The Committee on Adjudication will meet to discuss a draft report on the Immigration Adjudication Project. The report, prepared by Professor Lenni B. Benson (New York Law School) and Russell Wheeler (Brookings Institution), presents the findings of a study of potential improvements to the procedures for immigration adjudication. At its meetings, the Committee on Adjudication will also consider a draft recommendation based on the consultants' report.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”), Public Law 111-203, Title X, established the CFPB to administer and enforce Federal consumer financial protection law. The CFPB will maintain the records covered by this notice.

The new system of records described in this notice, CFPB.015—Ethics Program Records, will provide the CFPB with a single, agency-wide repository for questions submitted to the CFPB Ethics Office and requests for advice or clarification. The Ethics Program Records will allow the CFPB to manage and appropriately document the CFPB's compliance with government ethics program requirements. A description of the new system of records follows this Notice.

The report of a new system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).

The system of records entitled, “CFPB.015—Ethics Program Records” is published in its entirety below.

The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.

Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:

1. Use of performance standards in the NPIP regulations.

2. The Food and Drug Administration's egg safety rule and NPIP salmonella testing equivalency update.

3. Compartmentalization.

4. 2012 Biennial Conference.

The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2011-0115 when submitting your statements.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

As required by section 21 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 87j), as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Advisory Committee on September 29, 1981, to provide advice to the GIPSA Administrator on implementation of the USGSA. The current authority for the Advisory Committee expires on September 30, 2015. As specified in the USGSA, each member's term is 3 years and no member may serve successive terms.

The Advisory Committee consists of 15 members, appointed by the Secretary, who represent the interests of grain producers, processors, handlers, merchandisers, consumers, exporters, and scientists with expertise in research related to the policies in section 2 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 74). While members of the Advisory Committee serve without compensation, USDA reimburses them for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, for travel away from their homes or regular places of business in performance of Advisory Committee service (see 5 U.S.C. 5703).

A list of current Advisory Committee members and other relevant information are available on the GIPSA Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov. Under the section “I Want To * * * ” select “Learn about the Advisory Committee.”

GIPSA is seeking nominations for individuals to serve on the Advisory Committee to replace six members and four alternate members whose terms will expire March 31, 2012.

Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, mental or physical disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations of the Advisory Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

The final selection of Advisory Committee members and alternates is made by the Secretary.

Title: Bee and Honey Surveys and Publications.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0153.

Expiration Dates of Approval: May 31, 2013.

Type of Request: To resume a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary functions of the National Agricultural Statistics Service includes the collection of data and the preparation and issuance of state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, prices, and environmental and economic factors.

The current OMB approval for the Bee and Honey Survey is for all States except Alaska. The estimated population is approximately 10,000 operations. The survey is conducted once a year. Under this survey program, NASS asks for: The number of colonies owned; the number of colonies honey is harvested from; how many pounds of honey were harvested; how many pounds of honey are in Stock on December 15th; and how many pounds of honey were sold and the correlating price. The respondents are also asked to break out their sales by honey color class and marketing channel(s).

Timeline: This collection was suspended on November 17, 2011 due to budget constraints. After having secured additional funding, NASS will resume this information collection on January 23, 2012 and will publish the survey results on March 30, 2012.

Authority: These data are collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) (General Duties of the Secretary of Agriculture). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

On February 28, 2011, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations, the Department received a NSR request from Thong Thuan Company Limited and its subsidiary company, Thong Thuan Seafood Company Limited (collectively, “Thong Thuan”). Thong Thuan certified that it was the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request was based. On March 23, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of the NSR of the Order for Thong Thuan. 2 On April 1, 2011, the Department issued its original antidumping duty questionnaire to Thong Thuan. Between April 29, 2011, and October 5, 2011, Thong Thuan submitted responses to the original and supplemental sections A, C, D, and Importer antidumping duty questionnaires.

On April 13, 2011, the Department sent Thong Thuan a letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing factors of production (“FOP”). On June 10, 2011, and July 17, 2011, Thong Thuan submitted surrogate country comments and surrogate value (“SV”) data. 3

On September 7, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review to November 9, 2011. 4 On November 1, 2011, the Department further extended the deadline to December 9, 2011. 5 On November 29, 2011, the Department fully extended the deadline to January 9, 2012. 6

The scope of the orders includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,  7 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form.

The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of these orders, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.

The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of these orders. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of these orders.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce;  8 (7) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.40); and (8) certain battered shrimp. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.

The products covered by these orders are currently classified under the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. 9

In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam has been treated as a non-market (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. 10 We calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers” ), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide” ).

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.

In this NSR, Thong Thuan submitted complete responses to the separate rate section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence submitted by Thong Thuan includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information regarding its operations and selection of management. We believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control based on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license; and (2) the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over Thong Thuan.

The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 11

In its questionnaire responses, Thong Thuan submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto government control over its export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) Thong Thuan sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) Thong Thuan retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) Thong Thuan has a general manager, branch manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and (5) there is no restriction on any of the company's use of export revenues. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Thong Thuan has established prima facie that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona fide nature of the sale made by Thong Thuan in this NSR. 12 We found that the sale by Thong Thuan was made on a bona fide basis. 13 Based on our investigation into the bona fide nature of the sale, the questionnaire responses submitted by Thong Thuan, and the company's eligibility for separate rates ( see Separate Rate Determination section above), we preliminarily determine that Thong Thuan has met the requirement to qualify as a new shipper during this POR. Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we are treating Thong Thuan's sale of subject merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this NSR.

When the Department conducts a review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy (“ME”) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. Further, pursuant to section 351.408(c)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department will normally value FOPs in a single country, except for labor. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below. 14

As noted above, on April 13, 2011, the Department sent Thong Thuan a letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing FOPs. On June 10, 2011, and June 17, 2011, the Department received comments from Thong Thuan suggesting that the Department select Bangladesh as the surrogate country, as well as Bangladeshi SV data. 15

Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of Policy (“OP”). 16 The OP determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia were at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam. 17 The Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its Surrogate Country List as “equally comparable in terms of economic development.” 18 Thus, we find that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of Vietnam. We note that the Surrogate Country List is a non- exhaustive list of economically comparable countries.

Thong Thuan submitted evidence that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Indonesia are all significant producers of comparable merchandise. 19 However, while we find that these countries are economically comparable to Vietnam and produce comparable merchandise, we note that the record contains limited publicly available SV factors of production (“FOP”) information for India and Indonesia, but no publicly available SV FOP information for Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or the Philippines.

With regard to Bangladesh, the record contains publicly available SV factor information for the majority of FOPs. Given the above-cited facts, we find that the information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an appropriate surrogate country because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has reliable, publicly available data for the majority of the factors of production.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated the export price (“EP”) for sales to the United States, because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation. The Department calculated EP based on the price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to the unaffiliated purchaser foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on SVs. Additionally, for international freight provided by an ME provider and paid in an ME currency, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. 20

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from an ME country and pays for it in an ME currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. During the POR, Thong Thuan reported that it purchased a certain input from an ME supplier and paid for the input in an ME currency. 22 The Department confirmed that this input was produced in a ME country through supplemental questionnaires.

The Department has a rebuttable presumption that ME input prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. 23 In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight-average the ME purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. 24 When a firm has made ME input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid ME purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. 25 Because Thong Thuan's ME purchase of broodstock exceeded the 33-percent threshold, we have valued this input using the ME purchase price paid by Thong Thuan.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by Thong Thuan for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi SVs. In selecting SVs, we considered the quality, specificity and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production, or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (“CAFC”) decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the factory.

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized. 26 In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non- industry specific export subsidies. 27 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.

Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries. 28 Moreover, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. 29 Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports identified as being from Bangladesh into Bangladesh because there is no information on the record regarding what these data represent ( e.g., another category of unspecified imports or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, these data do not represent the best available information upon which to rely for valuation purposes. 30

Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Bangladeshi import-based SVs or in calculating ME input values. In instances where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Bangladeshi import-based SVs to value the input.

The Department used UN ComTrade Statistics, provided by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, as its primary source of Bangladeshi SV data to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Thong Thuan used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where listed below. 31 For a detailed description of all SVs, see SV Memo. The data represents cumulative values for the calendar year 2007, for inputs classified by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System number. As noted above, for each input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not previously determined to be NME countries, countries that the Department has determined to be countries which subsidized exports ( i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India), imports from unspecified countries and imports from Bangladesh into Bangladesh.

It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are not contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index (“WPI”) for the subject country. 32 However, in this case, a WPI was not available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors could not be obtained, SVs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for Indonesia (for certain SVs where Bangladeshi data could not be obtained), as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.

Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. We relied on the daily exchange rates posted on the Import Administration Web site. 33

Consistent with the Fifth Vietnam Shrimp AR, we valued labor using 2009 data collected by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 34

We valued electricity using data from the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy, & Mineral Resources. This information was published on their Power Division's Web site. We valued water using 2007 data from the Asian Development Bank. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. We valued diesel using data published by the World Bank in “Bangladesh: Transport at a Glance,” published in June 2006. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate.

To value truck freight, we used data published in 2008 Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: India, published by the World Bank. Because the price is for 2009, we inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate.

We valued the by-product using shell scrap values using a surrogate value for shrimp by-products based on a purchase price quote for wet shrimp shells from an Indonesian buyer of crustacean shells. Although we recognize that Thong Thuan reported by-products other than shells and that this surrogate value is not from Bangladesh, the primary surrogate country, this information represents the best information on the record and has been used in past case segments. 35 Moreover, we also note that this is the only surrogate value on the record for by-products, and as a consequence, is being used for these preliminary results. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. 36

To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2009-2010 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2008-2009 financial statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi shrimp processors. 37

The Department has preliminarily determined that the following dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011:

The Department will disclose to parties of this proceeding the calculation performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.

In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations, for the final results, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, for the final results of this NSR, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party within 10 days of the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 38

In accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this NSR. In accordance with section 351.309(d) of the Department's regulations, rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for submitting the case briefs. The Department requests that interested parties provide an executive summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and rebuttal briefs.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. 39 Requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Department intends to issue the final results of this NSR, which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 351.214(i) of the Department's regulations.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this NSR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this NSR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

The following cash deposit requirement will be effective upon publication of the final results of this NSR for all shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported from Thong Thuan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Thong Thuan, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this NSR. If the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required for the specific producer-exporter combination listed above; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Thong Thuan but not manufactured by Thong Thuan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Vietnam-wide rate ( i.e., 25.76 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by Thong Thuan, but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate ( i.e., 25.76 percent). The cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of its responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and sections 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4) of the Department's regulations.

On December 5, 2011, AREVA requested that the Department initiate and conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to amend the scope of the antidumping duty order as it applies to one entry of LEU entered by AREVA that was not subject to the antidumping duty order at the time of entry. AREVA provided additional information on December 13, 2011, including entry documentation and a more detailed description of the circumstances leading to this request. 1 At the time of the entry at issue, the entry met the requirements of a narrow exclusion from the scope of the order ( see Scope of the Order section, below). However, as a result of the temporary shutdown of its Japanese customer caused by the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011, 2 AREVA will be unable to meet the requirements of the scope exclusion by re-exporting the LEU within the specified deadline. Therefore, AREVA is requesting that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review for the purpose of amending the scope of the order to extend by 18 months the deadline for re-exporting the LEU entry at issue.

On December 14, 2011, USEC Inc. and its subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, “USEC”), submitted a letter expressing no objection to AREVA's request regarding the entry at issue.

The product covered by the order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium).

Certain merchandise is outside the scope of the order. Specifically, the order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of the order. For purposes of the order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of the order.

Also excluded from the order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Based on the information and documentation AREVA submitted in its December 5 and December 13, 2011 letters, we find that we have received information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of such a review in order to determine whether the circumstance described by AREVA support an extension of the 18-month period to re-export the specified entry of LEU that is currently under the 18-month exclusion from the antidumping duty order. 3 Therefore, in accordance with the above-referenced statute and regulation, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review.

AREVA also requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), and issue the preliminary results of changed circumstances review together with the initiation. The Department has decided that simultaneous issuance of the preliminary review is not appropriate. However, the Department does intend to issue the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review within 30 days of the publication of this initiation notice. Parties wishing to provide factual information for the Department's consideration must do so within 15 days of the publication of this notice. We intend to issue the final results of the changed circumstances review within 270 days from the date of initiation of this changed circumstance review, or within 45 days of the date of initiation if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review. 4

This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

On May 31, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated an antidumping duty investigation on high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). 1 On December 15, 2011, the Department published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. 2 The final determination of this antidumping duty investigation is currently due 75 days after the date of the Preliminary Determination. 3

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department may postpone a final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioner. In addition, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.

On December 12, 2011, Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd., the entity comprising the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested a postponement of the final determination and an extension of the provisional measures pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, 4 and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination notice in the Federal Register , or April 28, 2012. 5 Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 777(i) and 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

I. Abstract

This is a request for a new information collection.

The Sensor Science Division (SSD) of the Physical Measurement Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is responsible for providing standards for the characterization of the optical properties of materials for the United States. This serves the needs of a wide range of industries as well as government and academic laboratories. An increasingly important part of the optical spectrum is the infrared spectral range from 1 µm to 20 µm. Over the past two decades, the SSD has been working to establish physical standards, measurement methods and measurement services in the infrared. As part of this ongoing effort, and in response to many inquiries and requests in recent years, NIST plans to survey members of the infrared optical properties measurement community. The purpose of the survey is to assess their needs for standard reference materials, calibration services, workshops, courses, and other means for improvement of the quality of their measurement data and traceability to national standards.

The survey will be will be sent as an email attachment to the participants; and the completed survey will be returned to NIST via email.

OMB Control Number: None.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (new information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 120.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 60.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

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

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

This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.

Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1445a) allows the Secretary of Commerce to establish one or more advisory councils to provide advice to the Secretary regarding the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. Advisory councils are individually chartered for each sanctuary to meet the needs of that sanctuary. Once an advisory council has been chartered, the sanctuary superintendent starts a process to recruit members for that council by providing notice to the public and requesting interested parties to apply for the available seat(s) ( e.g., Research, Education) and position(s) ( i.e., council member or alternate). The information obtained through this application process will be used to determine the qualifications of the applicant for membership on the sanctuary advisory council.

Two application forms are currently associated with this information collection: (a) National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Application form; and (b) National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Youth Seat Application form. These application forms are currently being revised to ensure consistency between the forms, as well as clarify the information and supplemental materials to be submitted by applicants. Application form instructions will specify requirements imposed upon the agency when reviewing applicants as potential council members or alternates, including the need to assess potential conflicts of interest (or other issues) and the applicant's status as a federally-registered lobbyist. Specific questions posed to applicants will be reordered, reworded and, at times, condensed to improve the organization of applicant responses and, thereby, simplify the applicant review process.

Complete applications may be submitted electronically via email (with attachments), by mail, or by facsimile transmission.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0397.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 520.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 520.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,040.

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

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

On July 11, 2011 and August 19, 2011, notices were published in the Federal Register (76 FR 51945 and 76 FR 40699) that requests for enhancement permits to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organizations. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The North Carolina Zoo and the Springfield Science Museum have been issued permits to continue enhancement activities previously authorized under Permit Nos. 1545 and 1555, respectively. Activities include the continued maintenance, transport and educational display of captive-bred, non-releaseable adult shortnose sturgeon. The permits do not authorize any takes from the wild, nor do they authorize any release of captive sturgeon into the wild. These permits are valid for a duration of 5 years.

Issuance of the permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

On July 25, 2011, notice was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 44306) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Dr. Hart is authorized to study green, hawksbill, and loggerhead sea turtles at Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin Islands. The purposes of the research are to determine species-specific habitat-use patterns over time, increase understanding of genetic stock structure, and estimate vital rates and local population abundance of sea turtles. Researchers may visually count sea turtles during vessel surveys or capture animals by hand, rodeo, dip net, tangle net or cast net for sampling and tagging. Captured sea turtles may have the following procedures performed: epibiota removal, lavage, temporary carapace marking, flipper and passive integrated transponder tagging, measuring, photograph, recapture, blood sampling, fecal sampling, tissue biopsy, and weighing. A subset of animals also may be tagged with satellite tags and data loggers (epoxy attachments) and/or acoustic transmitters (epoxy or drill carapace and attach with wire). The permit is valid for five years.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

Judy A. Davis-Perry (Complainant) alleged violations by the Missouri Department of Social Services, Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA) under the Act, and implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Complainant alleged that the SLA improperly denied her bid to manage Vending Facility #195, a vending machine facility, at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Consolidation offices in Kansas City, Missouri.

Specifically, Complainant alleged that the SLA's selection procedures was biased and flawed and that the SLA discriminated against her in selecting another bidder.

On October 30, 2009, the SLA mailed out a bid announcement to all licensed blind vendors notifying them of a Level II vending opening at Vending Facility #195.

On November 5, 2009, Complainant submitted her bid to manage Vending Facility #195.

On November 21, 2009, the SLA's Executive Committee (Committee,) which had the responsibility to administer the SLA's transfer and promotions procedures, interviewed five applicants for Vending Facility #195, including Complainant.

On November 24, 2009, the Committee discussed the applicants and voted unanimously to recommend another vendor to Vending Facility #195.

The successful applicant was also a member of the Committee. However, the successful applicant did not participate in the interviews of the other applicants, the Committee's discussions, or its decision.

The successful applicant was the first or second choice of all five Committee members. Complainant was ranked no higher than third on any Committee member's ballot.

On November 30, 2009, the Deputy Director of the SLA advised Complainant that another applicant had been awarded the bid to manage Vending Facility #195. Subsequently, Complainant requested an administrative review from the SLA concerning the appointment of another vendor to manage Vending Facility #195.

On December 21, 2009, SLA staff advised Complainant that her administrative review had been scheduled for January 10, 2010.

On January 25, 2010, the SLA's Deputy Director issued a written decision to Complainant rejecting her complaint about the selection process and the appointment of the other vendor to Vending Facility #195.

On February 2, 2010, Complainant filed for a State fair hearing of her complaint regarding Vending Facility #195. The SLA held a State fair hearing on July 28, 2010.

On August 12, 2010, the hearing officer issued a written recommendation to the SLA rejecting Complainant's complaint about the appointment and selection process for Vending Facility #195. The hearing officer's recommendation was later adopted by the SLA as its final administrative decision.

Subsequently, Complainant filed with the Department a request for Federal arbitration seeking an appeal of the State fair hearing decision. A Federal arbitration panel was convened on May 5, 2011, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 207d-1(a). The issues as stated by the Federal arbitration panel were: (1) Whether the SLA's final decision to select another vendor to manage Vending Facility #195, instead of Complainant, was supported by competent and substantial evidence based upon the whole record or, rather, constituted an abuse of discretion, was arbitrary and capricious or was made without statutory authority; and (2) whether the SLA's final decision to select another blind operator to manage Vending Facility #195, instead of Complainant, unlawfully discriminated against Complainant on the basis of her physical disability or impairment.

After reviewing all of the testimony and evidence, the majority of the panel denied Complainant's complaint in its entirety. Specifically, the panel majority found that the SLA's selection of another blind vendor was supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record. The panel majority rejected Complainant's argument that the Committee's recommendations to the SLA were inconsistent with the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the implementing regulations. Similarly, the panel majority rejected Complainant's argument that the SLA's Deputy Director merely rubber stamped the Committee's recommendations to select another vendor for Vending Facility #195. The panel concluded that the evidence did not support Complainant's allegation that the process used in selecting another vendor was biased or flawed.

Concerning issue number 2 Complainant alleged that the SLA discriminated against her by providing the Committee information about a customer complaint concerning Complainant's service dog wandering around her convenience store. The panel majority concluded that Complainant failed to produce any evidence that suggested that the SLA considered Complainant's use of a service dog in making its recommendation and award of Vending Facility #195.

One panel member concurred with the panel majority's decision to deny the Complainant's grievance in whole, but dissented from the decision on the process of awarding vending facilities by the SLA, stating that there are some potential problems with the SLA's current bid-selection process, possibly due to the small number of blind vendors in the program.

The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

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

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

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau.

Form Number: FCC Form 601, Schedules D, I and M.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 253,120 respondents; 253,120 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and every 10 years reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534 and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 221,780 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $55,140,000.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. On a case-by-case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking OMB approval for a revision of this information collection in order to obtain the full 3-year approval from OMB. There is no change to the Commission's previous burden estimates.

FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form, or “long form”, that is used for general market-based licensing and site-by-site licensing for wireless telecommunications and public safety services filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains the administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. Respondents are encouraged to submit FCC Form 601 electronically and are required to do so when submitting FCC Form 601 to apply for an authorization for which the applicant was the winning bidder in a spectrum auction.

The data collected on the FCC Form 601 include the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires those entities filing with the Commission to use a FRN.

Additionally, the FCC Form 601 is used for auctionable services as they are implemented: FCC Form 601 is used to apply for a new authorization, or to amend a pending application for an authorization to operate a license wireless radio services. This includes Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) and the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), Maritime Services (excluding ships), and Aviation Services (excluding aircraft). It may also be used to modify or renew an existing license, cancel a license, withdraw a pending application, obtain a duplicate license, submit required notifications, request an extension of time to satisfy construction requirements, or request an administrative update to an existing license (such as mailing address change, request a Special Temporary Authority (STA) or a Developmental License.

The Commission is now seeking OMB approval for a revision of the FCC Form 601, Schedules D, I and M to allow respondents the option to provide a pending File Number for an Antenna Structure Registration (ASR). Previously ULS would only accept a granted ASR registration number. This change is being made to allow applicants to file a FCC Form 601 application while the ASR application is going through the new environmental notice process as required by the Migratory Bird Order on Remand, WTB Docket Nos. 08-61 and 03-187, FCC 11-181. The entries for structure type are changing as a result of the Order as well.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0139.

Title: Application for Antenna Structure Registration.

Form Number: FCC Form 854.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 2,500 respondents; 47,500 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 60 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303(q), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303(q), 303(r), and 309(j), Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), and Section 1506.6 of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR 1506.6.

Total Annual Burden: 21,345 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $975,725.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. This information collection contains personally identifiable information on individuals which is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. Information on the FCC Form 854 is maintained in the Commission's System of Records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”. These licensee records are publicly available and routinely used in accordance of subsection b of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), as amended. Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) and materials that are afforded confidential treatment pursuant to a request made under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules will not be available for public inspection.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission has in place the following policy and procedures for records retention and disposal: Records will be actively maintained as long as the entity remains a tower owner. Paper records will be archived after being keyed or scanned into the Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) database and destroyed when twelve (12) years old; electronic records will be backed up and deleted twelve (12) years after the registration is no longer valid.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking OMB approval for a revision of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval from OMB. There is no change to the Commission's previous burden estimates.

The purpose of the FCC Form 854 is to register antenna structures (radio towers) that are used for wire or radio communication services which are regulated by the Commission; to make changes to existing registered antenna structures or pending applications for registration; or to notify the Commission of the completion of construction or dismantlement of such structures, as required by Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Sections 1.923, 1.1307, 1.1311, 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, 17.7, 17.57 and 17.58.

On December 9, 2011, the Commission adopted and released the Migratory Bird Order on Remand ( Remand Order ), WTB Docket Nos. 08-61 and 03-187, FCC 11-181, in response to the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court held that the Commission's current Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) procedures do not offer members of the public a meaningful opportunity to request an Environmental Assessment for proposed towers the Commission considers categorically excluded from review under the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). To address the court's holding, the Remand Order adds a pre-application notification process to the ASR procedures so that members of the public will have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of proposed antenna structures that require registration with the Commission. The Remand Order also adopts an interim requirement to prepare Environmental Assessments for antenna structures that are over 450 feet in height.

The Commission is revising the FCC Form 854 to comply with the Remand Order by adding questions that will facilitate the pre-application notification process. In addition, FCC Form 854 is being revised to include several administrative-related questions that will enable the Commission to more efficiently process antenna structure registration. The additional questions relate to replacement towers; requirements to post local and national notice so that the public may have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of a proposed structure that requires registration; determining if the structure is located on Federal land; allowing the applicant to select the type of painting and/or lighting it will utilize on the structure being registered; and collecting additional administrative information such as the type of entity that owns the structure, fax number, and count and ZIP code in which the structure is located.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0922.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Broadcast Mid-Term Report, FCC Form 397.

Form Number: FCC Form 397.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,180 respondents and 1,180 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Mid-point reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 590 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Broadcast Mid-Term Report (FCC Form 397) is required to be filed by each broadcast television station that is part of an employment unit with five or more full-time employees and each broadcast radio station that is part of an employment unit with more than ten full-time employees. It is a data collection device used to assess broadcast compliance with EEO outreach requirements in the middle of license terms that are eight years in duration.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0208.

Title: Section 73.1870, Chief Operators.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 18,498 respondents; 36,996 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.166-26 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 484,019 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR Section 73.1870 requires that the licensee of an AM, FM, or TV broadcast station designate a chief operator of the station. Section 73.1870(b)(3) requires that this designation must be in writing and posted with the station license. Section 73.1870(c)(3) requires that the chief operator, or personnel delegated and supervised by the chief operator, review the station records at least once each week to determine if required entries are being made correctly, and verify that the station has been operated in accordance with FCC rules and the station authorization. Upon completion of the review, the chief operator must date and sign the log, initiate corrective action which may be necessary and advise the station licensee of any condition which is repetitive. The posting of the designation of the chief operator is used by interested parties to readily identify the chief operator. The review of the station records is used by the chief operator, and FCC staff in investigations, to ensure that the station is operating in accordance with its station authorization and the FCC rules and regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0400.

Title: Part 61, Tariff Review Plan (TRP).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 2,840 respondents; 8,554 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 53 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual biennial, and one time reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 121,656 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this revised information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60 day comment period to obtain the full three year approval from them. The hourly burden has increased by 117,056 hours which is due to an Order that was adopted and released requiring or permitting incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers, as part of transitioning regulation of interstate and intrastate switched access rates and reciprocal compensation rates to bill-and-keep under section 251(b)(5), to file tariffs with state commissions and the FCC. This transition affects different switched access rates at specified timeframes and establishes an Access Recovery Charge by which carriers will be able to assess end users a monthly charge to recover some or all of the revenues they are permitted to recover resulting from reductions in intercarrier compensation rates. Price cap LECs must remove the rate elements in the traffic-sensitive and trunking baskets from price cap regulation on July 1, 2012. There interstate tariff filings will require cost support that generally is encompassed in the existing support burdens and, in many cases, may be satisfied through the data collection encompassed by a new information collection entitled “ Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service Compliance and Monitoring ” which will also be submitted to the OMB for approval and assigned an OMB control number (see description of new information collection below). The intrastate tariff filings may, depending on state requirements, require supporting materials to be filed that may also largely be satisfied by submitting the new information collection referenced above.

As of November 2010, there are 92 total incumbent LECs that file interstate tariffs. Of them, there are 39 ILECs that file pursuant to price cap regulation under Sections 61.41-61.49 of the Commission's rules. Outside of the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), there are 12 ILECs filing their own tariffs pursuant to rate-of-return regulation under Section 61.38 of the Commission's rules. The remaining 40 ILECs file their own tariffs pursuant to section 61.39 of the Commission's rules. NECA files one Tariff Review Plan for approximately 1,000 Sections 61.38 and 61.39 ILECs. Therefore, we estimate 51 + 40 + 1 (NECA) = 92 filing entities.

We also estimate that 330 competitive and incumbent LECs will have to make a one-time interstate tariff filing to permit them to assess access charges on Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls. We estimate that 2,840 competitive and incumbent LECs will have to file intrastate tariffs annually which may require supporting materials to be filed. We also estimate that 2,840 competitive and incumbent LECs will have to make a one-time intrastate tariff filing to establish VoIP rates at interstate rate levels that may require supporting materials to be filed. Finally, we estimate that 1,340 incumbent LECs annually will certify, as part of their tariff filings to the Commission and to the relevant state commission, that they are not seeking duplicative recovery in the state jurisdiction for an Eligible Recovery subject to the recovery mechanism.

For those services still requiring cost support, TRPs assist the Commission in determining whether ILEC access charges are just and reasonable as required under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service Compliance and Monitoring.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 1,340 respondents; 5,360 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour to 15 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201 through 205 and 251 through 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 61,640 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this new information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and assignment of an OMB control number after this comment period to obtain the full three year approval. The Commission estimates a program change increase of 61,640 total annual burden hours for this new information collection.

The USF/ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11-161, requires or permits incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs) as part of transitioning regulation of interstate and intrastate switched access and reciprocal compensation rate regulation to bill-and-keep under section 251(b)(5) to file tariffs with state commissions and the FCC. This transition affects different interstate and intrastate switched access rates at specified timeframes and establishes an Access Recovery Charge by which incumbent LECs will be able to assess end users a monthly charge to recover some or all of the revenues they are permitted to recover from reductions in intercarrier compensation rates. To permit the Commission and state commissions to monitor compliance with the revised intercarrier compensation rules and for incumbent LECs to receive CAF ICC support must also certify with its 2012 annual access tariff filing and on April 1st of each subsequent year that it has complied with the procedures for calculating its eligible recovery, the calculation of the appropriate access recovery charge, and that it is eligible to receive the CAF ICC support requested.

The Commission estimates that 1,340 incumbent LECs annually will have to file the required data with the FCC, the relevant station commissions, and USAC. We also estimate that those incumbent LECs will have to make the above new certification annually.

The information collected through these data collections will be used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether the revised intercarrier compensation rules are being complied with and the services offered are just and reasonable as the Act requires. The data will also provide the Commission with the information to develop procedures to transition remaining intercarrier switched access rates to bill-and-keep. USAC will use the data to ensure that the CAF ICC payments it makes are appropriate under the revised rules. The certification is a further step in the compliance and monitoring process.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0813.

Title: Section 20.18, Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 47,031 respondents; 47,031 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 4.2142416 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, 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. sections 151, 154(i), 303(f), and (r), 309, 316 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 198,200 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this expiring information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during this 30 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for an extension (no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements).

There is no change in the Commission's previous burden estimates.

The notification requirement on Public Safety Answer Points (PSAPs) will be used by the carriers to verify that wireless E911 calls are referred to PSAPs who have the technical capability to use the data to the caller's benefit. TTY and dispatch notification requirements will be used to avoid customer confusion as to the capabilities of their handsets in reaching help in emergency situations, thus minimizing the possibility of critical delays in response time.

The annual TTY reports will be used to monitor the progress of TTY technology and thus capability. Consultations on the specific meaning assigned to pseudo-Automatic Location Identification (ALI) are appropriate to ensure that all parties are working with the same information. Coordination between carriers and state and local entities to determine the appropriate PSAPs to receive and respond to E911 calls is necessary because of the difficulty in assigning PSAPs based on the location of the wireless caller. The deployment schedule that must be submitted by carriers seeking a waiver of Phase I or Phase II deployment schedule will be used by the Commission to guarantee that the rules are enforced in as timely manner as possible within technological constraints. In addition, a wireless carrier must implement E911 service within the six-month period following the date of the PSAP's request. If the carrier challenges the validity of the request, the request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request provides the following information:

(a) Cost Recovery: The PSAP must demonstrate that a mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements.

(b) Necessary Equipment: The PSAP must provide evidence that it has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; and

(c) Necessary Facilities: The PSAP must demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier (LEC) for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP.

This collection is needed to ensure that they are ready to receive E911 Phase I or Phase II information at the time that wireless carrier's obligation to deliver that information becomes due. This will reduce the possibility of both carriers and PSAPs investing money before the PSAP is actually E911 capable.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1155.

Title: Sections 15.713, 15.714, 15.715 and 15.717, TV White Space Broadcast Bands.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 2,000 respondents; 2,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 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. sections 154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f) and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 4,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this expiring information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during this 30 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for a revision of this information collection.

The Commission revised this information collection to add questions about prefill applications and the number of available channels; and to make clarifications for some existing questions to the on-line database screens. This is being done to make completion of the form easier for the respondents.

Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 247d-7f ) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 217a ), the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Biodefense Science Board. The Board shall provide expert advice and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Board may also provide advice and guidance to the Secretary and/or the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response on other matters related to public health emergency preparedness and response.

Background: A portion of this public meeting will be dedicated to swearing in the seven new voting members who will replace the members whose 4-year terms will expire on January 31, 2012. The Board will also be asked to review and evaluate the 2012 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy and Implementation Plan (SIP). Until a final document is approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the development of PHEMCE SIP requires consideration and discussion of procurement-sensitive information that should not be released to the public prior to the Secretary's final decision. Premature public disclosure of the draft PHEMCE SIP would limit the Secretary's decision-making ability to effectively prioritize HHS expenditures on critical medical countermeasures. Therefore, the Board's deliberations on the new task will be conducted in closed session in accordance with provisions set forth under exemption 9(B) of the Government in Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c), and with approval by the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Availability of Materials: The meeting agenda and materials will be posted on the NBSB Web site at http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/Pages/default.aspx prior to the meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Any member of the public providing oral comments at the meeting must sign-in at the registration desk and provide his/her name, address, and affiliation. All written comments must be received prior to January 26, 2012 and should be sent by email to NBSB@HHS.GOV with “NBSB Public Comment” as the subject line. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should email NBSB@HHS.GOV.

The Bioresearch Monitoring Information System provides controls to ensure that clinical investigators meet the requirements of the relevant statutes and regulations governing FDA-regulated products. This System also supports the effective performance of activities necessary for the conduct of FDA's bioresearch monitoring program.

We have changed, or altered, the Bioresearch Monitoring Information System as follows:

(a) General necessary updates to make the System current (e.g., adding the Center for Tobacco Products and the Office of Good Clinical Practice, updating addresses and revising citations).

(b) Adding to the categories of records in the System: clinical investigator financial arrangements with or interests in a study sponsor, because this information may be included in this System.

(c) Deleting an unnecessary routine use authorizing disclosure to congressional offices in response to inquires from constituents who authorize disclosure by written consent. This routine use is unnecessary because the Privacy Act and FDA regulations permit disclosure upon prior written consent by the individual who is the subject of the records. (5 U.S.C. 552a(b), 21 CFR 21.70(a)(2) and 21.72).

(d) Amending part 1 of former routine use 1 to provide for disclosure to Federal, State, and local Agencies; government institutions; State licensing authorities; foreign governments/Agencies; international organizations; and non-governmental regulatory bodies of a foreign country. Such disclosure must be relevant to that entity's oversight, investigative, regulatory, licensing, or enforcement responsibilities for clinical investigations and/or clinical investigators. This includes any referrals related to potential violations of law, as had been provided for under part 1 of former routine use 1 (routine use 1).

(e) Amending part 2 of former routine use 1 to provide for disclosure to sponsors, institutional review boards, and other non-government entities if the information disclosed is relevant to the receiving entity's responsibility for the initiation, oversight, monitoring, compliance, or other regulatory requirement associated with the conduct of clinical investigations or oversight of a clinical investigator (routine use 2).

(f) Providing for disclosure to a research subject of information from a research misconduct proceeding that may have implications for that subject's rights, safety, or welfare, or participation in a research study (routine use 3).

(g) Providing for disclosure to the public of information related to a clinical investigator's financial arrangements with or interests in a study sponsor, to the extent disclosure is not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or is not otherwise protected from disclosure under FDA's regulations or applicable statutes (routine use 4).

(h) Providing for disclosure to the public of regulatory information and/or correspondence, including untitled letters, Notice of Initiation of Disqualification Proceedings and Opportunity to Explain letters, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing letters, and warning letters issued to clinical investigators, and summary information from inspections of clinical investigators involved in FDA-regulated research, to the extent disclosure is not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or is not otherwise protected from disclosure under FDA's regulations or applicable statutes (routine use 5).

(i) Providing for disclosure to persons who require access to records in order to perform services for FDA, such as serving on FDA research misconduct inquiry committees (routine use 6).

(j) Providing for disclosure to the appropriate Federal Agencies and HHS contractors in responding to a breach of the security or confidentiality of information in this System (routine use 7).

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The following is a copy of the altered System of Records. FDA invites comments on all parts of the System of Records (see section III of this document for information about submission of comments):

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. NMSAC operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. NMSAC provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.

The agenda for the Committee meeting is as follows:

(1) Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing. The Committee will hold a discussion and will be tasked with developing guidelines and recommendations for the Coast Guard in enhancing information sharing between the maritime industry and the Federal Government;

(2) Maritime Transportation Security Act/Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Harmonization. The Committee will receive a brief and offer recommendations on the harmonization efforts of the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security for these two regulatory programs;

(3) Transportation Worker Identification Credential. The TWIC working group will provide an update on the implementation of the TWIC program from the industry perspective. The Transportation Security Administration will also provide an update on the development of TWIC readers;

(4) Public comment period.

(1) Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). The Committee will be briefed on upcoming regulatory actions associated with updates to MTSA;

(2) Global Supply Chain Security Initiative. Per the SAFE Port Act (Pub. L. 109-347) NMSAC continues to be consulted in regards to the Global Supply Chain Security Initiative. The Committee will receive an update on this initiative;

(3) Requirements for vessel guards while in port. NMSAC will review and provide comment on requirements for vessels to post or contract for guards while in US ports;

(4) Underwater Terrorism Preparedness Program. NMSAC will receive a brief on the Coast Guard Underwater Terrorism Preparedness Program;

(5) Public comment period.

HOGANSAC is an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). HOGANSAC was established under Section 18 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991, (Pub. L. 102-241)and provides advice and recommendation to the Coast Guard on matters relating to the safe transit of vessels and products through Galveston Bay and to and from the Ports of Galveston, Houston, Texas City, and Galveston Bay.

The Committee is expected to meet at least three times a year.

We will consider applications for three positions.

(a) One at-large member who may represent a particular interest group but who utilize the port facilities at Galveston, Houston, and Texas City.

(b) One member representing labor organizations which load and unload cargo at the Ports of Galveston and Houston.

(c) One member from organizations that represent ship owners, stevedores, shipyards, or shipping organizations domiciled in the State of Texas.

Each HOGANSAC Committee member serves a term of office of up two years. Members may be considered to serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 110-81, as amended).

In support of the Coast Guard policy on gender and ethnic nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified men and women of all racial and ethnic groups to apply. The Coast Guard values diversity; all the different characteristics and attributes of persons that enhance the mission of the Coast Guard.

Background

The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1970 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d), and the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of May 19, 1948 (16 U.S.C. 667d; Pub. L. 80-537), as amended. The 16,490-acre Refuge, located in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties, California, consists of several noncontiguous units on the northernmost edge of San Pablo Bay. The Refuge was established to provide habitat for migratory birds and endangered species.

We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP for San Pablo Bay in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the environmental assessment (EA) that accompanied the draft CCP.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We intend to review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

Our Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) were available for a 30-day public review and comment period, which we announced via several methods, including press releases, updates to constituents, and a Federal Register notice (75 FR 39702; July 12, 2010). The Draft CCP/EA identified and evaluated three alternatives for managing the Refuge for the next 15 years.

Under Alternative A (No Action), management would continue unchanged. Under Alternative B, the Service would develop an inventory and monitoring program; expand tidal restoration and enhancement activities for the benefit of migratory birds, endangered species, and other native wildlife; improve and expand visitor services by developing new public access locations; develop shoreline fishing locations; and provide some additional environmental education programs. Alternative C, which was identified as the preferred alternative, would include all actions in Alternative B, and would also emphasize wildlife management by studying population health and developing population goals for wildlife; provide greater interpretive opportunities; and substantially expand the environmental education program.

We received seven letters on the Draft CCP and EA during the review and comment period. Comments focused upon cultural resources, habitat management and restoration, invasive plants, public access, and mosquito management. We incorporated comments we received into the CCP when appropriate, and we responded to the comments in an appendix to the CCP. In the FONSI, we selected Alternative C for implementation. The FONSI documents our decision and is based on the information and analysis contained in the EA.

Under the selected alternative, the Service will expand both natural resource management and visitor services opportunities on the Refuge. An inventory and monitoring program will be developed, as well as wildlife population goals. In addition to expanded tidal restoration and enhancement activities, additional habitat management activities include improving hydrological connectivity of tidal marsh habitats. Priorities will also be developed for the conservation and restoration of sub-tidal habitat. Visitor service opportunities will be expanded considerably with interpretation and environmental education opportunities. In addition, wildlife observation and fishing programs will be improved and/or expanded.

The selected alternative best meets the Refuges' purposes, vision and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. Based on the associated environmental assessment, this alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts and therefore does not require an environmental impact statement.

This document provides notice that the BLM Owyhee Field Office in Marsing, Idaho, intends to prepare an EIS to address grazing permit renewal requests in the Jump Creek, Succor Creek, and Cow Creek areas, and announces the beginning of the scoping process. The area covered by the permit renewal requests is located in Owyhee County, Idaho, and encompasses approximately 120,000 acres of public land. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the EIS, including the alternatives. The agency seeks public input to identify issues related to grazing permit renewals that have been proposed for those areas. Preliminary issues have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. Some key issues that have already been identified involve the effects of livestock grazing on Greater sage-grouse and its habitat, as well as the potential for disease transmission between domestic and bighorn sheep. In addition to livestock grazing, a variety of other multiple uses exist within this area, including: year-long recreation activities, particularly hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, and off-road vehicle use; wild horse management; potential wind energy development and electrical transmission line development.

The Owyhee Field Office will consult with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and other parties, as applicable, on this action during regular consultation proceedings and briefings. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency. The BLM will also brief county commissioners, Congressional delegations and grazing permittees during the EIS process.

You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, please submit comments by the close of the 30-day scoping period or within 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. 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 in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The public is also encouraged to help identify any other management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the EIS.

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the EIS in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the NEPA process: Range management, wildlife biology, archaeology, riparian, soils, and outdoor recreation.

The BLM Las Cruces District Office has received a Mine Plan of Operations (Mine Plan) from the New Mexico Copper Corp. to re-start the Copper Flat Mine located in Sierra County, New Mexico. The proposed mine is located approximately 4 miles north-northeast of the town of Hillsboro, New Mexico. Lands involved in the mine include parts of the following sections:

Mining, ore processing, and related activities would occur on both private land and public domain administered by the BLM. The proponent currently holds active mining claims over public domain land included in the proposed operation. The estimated project duration is 27 years from site construction to mine reclamation and closure. Mining at the existing open pit would be completed using standard multiple-bench methods. The pit would eventually widen to approximately 2,500 by 2,500 feet and deepen to 900 feet. Ore from the pit would be drilled, blasted, loaded and hauled to a planned processing facility immediately east of the pit. At this facility, the ore would be crushed and ground and copper and molybdenum minerals would be separated and concentrated using standard flotation techniques. Mineral concentrates would be transported by truck and rail to be processed offsite; onsite smelting or refining is not included in this proposal. Waste rock created during operations would be banked primarily on public domain land, and tailings would be disposed of into an expanded, existing tailings impoundment. Water for the proposed operation would be obtained from a well field located on BLM-administered land approximately 8 miles east of the mine in:

Water would be piped to the proposed operation through an existing pipeline which roughly parallels the existing highway (New Mexico State Route 152). The total estimated disturbance on public domain land would be 745 acres. Reclamation would consist of removing processing equipment from Federal land, and restoring and seeding waste rock dumps and other disturbed areas. The BLM and the New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources would bond the proponent for site reclamation prior to granting authorization.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues:

1. Water use and effects on surface and subsurface hydrology;

2. Water quality effects and water quality protection;

3. Traffic;

4. Cultural Resources and Native American Religious Concerns;

5. Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species;

6. Livestock grazing; and

7. Reclamation and post-mining land use.

The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy, and tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.

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.

The State of Nevada has filed an application to develop the following described land as a State office building with related facilities near Flamingo Road and El Capitan Way in Las Vegas:

The State office building will consist of approximately 60,000 square feet of office and support space. Related facilities include a parking lot, landscaping, lighting, utilities, and ancillary equipment. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plan is in case file N-84625, which is located in the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.

The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease and/or subsequent conveyance are consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The State of Nevada, a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act, has not applied for more than the 640-acre limitation for public purpose uses in a year, and has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43 CFR 2741.4(b).

The lease and/or subsequent conveyance of the public land shall be subject to valid existing rights. Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulations, prior to patent issuance, a holder of any Right-of-Way within the lease area may be given the opportunity to amend the Right-of-Way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable.

The lease and/or subsequent conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following terms, conditions, and reservations to the United States:

1. A Right-of-Way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);

2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe;

3. Valid existing rights;

4. Right-of-Way N-59691 for paved road and drainage, spandrels, bus turnouts, curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, pipe conduit, and concrete lining, granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);

5. Right-of-Way N-60971 for a 16-inch, underground natural gas pipeline and construction staging area, granted to Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185 sec. 28);

6. Right-of-Way N-74286 for two transformers, and underground electrical lines with related appurtenances, granted to Nevada Power Company, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761); and

7. Right-of-Way N-88267 for multiple natural gas pipelines with below and above ground appurtenances granted to Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185 sec. 28);

8. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease and/or subsequent conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws.

Interested parties may submit written comments on the suitability of the land for a State office building. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Interested parties may also submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease and/or convey under the R&PP Act.

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.

Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on March 9, 2012. The lands will not be available for lease and/or subsequent conveyance until after the decision becomes effective.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that conform to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The rules governing advisory councils are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784. As required by FACA, MAC membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands.

The MAC provides representative citizen counsel and advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM with respect to the revision and implementation of the comprehensive plan for the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

The MAC consists of ten members:

(1) A member of, or nominated by, the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors;

(2) A member of, or nominated by, the Kern County Board of Supervisors;

(3) A member of, or nominated by, the Carrizo Native American Advisory Council;

(4) A member of, or nominated by, the Central California Resource Advisory Council (RAC);

(5) A member representing individuals or companies authorized to graze livestock within the Monument; and

(6) Five members with recognized backgrounds reflecting:

(i) The purposes for which the Monument was established; and

(ii) The interests of other stakeholders, including the general public, who are affected by or interested in the planning and management of the Monument.

Terms of four present MAC members (two public-at-large, one Kern County Board of Supervisors, one RAC) expired on August 25, 2011. Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the counties or neighboring county in which the MAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographical resource. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from being appointed or re-appointed to FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils. The following must accompany all nominations received in this call for nominations:

• Letters of reference from represented interests or organizations;

• A completed background information nomination form; and

• Any other information that speaks to the nominee's qualifications.

Nominations will be accepted for a 60-day period beginning the date this notice is published.

Background. These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on December 30, 2011, by Whirlpool Corporation, Benton Harbor, MI.

Participation in the investigations and public service list. Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference. The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on January 20, 2012, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be filed with the Office of the Secretary ( William.Bishop@usitc.gov and Sharon.Bellamy@usitc.gov ) on or before January 18, 2012. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions. As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before January 25, 2012, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 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 at http://edis.usitc.gov.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The Commission instituted this investigation on August 12, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain portable electronic devices and related software. 76 FR 50253 (Aug. 12, 2011). The complaint alleged the infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,844,915; 7,469,381; 7,084,859; 7,920,129; and 6,956,564. The complaint named as respondents HTC Corp. of Taoyuan City, Taiwan and its subsidiaries HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

On October 7, 2011, Apple filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. In particular, Apple sought to: “(i) clarify its allegations with respect to asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,956,564 to reflect that it has been reissued subsequent to the institution of this Investigation as U.S. Patent No. RE42,738 E and add two new asserted claims from the reissued patent [claim nos. 4 and 37], (ii) amend the `Related Litigation' section of the Complaint to reflect inadvertently omitted information, and (iii) identify additional accused products that had not been released at the time the original Complaint was filed [i.e., the HTC Evo 3D, the HTC Evo View 4G, and the HTC Jetstream].” Order No. 19, at 1 (Dec. 2, 2011).

On December 2, 2011, the ALJ issued an ID granting Apple's unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. Id. at 2-4. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in sections 210.14 and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.14, 210.42).

On December 29, 2011, the Postal Service filed a notice announcing its intent to enter into an additional Global Direct Contracts 1 agreement (Agreement). 1 Global Direct Contracts provide a rate for mail acceptance within the United States, transportation to a receiving country of mail that bears the destination country's indicia, and payment by the Postal Service of the appropriate settlement charges to the receiving country. 2 The Postal Service believes that the instant Agreement should be included within the Global Direct Contracts 1 product because it is functionally equivalent to the Global Direct Contracts 1 agreement in Docket Nos. MC2010-17 and CP2010-18. Notice at 2.

The instant Agreement. The Postal Service filed the instant Agreement under 39 CFR 3015.5. Id. In addition, the Postal Service contends that the Agreement is consistent with Order No. 386. 3 The Postal Service states that the instant Agreement succeeds the Global Direct Contract in Docket No. CP2011-52, which is scheduled to expire January 15, 2012. Id. at 2-3. The term of the instant Agreement begins on January 16, 2011 and ends in January 2013 on the day before Canada Post Corporation implements price changes for its domestic Admail. Id. at 3, Attachment 1 at 7. If prices for Admail do not change during January 2013, then the instant Agreement is scheduled to expire January 31, 2013. Id.

To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed four attachments as follows:

• Attachment 1—a redacted copy of the contract;

• Attachment 2—a certified statement required by 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2);

• Attachment 3—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 08-10, which establishes prices and classifications for Global Direct, Global Bulk Economy, and Global Plus Contracts; and

• Attachment 4—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and supporting documents under seal.

The Postal Service states that the instant Agreement fits within the Mail Classification Schedule language for Global Direct Contracts included in Governors' Decision No. 08-10, with the modification proposed by the Commission to reflect the actual payment practice under these types of agreements. Id. at 2 ( citing Order No. 153 at 9).

The Notice advances reasons why the instant Agreement is functionally equivalent to the previous Global Direct Contracts 1 agreement in Docket Nos. MC2010-17 and CP2010-18. Id. at 3. Aside from cosmetic or customer-specific updates, the Postal Service contends that the only differences are that the instant Agreement (1) concerns Global Direct service used with Admail to Canada; (2) contains more detailed procedures relating to penalties for mail that does not comply with applicable regulations; (3) addresses actual and potential changes in pricing; and (4) revises minimum commitments and annexes. Id. at 3-4. Despite these differences, the Postal Service contends that the instant contract is functionally equivalent to the Global Direct Contracts 1 agreement filed previously because the core terms and conditions remain the same. Id. at 4.

The Postal Service asserts that “the cost and market characteristics of this agreement are substantially similar to those of prior Global Direct contracts” and that the Agreement complies with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633. Id. It requests that the Commission include this Agreement within the Global Direct Contracts 1 product. Id.

The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2012-9 to consider matters related to the contract identified in the Notice.

Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's contract is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632 or 3633 and 39 CFR part 3015. Comments are due no later than January 10, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site ( http://www.prc.gov ).

The Commission appoints Natalie Rea Ward to serve as Public Representative in the captioned filings.

1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2012-9 to consider matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

2. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than January 10, 2012.

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

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

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), the Commission received two petitions for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the Odin post office in Odin, Minnesota. The first petition for review received November 30, 2011, was filed by Paul S. Berg. The second petition for review received November 30, 2011, was filed by Robert D. Harder. The earliest postmark date is November 19, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2012-93 to consider Petitioners' appeal. If Petitioners would like to further explain their position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioners may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than January 5, 2012.

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

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

Categories of issues apparently raised. Petitioners contend that (1) the Postal Service failed to consider whether or not it will continue to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to the community ( see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(iii)); and (2) the Postal Service failed to provide substantial evidence in support of the determination ( see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5)(c)).

After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record is within 15 days after the date on which the petition for review was filed with the Commission. See 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due date for any responsive pleading by the Postal Service is also within 15 days after the date on which the petition for review was filed with the Commission.

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

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

Filing of documents. All filings of documents in this case shall be made using the Internet (Filing Online) pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 10(a) at the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an account to file documents online may be found on the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, or by contacting the Commission's docket section at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via telephone at (202) 789-6846.

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

Intervention. Persons, other than the Petitioners and respondents, wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR 3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in this case are to be filed on or before January 23, 2012. A notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a).

Further procedures. By statute, the Commission is required to issue its decision within 120 days from the date it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has been developed to accommodate this statutory deadline. In the interest of expedition, in light of the 120-day decision schedule, the Commission may request the Postal Service or other participants to submit information or memoranda of law on any appropriate issue. As required by Commission rules, if any motions are filed, responses are due 7 days after any such motion is filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21.

It is ordered:

1. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Pamela A. Thompson is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.

3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order and Procedural Schedule in the Federal Register .

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), the Commission received five petitions for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the Alvord post office in Alvord, Iowa. The first petition for review received December 1, 2011, was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Hodgson. The second petition for review received December 6, 2011, was filed by Jackie Knobloch. The third petition for review received December 6, 2011, was filed by Janet Newborg. The fourth petition for review received December 7, 2011, was filed by Joanne C. Smith. The fifth petition for review received December 9, 2011, was filed by Elaine Childress. The earliest postmark date is November 25, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2012-94 to consider Petitioners' appeal. If Petitioners would like to further explain their position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioners may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than January 5, 2012.

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

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

Categories of issues apparently raised. Petitioners contend that (1) the Postal Service failed to consider the effect of the closing on the community ( see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i)); (2) the Postal Service failed to consider whether or not it will continue to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to the community ( see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(iii)); and (3) the Postal Service failed to adequately consider the economic savings resulting from the closure ( see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(iv)).

After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record is within 15 days after the date on which the petition for review was filed with the Commission. See 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due date for any responsive pleading by the Postal Service is also within 15 days after the date on which the petition for review was filed with the Commission.

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

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

Filing of documents. All filings of documents in this case shall be made using the Internet (Filing Online) pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 10(a) at the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an account to file documents online may be found on the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, or by contacting the Commission's docket section at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via telephone at (202) 789-6846.

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

Intervention. Persons, other than the Petitioners and respondents, wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR 3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in this case are to be filed on or before January 23, 2012. A notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a).

Further procedures. By statute, the Commission is required to issue its decision within 120 days from the date it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has been developed to accommodate this statutory deadline. In the interest of expedition, in light of the 120-day decision schedule, the Commission may request the Postal Service or other participants to submit information or memoranda of law on any appropriate issue. As required by Commission rules, if any motions are filed, responses are due 7 days after any such motion is filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21.

It is ordered:

1. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Laura R. Schwartz is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.

3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order and Procedural Schedule in the Federal Register .