump-sum reverse mortgages and adjustable-rate, line-of-credit or monthly disbursement reverse mortgages.

3. What factors are most important to consumers in choosing among potential lenders?

Consumer use of reverse mortgage proceeds:

4. Nearly 75% of recent reverse mortgage consumers took out all of their available funds upfront in a lump sum.

a. What do consumers do with these funds?

b. Where do consumers place loan money that they do not use immediately? (E.g., in a savings account, an investment account, a certificate of deposit (CD), etc.).

5. Some reverse mortgage consumers use reverse mortgage loan funds to refinance a traditional mortgage or home equity loan/line of credit.

a. What proportion of consumers are using reverse mortgage loan funds to refinance a traditional mortgage or home equity loan/line of credit?

b. What proportion of the loan funds are typically spent on paying off an existing mortgage?

c. Do consumers using a reverse mortgage to refinance an existing mortgage typically consider other options first (e.g. moving to a different home or a traditional refinancing)? If not, why not? If so, what factors lead them to choose a reverse mortgage instead?

6. Some reverse mortgage consumers use reverse mortgage loan funds to consolidate non-housing debts.

a. What proportion of borrowers use reverse mortgage loan funds to consolidate non-housing debts?

b. What proportion of the loan funds are typically spent on consolidating non-housing debts?

c. What types of non-housing debts are typically consolidated (e.g. credit card, auto, medical-related debt, etc.)?

Longer-term outcomes for reverse mortgages borrowers:

7. Consumers typically pay off their reverse mortgage loans earlier than would be expected based on underlying mortality rates.

a. Why do consumers typically pay off their reverse mortgage loans early?

b. Do consumers anticipate being able to pay off a reverse mortgage at a specific time (e.g. upon receiving a pension or retirement benefit) when taking the reverse mortgage loan?

c. Do consumers who pay off their loans early typically feel that the loan was a good choice? Are there things they wish they had done differently?

8. Some consumers pay off a reverse mortgage upon moving out of a home.

a. Why do consumers decide to move? Are such moves typically because the move is planned in advance or because the move is required for health or other reasons?

b. How do reverse mortgage borrowers finance a later move?

9. What are the typical outcomes for borrowers who still have the loan after 5 years or more?

a. Does the loan continue to meet borrowers' financial needs 5 or more years after origination?

b. If borrowers have drawn all of their available funds, what financial resources do they use to meet new or unexpected expenses?

c. Do borrowers who still have the loan after 5 or more years typically feel that the loan was a good choice? Are there things they wish they had done differently?

The differences in market dynamics and business practices among the broker, correspondent, and retail channels:

10. How are brokers, correspondent lenders, and retail loan officers typically compensated?

a. How does this compensation differ by channel?

b. How do compensation structures and regulatory requirements (e.g., mortgage loan originator compensation rules) affect the business practices of lenders and brokers?

c. How do these factors affect the choices presented to consumers?

11. The Bureau has observed that major large bank originators of reverse mortgages tended to originate a far higher percentage of adjustable-rate, line-of-credit (or monthly-installment) loans than the nonbank originators. What explains this difference?

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection:Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)-2).

OMB Control Number:1820-001.

Type of Review:Revision.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:80.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours:320.

Abstract:The Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA-2) collects data on the vocational rehabilitation (VR) and supported employment (SE) program activities for agencies funded under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). The RSA-2 captures: administrative expenditures for the VR and SE programs; VR program service expenditures by category; SE administrative expenditures and service expenditures; expenditures for the VR program by number of individuals served; the costs of types of services provided; and a breakdown of staff of the VR agencies.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection:Case Service Report (Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)-911).

OMB Control Number:1820-0508.

Type of Review:Extension .

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:80.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours:6,500 .

Abstract:The data comprising the Case Service Report are mandated by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). Applicable portions of the Rehabilitation Act explicitly or implicitly require the recording and reporting of specific data elements by state VR agencies to the RSA. Section 13 of the Act requires the Commissioner to collect and report information specified in section 101(a)(10) to the Congress and the President in the Annual Report. Section 14 of the Act requires the Commissioner to conduct evaluations of the VR program. The information from this data collection is used in evaluating the outcomes of the program. Section 626 requires the same information to be reported for individuals who received supported employment (SE) services. RSA-911 data are also needed to satisfy the requirements of Section 131 calling for an exchange of data between RSA, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection:Grantee Reporting Form—RSA Annual Payback Report.

OMB Control Number:1820-0617.

Type of Review:Revision.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:350.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours:350.

Abstract:Under section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has the authority to provide financial assistance, through academic institutions, to students seeking a career in rehabilitative services. Students who receive scholarships under this program are required to work within the publicrehabilitation program, such as with a state vocational rehabilitation agency, or an agency or organization that has a service arrangement with a state vocational rehabilitation agency. The student is expected to work two years in such settings for every year of full-time scholarship support.

Section 302(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the academic institutions (i.e., grantees) that administer a RSA Long-Term Training program to track the employment status and location of former scholars supported under their grants in order to ensure that students are meeting the payback requirement. Program regulations at 34 CFR 386.34 require each grantee to establish and maintain a tracking system on current and former RSA scholars for this purpose.

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

• Establishment of a Quorum: Roll Call and Excused Absences, Karen Erickson.

• Welcome and Introductions, Ralph Phelps, Chair.

• Approval of Agenda and May 30, 2012, Meeting Minutes.

• Written Reports.

• Final Details on Rocky Flats Tour.

• Other Items.

• Report from Nominating Committee (Section V, F. of NNMCAB Bylaws), Deb Shaw and Nicole Castellano.

• Other Items.

• Update from DOE.

• Update on Corrective Measures Evaluations.

• Other Items.

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

1. Emergency Preparedness Working Group.

2. Groundwater Update.

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

Minutes:Minutes will be available by writing to Kelly Snyder at the address listed above or at the following Web site:http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

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

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation:The EM SSAB, Savannah River Site, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Gerri Flemming at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes:Minutes will be available by writing or calling Gerri Flemming at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site:http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html.

The draft document will be used in a workshop process that engages experts with diverse technical backgrounds (e.g.,toxicology, polymer science, environmental fate, and transport) and sector perspectives (e.g.,academia, industry, government, and nongovernment organizations). Experts will use the draft case study document to identify and prioritize research gaps that could support future assessment and risk management efforts for MWCNT using a structured decision process. This workshop process will be conducted by RTI International, an EPA contractor, and will utilize web-based tools to gather expert input prior to culminating in a face-to-face workshop convened by RTI International.

The Public Information Exchange Meeting announced above will precede the workshop convened by RTI International. Following the conclusion of the Information Exchange Meeting, RTI International, a contractor to EPA, will conduct a separate meeting, the “Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop Process: Identifying and Prioritizing Research for Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes,” in the same location. This workshop will be conducted with a set of invited expert participants selected by RTI International and utilize a structured decision science process similar to the process used in previous workshops (e.g., http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/nano1005summ.pdf). The RTI workshop will use the draft EPA document “Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles” [External Review Draft] (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-12/043A, 2012, (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=244011) as a starting point for identifying and prioritizing possible research directions related to multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Although funded by EPA, the RTI workshop process is being conducted independently of EPA to comply with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 [http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/fed-advisory-committee]). The RTI workshop will be open to public observers.

This draft document and structured workshop process is funded by EPA but is independently conducted by RTI International and follows previous efforts on engineered nanoscale materials (nanomaterials). Nanomaterials have often been described as having at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nanometers and frequently possessing unusual, if not unique, properties that arise from their small size. Like all technological developments, nanomaterials offer the potential for both benefits and risks. The assessment of such risks and benefits requires information, but given the emergent state of nanotechnology, much remains to be learned about the characteristics and effects of nanomaterials before such assessments can be accomplished.

In its 2007 Nanotechnology White Paper (2007, p. 89), EPA included the following recommendations regarding the risk assessment of nanomaterials: (1) Develop case studies based on publicly available information on one or several intentionally produced nanomaterials, and from such case studies identify information gaps to help map areas of research that would support the risk assessment process; and (2) hold a series of workshops involving a substantial number of experts from several disciplines to assist in this process. In keeping with these recommendations, the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) prepared the Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen [Final] (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/057F, 2010,http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=230972), released in November 2010, and the Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray [External Review Draft] (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/081, 2012).

The two draft documents each supported a workshop: “Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop: Developing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Research Strategy for Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide” on September 29-30, 2009, in Durham, North Carolina, and “Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop: Developing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Research Strategy for Nanoscale Silver” on January 4-7, 2011, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. A summary of the workshops may be found at:http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/nano1005summ.pdfandhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=226723for nanoscale titanium dioxide and nanoscale silver, respectively. The summary documents provide information on the design and conduct of the workshops, noting that the Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop for nanoscale titanium dioxide was held under the auspices of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), an advisory committee of independent scientists and engineers established byEPA to provide advice, information, and recommendations concerning practices and programs of ORD, including ORD's research planning process, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and related regulations. In August 2010, the BOSC provided comments on the case studies workshop (http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/nano1008rpt.pdf).

The case study documents are structured by the comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) framework, to systematically organize information on the product life cycle, environmental fate, exposure-dose, and impacts in humans, ecological receptors, and the environment. As noted above, CEA also includes a process component involving decision science methods, and this aspect of CEA was used in prior workshops to identify and prioritize research or information needed to assess nanoscale titanium dioxide and nanoscale silver, respectively.

The nanomaterial case studies are intended to be used in the development and refinement of long-term research planning efforts for potential human health, ecological, and environmental risks. Such a comprehensive strategy is expected to develop in an evolutionary process reflecting adjustments and modifications as additional nanomaterials are considered and new information becomes available. To that end, the current case study on multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) builds on previous efforts by incorporating a comparative perspective with conventional flame-retardant, decabromodiphenyl ether. This comparison is included to provide a relatively more robust data base that may help identify key data gaps for MWCNT related to future assessment and risk management efforts. It further provides a foundation for future efforts to identify risk‐related tradeoffs between a traditional material, such as decaBDE and a nano‐enabled product.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0512 by one of the following methods:

•www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

•Email: Docket_ORD@epa.gov.

•Fax:202-566-9744.

•Mail:Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

•Hand Delivery:The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0512. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online atwww.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information throughwww.regulations.govor email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. Thewww.regulations.govWeb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going throughwww.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center home page atwww.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket:Documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inwww.regulations.govor in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

Elementary and secondary public school systems and districts have been required to submit EEO-5 reports to EEOC since 1974 (biennially in even-numbered years since 1982). Since 1996, each public school district or system hassubmitted all of the district data on a single form, EEOC Form 168A. The individual school form, EEOC Form 168B, was eliminated in 1996, reducing the respondent burden and cost.

Collection Title:Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5).

OMB-Number:3046-0003.

Frequency of Report:Biennial.

Type of Respondent:Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

Description of Affected Public:Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

Number of Responses:7,218.

Reporting Hours:32,481.

Cost to the Respondents:$617,139.

Federal Cost:$190,000.

Number of Forms:1.

Form Number:EEOC Form 168A.

Abstract:Section 709 (c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records, and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order. Accordingly, the EEOC issued regulations prescribing the reporting requirements for elementary and secondary public school districts. The EEOC uses EEO-5 data to investigate charges of employment discrimination against elementary and secondary public school districts. The data also are used for research. The data are shared with the Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights) and the Department of Justice. Pursuant to Section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-5 data also are shared with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).

Burden Statement:The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial EEO-5 survey is 7,218 public elementary and secondary school districts. The form is estimated to impose 32,481 burden hours biennially.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matter to be considered at the meeting is:

• June 14, 2012

• Periodic Report on Farm Credit System Funding Conditions

OMB Control Number:3060-0723.

Title:47 U.S.C. section 276, Public Disclosure of Network Information By Bell Operating Companies (BOCs).

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents:3 respondents; 3 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:120 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutoryauthority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:360 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the FCC. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from OMB. There is no change to the reporting requirements and/or third party disclosure requirement.

Under 47 U.S.C. section 276(b)(1), the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) are required to publicly disclose changes in their networks or new network services. Section 276(b(1)(C) directs the Commission to “prescribe a set of nonstructural safeguards for BOC payphone service to implement the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), which safeguards shall, at a minimum, include the nonstructural safeguards equal to those adopted in the Computer Inquiry-III (CC Docket No. 90-623) proceeding.” The Computer Inquiry-III network information disclosure requirements specifically state that the disclosure would occur at two different points in time. First, disclosure would occur at the make/buy point: When a BOC decides to make for itself, or procure from an unaffiliated entity, any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. Second, a BOC would publicly disclose technical information about a new service 12 months before it is introduced. If the BOC can introduce the service within 12 months of the make/buy point, it would make a public disclosure at the make/buy point. In no event, however, would the public disclosure occur less than six months before the introduction of the service.

Without provision of this information, the industry would be unable to ascertain whether the BOCs are designing new network services or changing network technical specifications to the advantage of their own payphones, or in a manner that might disadvantage BOC payphone competitors.

These requirements ensure that BOCs comply with their obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

OMB Control Number:3060-0745.

Title:Implementation of the Local Exchange Carrier Tariff Streamlining Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187.

Form Number:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents:50 respondents; 1,536 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.25 hours to 5 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:4,054 hours.

Total Annual Cost:$808,750.

Privacy Impact Assessment:N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the FCC. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from OMB. There is no change to the reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements and/or third party disclosure requirements. The Commission is now reporting a $22,500 increase in annual costs. This increase adjustment is due to an increase in the filing fee from $815 per filing to $845 per filing.

In CC Docket No. 96-187, the Commission adopted measures to streamline tariff filing requirements for local exchange carriers (LECs) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In order to achieve a streamlined and deregulatory environment for LEC tariff filings, local exchange carriers are required to file tariffs electronically. There are eight information collection requirements that contain reporting, third party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. These are described in the Supporting Statement that will accompany the submission to OMB. They are: (1) Electronic filing requirement; (2) requirement that carriers desiring tariffs proposing rate decreases to be effective seven days file separate transmittals; (3) requirement that carriers identify transmittals filed pursuant to the streamlined provisions of the 1996 Act; (4) the requirements are described in the Supporting Statement that will accompany the submission to OMB. They are: (1) Electronic filing requirement for LECs to file tariffs seven and fifteen days notice; (2) requirement that carriers desiring tariffs proposing rate decreases to be effective seven days file separate transmittals; (3) requirement that carriers identify transmittals filed pursuant to the streamlined provisions of the 1996 Act; (4) requirement that price cap LECs file their Tariff Review Plans prior to filing their annual access tariffs; (5) filing petitions and replies electronically (reporting requirement); (6) filing petitions and replies electronically (third party disclosure requirement); (7) recordkeeping requirement (standard protective order); and (8) reporting requirement (standard protective order).

The information collected via electronic filing will facilitate access to tariff and associated documents by the public, especially by interested persons or parties who do not have ready access to the Commission's public reference center, and state and federal regulators. Electronic access to carrier tariffs should also facilitate the compilation of aggregate data for industry analysis purposes without imposing new reporting requirements on carriers. Carriers desiring tariffs proposing rate decreases to be effective in seven days must file a separate transmittal. This requirement will ensure that a tariff filing proposing a rate decrease is given the shortest notice period possible under the 1996 Act. The Commission also adopted the requirement that carriers identify transmittals filed pursuant to the streamlining provisions of the 1996 Act.

All of the requirements help to ensure that local exchange carriers comply with their obligations under the Communications Act and that the Commission is able to ensure compliance within the streamlined timeframes established in the 1996 Act.

OMB Control Number:3060-0819.

Title:Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training.

Form Number:FCC Form 497; Low-Income Broadband Pilot Program Reporting Form; Low-Income Broadband Pilot Program Participation Form; and FCC Form 555, Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:Individuals or households and business or other for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses:16,100,940 respondents; 41,828,019 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:.58 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond:Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden:24,185,658 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment:The Commission adopted rules that affect individuals or households, and thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission will create a system of records notice (SORN) to cover the collection, storage, maintenance, and disposal (when appropriate) of any personally identifiable information that the Commission may collect as part of the information collection.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. However, respondents may request confidential treatment of their information under47 CFR 0.459 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=FederalGovernment&db=1000547&docname=47CFRS0.459&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=L&ordoc=0346209484&tc=-1&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&pbc=B87EBF2A&rs=WLW12.04of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses:This collection is being submitted as a revision to a currently approved collection. In January 2012, the Commission adopted an order reforming and modernizing its Lifeline universal service program. Lifeline and Link-Up Reform and Modernization; Lifeline and Link-Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-23; CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 12-11. The Commission seeks extension of previously approved requirements and approval of additional reforms adopted in this order.

Previously Approved Collection Requirements.The order makes a number of changes to the Lifeline program, which was approved by OMB on April 13, 2012. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved requirements. Specifically, the order established an interim flat rate for reimbursement for non-Tribal Lifeline support and adjusted the amount of support for TLS and Link Up. These changes necessitated the need for USAC to revise its FCC Form 497. Additionally, the order reduces the window by which ETCs must file revisions or original FCC Form 497 submissions from 15 months from the end of the calendar year to a rolling 12 month window. ETCs will also now be required to file the FCC Form 497 monthly rather than having the option of filing either monthly or quarterly. The Commission also will accelerate USAC's payment of low-income support for carriers filing the FCC Form 497 electronically by a monthly deadline.

The order also adopts a rule, section 54.422, whereby ETCs providing Lifeline services to low-income consumers must include information regarding the company's holding company, operating companies, affiliates, and any branding in their annual reports to the Commission. In addition, all ETCs receiving low-income support are required to annually provide to the Commission and USAC general information regarding their Lifeline plans for voice telephony service offered specifically for low-income consumers.

The order requires ETCs (or the state administrator, where applicable) to check the program-based eligibility of new Lifeline subscribers at enrollment by accessing available state or federal eligibility databases. Where the underlying program eligibility data cannot be accessed, the Commission requires new Lifeline subscribers to provide documentation of program-based eligibility, which the entity enrolling the subscriber should review (but not retain). Low-income consumers who qualify based on income are also required to provide documentation. Under 47 CFR 54.410(d), ETCs, or the state administrator, where applicable, are required to collect an executed certification form from each qualifying low-income consumer that includes consumer identifying information and attestation from the consumer that they understand the purpose of the Lifeline program and their responsibilities inreceiving the discounted service. The order also adopts a rule, 47 CFR 54.410(d)(3)(iii), whereby Lifeline consumers have 30 days from moving to a new address within which to notify their respective ETCs of the change of residential address.

The order replaces the existing verification rule contained in 47 CFR 54.409 (c) with a new rule, 47 CFR 54.410(f) requiring ETCs to confirm the eligibility of all their Lifeline subscribers on an annual basis. Carriers may fulfill this requirement by querying a database maintained by a state agency or third party for that purpose, when applicable. This new rule, in conjunction with 47 CFR 54.405(e)(4), also requires that consumers who do not respond to annual re-certification attempts must be de-enrolled from the Lifeline program (and the database must be updated accordingly).

The order directs USAC to continue with the Duplicate Resolution Process by identifying and resolving duplicative Lifeline claims in states identified by the Wireline Competition Bureau. ETCs are required to supply subscriber lists and de-enroll subscribers found to be duplicates.

The order also adopts a national database to detect and eliminate duplicative Lifeline and Link-Up support. With respect to populating the duplicates database, the Commission adopts a rule requiring ETCs, prior to transmission to the administrator, to verify and standardize the relevant data, and transmit the relevant data to the database administrator in the format prescribed.

The order also adopts rules with respect to maintaining the duplicates database. When notified of any change of information, ETCs are required to update the duplicates database within 10 business days. In addition, ETCs are required to update the database within one business day of de-enrollment of any consumer. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved requirements regarding the verification, certification and re-certification requirements, including use of databases and participation in the duplicates process.

The order adopts a rule, 47 CFR 54.405(e)(3), requiring pre-paid ETCs offering service to subscribers for free to de-enroll subscribers who fail to “use” the service (as that term is defined in the order) within 60 consecutive days and update the duplicates database within one business day of such de-enrollment. As described above, ETCs must report the number of consumers de-enrolled every month on the revised FCC Form 497. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved requirements.

The order also implements a rule allowing ETCs and state agencies to obtain Lifeline subscriber certifications electronically, including through the use of interactive voice response systems, in compliance with the requirements of the E-Sign Act and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. The E-Sign Act allows the use of electronic records to satisfy Commission regulations requiring that such information be provided in writing, if the consumer has affirmatively consented to such use and has not withdrawn such consent. This rule will reduce the paperwork burden for ETCs and state agencies.

The order requires USAC to revise its existing oversight program (the Beneficiary Compliance Audit and Payment Quality Assurance programs) in light of the new rules. In the order, the Commission modifies the audit requirements of 47 CFR 54.420(b) by requiring USAC to conduct audits of new ETCs within the first twelve months of their seeking federal low-income Universal Service Fund support within any single state to ensure their compliance with the rules as well as assess the company's internal controls regarding the regulatory requirements. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved audit requirements for new ETCs.

In the order, the Commission forbears from applying the Act's facilities requirement of section 214(e)(1)(A) to all telecommunications carriers that seek limited ETC designation to participate in the Lifeline program, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, each carrier must (i) comply with certain 911 requirements; and (ii) file, subject to Bureau approval, a compliance plan providing specific information regarding the carrier's service offerings and outlining the measures the carrier will take to implement the obligations contained in the order.

In the order, the Commission makes several modifications to the existing rules regarding designation of Lifeline-only ETCs to eliminate waste and inefficiency, and to increase accountability in the program. The Commission amends section 54.202 to clarify that Lifeline-only ETCs are not required to submit a five-year improvement plan as part of its application for designation.

The order also amends section 54.202 by requiring carriers seeking to be designated as a Lifeline-only ETC to demonstrate their technical and financial capacity to provide the supported services. Additionally, in the order the Commission amends section 54.202 to require every ETC receiving low-income support to annually provide to the Commission and USAC general information regarding their Lifeline plans for voice telephony service offered specifically for low-income consumers. Finally, section 54.202 requires that a carrier seeking to be designated as an ETC certify that it will comply with the service requirements applicable to the support that it receives. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved requirements regarding the blanket forbearance grant for non-facilities-based carriers and the specific requirements to be designated as a Lifeline-only ETC.

The order establishes a broadband pilot program aimed at generating statistically significant data that will allow the Commission, ETCs, and the public to analyze the effectiveness of different approaches to using Lifeline funds to making broadband more affordable for low-income Americans while providing support that is sufficient but not excessive. The order directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to release a Public Notice setting forth the application requirements for ETCs that intend on submitting an application to participate in the pilot program, which will be due July 2, 2012. The Commission seeks an extension of these previously approved requirements regarding the collection of information to be included in applications and participation in the broadband pilot program.

Revised Information Collection Requirements.The Commission seeks OMB approval to revise the information collection as follows.

The order requires that ETCs report the results of their annual recertification process to USAC utilizing the Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form, FCC Form 555.

The order adopts a rule, 47 CFR 54.405(c), requiring all ETCs to include plain, easy-to-understand language in all of their Lifeline marketing materials to explain to consumers that the offering is a Lifeline supported-service; that Lifeline is a government assistance program; that only eligible consumers may enroll in the program; what documentation is necessary for enrollment; and that the program is limited to one benefit per household, consisting of either a wireline or wireless service. Additionally, the order requires ETCs to disclose the company name under which it does business and the details of its Lifeline service offerings in its Lifeline-relatedmarketing and advertising. ETCs are required to explain that Lifeline is a government benefit program, and consumers who willfully make false statements in order to obtain the benefit can be punished by fine or imprisonment or can be barred from the program. The Commission seeks approval of these marketing requirements as adopted in the order.

The order further modifies the audit requirements of 47 CFR 54.420(a) by adopting a new requirement whereby ETCs drawing more than an aggregate of $5 million annually from the Lifeline fund, on a holding company basis, must conduct biennial independent audits and present audit reports to the Administrator, the Commission, and any applicable state or Tribal government agency within 90 days of the issuance of the audit report. The Commission seeks approval of the biennial audit requirements as adopted in the order.

The order authorizes up to $25 million for funding of the Broadband Pilot Program to be disbursed directly to ETCs for up to 12 months of subsidized broadband service either through bundles of voice and broadband services or as standalone broadband service. To receive reimbursement for approved subsidies, ETCs selected to participate in the Broadband Pilot Program will have to complete the Low Income Broadband Reimbursement Form on a monthly basis and submit to USAC (i) any monthly discount of broadband service; (ii) applicable discount amount for voice telephony service if the broadband subscriber is also subscribing to voice telephony service under the Lifeline program; and (iii) any non-recurring fees for broadband provided to subscribers participating in the Pilot Program and approved as part of the pilot program. The Commission seeks approval of the Low Income Broadband Reimbursement Form for carriers participating in the pilot program.

The order also requires ETCs selected to participate in the Pilot Program to commit to data gathering and sharing of subscribers' anonymized data. USAC will be tasked with collecting data from ETCs regarding the ETCs' projects, and subscriber demographics and broadband usage pursuant to a uniform set of questions set forth in the Low Income Broadband Pilot Program Reporting Form. ETCs may collect the data from subscribers themselves and submit to USAC, or may request that USAC collect the subscriber data directly from ETCs' subscribers. The Commission seeks approval of the Low Income Broadband Pilot Program Reporting Form to be used by participants in the pilot program.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title:Customer Assistance.

OMB Number:3064-0134.

Form Number:FDIC 6422/04.

Frequency of Response:On occasion.

Affected Public:Individuals, Households, Business or financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:15000.

Estimated Time per Response:0.5 hours.

Total Annual Burden:7500 hours.

General Description of Collection:This collection permits the FDIC to collect information from customers of financial institutions who have inquiries or complaints about service. Customers may document their complaints or inquiries to the FDIC using a letter or an optional form (6422/04). The optional form is being revised to facilitate on-line completion and submission of the form and to shorten FDIC response times by making it easier to identify the nature of the complaint and to route the customer inquiry to the appropriate FDIC contact. In addition, a second optional form, the Business Assistance Form, is being added to the collection to distinguish assistance requests submitted by individuals and businesses. Although the information requested on the two forms is identical, the FDIC will be better able to correctly route incoming requests and thereby reduce response times to those seeking assistance. A copy of the revised forms can be accessed via a link directly beneath this notice on the FDIC'sFederal RegisterCitations Web page:http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

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

Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(i)(I)) permits FDA to debar an individual if it finds that the individual has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act, and if FDA finds that the type of conduct that served as the basis for the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs.

On June 29, 2011, Mr. Yanikian was found guilty of two counts of introduction of an unapproved drug in interstate commerce, in violation of sections 301(d), 505(a), and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(d), 355(a), 333(a)(1)) and of aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2(b), and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered judgment against Mr. Yanikian for the misdemeanor offenses of introduction of an unapproved drug in interstate commerce and aiding and abetting.

The FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the misdemeanor convictions referenced herein. The factual basis for the conviction is as follows: On March 17, 2005, FDA sent Mr. Yanikian a warning letter regarding his marketing and sale of Novel natural formulation for atrial fibrillation, Super Nasal Drops, and Sams No Tinnitus Formulation. The warning letter described the claims Mr. Yanikian's Web site was making pertaining to these products and informed him that his claims caused the products to be “drugs” as defined by the FD&C Act because they were intended to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. Mr. Yanikian was informed that his products were “new drugs” and that a new drug could not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce unless an FDA-approved application was in effect for it. Thewarning letter additionally noted that none of the products described had an approved application and that their introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce violated section 301(d) of the FD&C Act. Mr. Yanikian was advised to immediately correct the violations.

In response, on April 11, 2005, Mr. Yanikian wrote a reply letter to FDA in which he stated that the products were mailed for sale outside the United States to hospitals that deal with natural health products. He further noted that his products were not intended for sale as over-the-counter or for single individuals in the United States until they were approved by FDA.

Despite knowing that he was not allowed to sell these unapproved new drugs in the United States without FDA approval, and despite his repeated representations to FDA that he was not selling his products to customers in the United States, Mr. Yanikian subsequently sold his unapproved new drug products to an undercover agent in November 2005, and again in November 2006, in violation of sections 301(d), 505(a), and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act and 18 U.S.C. 2(b).

As a result of his conviction, on April 3, 2012, FDA sent Mr. Yanikian a notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for 10 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA subsequently confirmed that Mr. Yanikian personally received the notice on April 11, 2012. The proposal was based on a finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Yanikian was convicted of two counts of a misdemeanor under Federal law. In the notice, FDA found that the conduct underlying these Federal misdemeanor convictions relates to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of drug products and relates to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act and undermines the process for the regulation of drugs because the introduction and causing the introduction of unapproved new drugs into interstate commerce are prohibited by the FD&C Act. The proposal also offered Mr. Yanikian an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Yanikian failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation, and has therefore waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act under authority delegated to him (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Sami Arshak Yanikian has been convicted of two counts of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of drug products and relating to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act, and that the type of conduct that served as a basis for the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs.

As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Yanikian is debarred for 10 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (seeDATES), (see sections 306(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 201(dd) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 321(dd))). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Mr. Yanikian, in any capacity during Mr. Yanikian's debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Yanikian provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application during his period of debarment he will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Mr. Yanikian during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).

Any application by Mr. Yanikian for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0063 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).

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

Notice of this meeting is given under theFederal Advisory Committee Act,5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The NIAC shall provide the President, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, with advice on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems.

The NIAC will meet to address issues relevant to the protection of critical infrastructure as directed by the President. At this meeting, the committee will receive a presentation from the NIAC Regional Resilience Working Group documenting their work to date on the Regional Resilience Study, which will be posted on the Council's public Web page onwww.dhs.gov/NIACno later than five days prior to the meeting. The Council will review and provide further direction to the working group.

Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S. Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C.; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these AMSCs from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-436, 86 Stat. 470 (5 U.S.C. App.2).

The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the development, review, update, and exercising of the AMS Plan for their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not limited to: Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations; Identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences); Determining mitigation strategies and implementation methods; Developing strategies to facilitate the recovery of the MTS after a Transportation Security Incident; Developing and describing the process to continually evaluate overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be applied; and Providing advice to, and assisting the Captain of the Port in developing and maintaining the AMS Plan.

The composition of an AMSC, to include the Boston AMSC and its subcommittees, is controlled by 33 CFR 103.305. Accordingly, members may be selected from the Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government; the State government and political subdivisions of the State; local public safety, crisis management, and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry, including labor; other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and port stakeholders affect by security practices and policies. Also, members of the Boston AMSC must have at least 5 years of experience related to maritime or port security operations.

The Boston AMSC has 29 members who represent Federal, State, local, and industry stakeholders from Massachusetts. We are seeking to fill 10 positions with this solicitation.

Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security background check prior to appointment to the committee. Members' terms of office will be for 5 years; however, a member is eligible to serve additional terms of office. Members will not receive any salary or other compensation for their service on an AMSC.

Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal applications to the local Captain of the Port, however, because we do have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission of resumes highlighting experience in the maritime and security industries.

In support of the USCG policy on gender and ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups to apply.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Counseling Client Survey Conversion Mortgage Counseling Client Survey.

OMB Control Number, if applicable:2502-0585.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:The HECM Counseling Session Evaluation is sent to counseling recipients as part of HUD's performance review of a HECM counseling agency. It is used by HUD as a performance tool to obtain information directly from counseling recipients on their experience with the counseling agency under review by HUD.

Agency form numbers, if applicable:HUD 92911.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 50, the number of respondents is 300 generating approximately 300 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 10 minutes to 20 minutes.

Status of the proposed information collection:This is an extension of a previously approved information collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:Opinion by Counsel to the Mortgagor (FHA).

OMB Control Number, if applicable:2510-0010.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:The opinion is required to provide comfort to HUD and the mortgagee in multifamily rental and health care facility mortgage insurance transactions.

Agency form numbers, if applicable:HUD-91725, 91725-instr, 91725-CERT.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:As closings occur in connection with the aforementioned projects. The estimated number of respondents annually is 800, the estimated number of responses annually per respondent is 1, the number of estimated hours per response is 1, and the total estimated burden hours is 800.

Status of the proposed information collection:This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application to the address shown inADDRESSES.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) within the State of Ohio. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild through project planning to avoid impacts to the species.

The applicant requests a permit to take the following species: Indiana bats, gray bats (Myotis grisescens), Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus), and Mitchell's satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild. Proposed activities may occur within the following States: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The applicant requests a permit renewal, with amendments, to take Indiana bats, gray bats, lesser long nose bats, Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) and Ozark big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) within Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery of the species and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

The applicant requests a permit amendment to add Higgins' eye pearly mussels (Lampsilis higginsii) and winged mapleleaf mussels (Quadrula fragosa) to their list of covered species and to work within Iowa and Wisconsin. Proposed activities would expand the applicant's authority to conduct aquatic surveys for endangered and threatened mussel species to monitor populations for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) threatened and endangered mussel species in Ohio. Proposed activities include conducting of surveys to determine presence, abundance, density, and size structure for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware 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 your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Commission. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA Web site athttp://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Standard/US/Overview.shtm.Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.Ifyou are interested in presenting information at this public meeting, contact the Council Coordinator no later than the date underDATES.

The Council will consider U.S. standard grant proposals at the meeting announced inDATES. The Commission will consider the Council's recommendations at its meeting tentatively scheduled for September 12, 2012.

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. If you wish to submit a written statement, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date above. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the Council meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator by the date above, in writing (preferably via email; seeFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), to be placed on the public speaker list for either of these meeting. Nonregistered public speakers will not be considered during the Council meeting. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, are invited to submit written statements to the Council within 30 days following the meeting.

Summary minutes of the Council and meeting will be maintained by the Council Coordinator at the address underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Council meeting minutes will be posted athttp://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/CouncilAct.shtm#CouncilMeetwithin 30 days following the meeting. Personal copies may be purchased for the cost of duplication.

The purpose of the FEIS is to evaluate the impacts of the alternatives for managing vehicle use along the Denali Park Road. Since the mid-1920s, visitors have been able to travel the park road on buses operated by the park concessioner. Starting in 1972, when private vehicle traffic was restricted beyond mile 15 of the road, a shuttle bus service was added for visitor transportation. The present approach for managing vehicles on the park road is based on the park's 1986 general management plan, which established a seasonal limit of 10, 512 vehicle permits beyond mile 15 between approximately Memorial Day and a week after Labor Day [36 CFR 13.932]. It has served well as a way to manage vehicle use, while providing high quality visitor opportunities to see wildlife in natural habitats and to access the park's wilderness. However, visitation to Denali National Park and Preserve is expected to continue to increase, and with it demand for visits along the park road.

A 90-day public comment period on the Draft EIS (DEIS) began on July 29, 2011. Public meetings were held in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Denali National Park, Alaska. The NPS received 324 comment letters from various agencies, organizations and individuals. In response to public comment, the FEIS describes and analyzes a fourth alternative (NPS Preferred Alternative) that combines elements of Alternatives A, B and C from the DEIS. The FEIS presents responses to substantive comments in Chapter 5.

The Plan/FEIS analyzes the following four alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), Maximizing Visitor Opportunities (Alternative B),Maximizing Visitor Opportunities (Alternative C), and the NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative D).

Alternative A:(No Action): This alternative would continue current management of vehicle use on the park road. In addition to a seasonal limit of 10,512 vehicles past mile 15, there would continue to be specific seasonal and daily limits to tour buses, shuttle buses, inholder traffic, professional photographer vehicles, NPS administrative vehicles and other categories of vehicles.

Alternative B:This alternative would use an adaptive management framework for vehicle use based on indicators and standards for visitor experiences and resource protection. While adhering to these standards, management would promote maximized seating on all transit and tour vehicles to offer the largest number of visitors the opportunity to travel the park road. This adaptive management framework would include options for reducing or scheduling non-bus traffic to allow for additional visitor use on transit and tour vehicles.

Alternative C:This alternative would use an adaptive management framework for vehicle use based on indicators and standards for visitor experiences and resource protection. While adhering to these standards, management would promote a wide variety of opportunities that would include brief experiences in the park's entrance area, short visits along segments of the park road, special interest tours, and multi-day experiences in the park's backcountry. This adaptive management framework would include options for reducing or scheduling non-bus traffic to allow for additional visitor use on transit and tour vehicles.

Alternative D:The NPS preferred alternative, with an adaptive manage framework, would provide a high quality visitor experience; protect wilderness resource values, scenic values, wildlife, and other park resources; and maintain the unique character of the park road. While managing to meet standards for desired conditions, a maximum daily capacity would also be used to protect park resources and values. The daily capacity would apply to all vehicles traveling west of the Savage River check station (mile 15).

Background.On September 7, 2001, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued antidumping duty orders on imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine (66 FR 46777). Following the five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective August 9, 2007, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine (72 FR 44830). The Commission is now conducting second reviews to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission's determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions.The following definitions apply to these reviews:

(1)Subject Merchandiseis the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by Commerce.

(2) TheSubject Countriesin these reviews are Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine.

(3) TheDomestic Like Productis the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, theSubject Merchandise.In its original determinations and its full first five-year reviews, the Commission defined theDomestic Like Productas certain steel concrete reinforcing bar, coextensivewith the scope of theSubject Merchandise.

(4) TheDomestic Industryis the U.S. producers as a whole of theDomestic Like Product,or those producers whose collective output of theDomestic Like Productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, three Commissioners based their material injury analysis on a national industry consisting of all producers of steel concrete reinforcing bar and three Commissioners found a regional industry consisting of all domestic production facilities producing theDomestic Like Productin the region consisting of the 30 contiguous states from New England to Texas and from the Gulf of Mexico north on both sides of the Mississippi up to the Canadian border, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In its full first five-year review determinations, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to conduct a regional industry analysis and defined theDomestic Industryto consist of all domestic producers of steel concrete reinforcing bar. For purposes of this notice, you should reportDomestic Industryinformation based on the Commission's most recent determination defining theDomestic Industryto consist of all domestic producers of steel concrete reinforcing bar.

(5) AnImporteris any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing theSubject Merchandiseinto the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.Persons, including industrial users of theSubject Merchandiseand, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in theFederal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification.Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions.Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is August 1, 2012. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is September 14, 2012. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing have been amended. The amendments took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76 FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site athttp://edis.usitc.gov. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information.Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews.

Information To Be Provided in Response to this Notice of Institution:If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/exportSubject Merchandisefrom more than oneSubject Country;or produceSubject Merchandisein more than oneSubject Country,you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinentSubject Country.As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Webaddress) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product,a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of theSubject Merchandise,a foreign producer or exporter of theSubject Merchandise,a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on theDomestic Industryin general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports ofSubject Merchandiseon theDomestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of theDomestic Like Product.Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandiseand producers of theSubject Merchandisein eachSubject Countrythat currently export or have exportedSubject Merchandiseto the United States or other countries after 2006.

(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for theDomestic Like Productand theSubject Merchandise(including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm).

(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for theDomestic Like Productor theSubject Merchandisein the U.S. or other markets.

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of theDomestic Like Product,provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2011, except as noted (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of theDomestic Like Productaccounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce theDomestic Like Product(i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of theDomestic Like Productproduced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of theSubject Merchandisefrom theSubject Country(ies),provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2011 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports ofSubject Merchandisefrom eachSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments ofSubject Merchandiseimported from eachSubject Country;and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers ofSubject Merchandiseimported from eachSubject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Country(ies),provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2011 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production ofSubject Merchandisein eachSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce theSubject Merchandisein eachSubject Country(i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandiseand, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States ofSubject Merchandisefrom eachSubject Countryaccounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for theDomestic Like Productthat have occurred in the United States or in the market for theSubject Merchandisein theSubject Country(ies)after 2006, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among theDomestic Like Productproduced in the United States,SubjectMerchandiseproduced in eachSubject Country,and such merchandise from other countries.