Title: Importation of Shelled Peas From Kenya.

OMB Number: 0579-0302.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-54).

Under these regulations, shelled peas from Kenya are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require that shipments of peas be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Kenya with an additional declaration stating that the peas have been shelled and washed in accordance with § 319.56-45 and have been inspected and found free of certain plant pests.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: Importers and Kenyan national plant protection organizations and producers.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1 hour. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Census Scientific Advisory Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix 2). The following provides information about the committee, membership, and the nomination process.

1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee advises the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on the uses of scientific developments in statistical data collection, statistical analysis, survey methodology, geospatial analysis, econometrics, cognitive psychology, and computer science as they pertain to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities (including: communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics).

2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee provides scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: Demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology and computing, marketing, communications, and other fields of expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. This expertise is necessary to ensure that the Census Bureau continues to provide relevant and timely statistics used by federal, state, and local governments as well as business and industry in an increasingly technologically-oriented society.

3. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee reports to the Director of the Census Bureau.

1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee will consist of no more than 20 members and one Chair appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau.

2. Members are appointed for a two or three-year term with staggered term-end dates.

3. Members shall serve as either Special Government Employees (SGEs) or Representatives. SGEs will be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they serve through appointment letters. Committee membership will be reevaluated at the conclusion of the two or three-year term with the prospect of member renewal, active attendance and participation in meetings, administrative compliance, Census Bureau needs, and the Director's concurrence will also be factors in renewals.

4. Committee members are selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee aims to have balanced representation, considering such factors as geography, technical, and scientific expertise. The Advisory Committee will include members from diverse backgrounds, including academia and private enterprise, which are further diversified by business type or industry, geography, and other factors.

5. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee.

1. Members of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee meets at least once a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Director or Designated Federal Official. All Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

1. Nominations are requested as described above.

2. Nominees must have scientific and technical expertise in such areas as demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology, computing, or marketing. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director of the Census Bureau on the trends, uses, and application of scientific innovations and developments in relation to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities.

3. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of individual candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special committee activities.

4. Nominations of organizations may come from individuals or organizations. Organizations also may self-nominate. A summary of the organization's qualifications and the experience that qualifies it for membership should be included in the nomination letter. Nominated organizations must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, review of materials, and participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and special committee activities.

5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Advisory Committee membership.

On September 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 76 FR 55357 (September 7, 2011). The current deadline for the final results of this review is January 5, 2012.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the final results of this administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results were published in the Federal Register . However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, the Department may extend the time period to issue the final results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame. In order to fully evaluate the issues raised by all interested parties concerning the choice of surrogate country, the proper source of financial ratios, and other case issues, we are extending the time frame for completion of this review. Consequently, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 60 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than March 5, 2012.

This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

On June 28, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (“citric acid”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 37781, 37785 (June 28, 2011). This review covers the period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than January 31, 2012.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of citric acid from the PRC within this time limit. Specifically, additional time is needed to issue supplemental questionnaires, analyze questionnaire responses, and consider relevant evidence and parties' comments regarding selecting appropriate surrogate values with which to value factors of production. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 90 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than April 30, 2012.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

The antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC was published on January 4, 2005. 1 On August 1, 2011, the Department received a request for an NSR from Marvin Furniture. On August 11, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Marvin Furniture requesting further information regarding its sales and shipment for which Marvin Furniture requested the NSR. On August 19, 2011, Marvin Furniture submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire and the Department placed on the record of this review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for entries of WBF imported from the PRC. On August 19, 2011, the Department also sent Marvin Furniture a supplemental questionnaire regarding the results of the CBP data query. On August 24, 2011, Marvin Furniture provided comments on the CBP data. On August 25, 2011, the Department initiated this NSR. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR 54208 (August 31, 2011) (“ Initiation Notice ”).

On August 26, 2011 and August 31, 2011, Marvin Furniture responded to the Department's August 19, 2011 supplemental questionnaire regarding the results of the CBP query. On September 7, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Marvin Furniture asking it to provide documentation for the responses Marvin Furniture provided in its submissions dated August 26, 2011, and August 31, 2011. On September 14, 2011, Marvin Furniture responded to the Department's September 7, 2011 supplemental questionnaire and submitted copies of its entry documents.

On September 19, 2011, the Department sent Marvin Furniture another supplemental questionnaire regarding certain entries. On September 27, 2011, Marvin Furniture responded to the Department's September 19, 2011 supplemental questionnaire. On September 30, 2011, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”) submitted comments on Marvin Furniture's eligibility for its NSR. On October 14, 2011, Marvin Furniture submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioners' statements.

On August 30, 2011, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to Marvin Furniture. On October 24, 2011, and on November 2, 2011, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Marvin Furniture regarding its responses to the antidumping questionnaire. During the period September through November 2011, Marvin Furniture responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire and related supplemental questionnaires. On December 9, 2011, the Department placed certain CBP Entry Documents on the record.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g), the period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is the semi-annual period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011.

The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests, 2 highboys, 3 lowboys, 4 chests of drawers, 5 chests, 6 door chests, 7 chiffoniers, 8 hutches, 9 and armoires;  10 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;  11 (9) jewelry armories;  12 (10) cheval mirrors;  13 (11) certain metal parts;  14 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; (13) upholstered beds  15 and (14) toy boxes. 16

Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) as “wooden * * * beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other * * * wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. 17 Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors * * * framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The NSR provisions of the Department's regulations require that the entity making that request for an NSR must document and certify, among other things: (1) The date on which subject merchandise of the exporter or producer making the request was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which the exporter or producer first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv). If these provisions, among others, are met, the Department will initiate an NSR to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for the new shipper. See generally 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2).

In its request for an NSR, Marvin Furniture provided certified statements that its first entry of subject merchandise into the United States entered on June 20, 2011, and that it had multiple sales, which took place on June 27, 2011, and June 28, 2011. See Letter from Marvin Furniture to the Secretary of Commerce “Request for Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review,” dated July 30, 2011. Based on this information, the Department initiated the NSR for Marvin Furniture. See Initiation Notice.

However, based on an analysis of CBP data, the CBP Entry Documents, and Marvin Furniture's supplemental questionnaire responses, the Department has determined that Marvin Furniture had additional entries that were not reported to the Department in its request for an NSR under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv). As noted, in order to qualify for an NSR under 19 CFR 351.214, a company must certify and document among other things, the date of its first entry and the volume of that and subsequent shipments to the United States. Id. Because Marvin Furniture had additional entries of subject merchandise to the United States prior to the POR that it did not report to the Department in its request for an NSR, the Department has preliminarily found that Marvin Furniture's request for an NSR did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for requesting an NSR, and the Department thus preliminarily determines that it is appropriate to rescind the NSR for Marvin Furniture. As much of the factual information used in our analysis for the rescission of Marvin Furniture's NSR involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary results is set forth in the Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, “Preliminary Analysis of Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.'s Previous Entries in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice.

If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of Marvin Furniture's NSR, the assessment rate to which Marvin Furniture's shipments will be subject will not be affected by this review. The assessment rate, however, could change if the Department conducts an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC covering the period of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Thus, if we proceed to a final rescission, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend entries during the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, of subject merchandise exported by Marvin Furniture until CBP receives instructions relating to an administrative review of the WBF order covering the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011.

If the Department proceeds to a final rescission, effective upon publication of the final rescission of the NSR, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise exported by Marvin Furniture. Also, if we proceed to a final rescission of the NSR, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate for entries exported by Marvin Furniture.

We will disclose our analysis memorandum to the parties to this proceeding not later than five days after the date of public announcement, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise notified by the Department. See 19 CFR351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties are requested to provide a summary of their arguments not to exceed five pages, and a table of the statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final rescission or final results of this NSR, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in any briefs, not later than 90 days after this preliminary rescission is issued, unless the deadline for the final rescission or final results is extended. See 19 CFR 351.214(i).

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

The NSR and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 351.214(f).

On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 74682 (December 1, 2010). In response, the Department received the following requests for review:

On December 29 and 30, 2010, Algodonera Avellaneda, S.A. (Algodonera) and Nexco S.A. (Nexco), respectively, requested administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the POR. On January 3, 2011, 1 A.G.L.H. S.A., (AGLH), CIPSA, Industrial Haedo S.A. (Haedo), Mielar S.A./Compañía Apícola Argentina S.A. (Mielar), Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), and TransHoney also requested administrative reviews.

Also on January 3, 2011, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, the petitioners) requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of entries of subject merchandise made by 21 Argentine producers/exporters. 2

On January 13, 2011, the petitioners withdrew their request for an antidumping duty administrative review of ACA.

On January 28, 2011, the Department initiated a review of the 20 remaining companies for which an administrative review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011) ( Initiation Notice ).

On February 2, 2011, Alma Pura submitted a letter certifying that, during the POR, it had no shipments, sales, or U.S. entries of subject merchandise and requested that the Department rescind the administrative review with respect to Alma Pura.

On February 7, 2011, the Department issued a memorandum to the file indicating its intention to limit the number of respondents selected for review and to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of Argentine honey during the POR. The Department encouraged all interested parties to submit comments regarding the use of CBP entry data for respondent selection purposes. See Memorandum to the File through Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, regarding “Honey from Argentina—United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,” dated February 7, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, the Department published a subsequent initiation notice which included corrections to the Initiation Notice with respect to honey from Argentina. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 10329 (February 24, 2011) ( Second Initiation Notice ). 3

On March 18, 2011, the Department selected the two producers/exporters with the largest export volume during the POR as mandatory respondents: HoneyMax and Nexco. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated March 18, 2011. On March 18, 2011, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the two mandatory respondents.

On April 8, 2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of the following companies: (1) Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods Lavalle; (2) Alma Pura; (3) Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E Importadora Ltda.; (4) Bomare S.A.; (5) HoneyMax; (6) Interrupcion S.A.; (7) Miel Ceta SRL; (8) Nexco; (9) Productos Afer S.A.; and (10) Seabird Argentina S.A.

Also on April 8, 2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Nexco withdrew its request for review and asked that the Department rescind the review in part.

Accordingly, the Department informed interested parties of its intent to rescind the review for the ten companies for which the petitioners and Nexco withdrew requests for review. In addition, in place of Nexco and HoneyMax, the Department selected two new producers/exporters with the largest export volume during the POR as mandatory respondents, CIPSA and TransHoney. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated May 9, 2011.

On May 11, 2011, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to CIPSA and TransHoney. The Department extended the time limits for the preliminary results of this review and rescinded the review for the ten companies mentioned above on September 7, 2011. See Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55349 (September 7, 2011).

On June 15, 2011, CIPSA filed its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire (CIPSA AQR). On June 29, 2011, CIPSA filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire (CIPSA BQR and CIPSA CQR). On July 28, 2011, and October 3, 2011, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CIPSA. CIPSA filed responses to the supplemental questionnaires on August 18, 2011 (CIPSA 1SQR) and October 17, 2011.

On June 23, 2011, TransHoney filed its response to the Department's section A questionnaire (TransHoney AQR). On June 29, 2011, TransHoney filed its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire (TransHoney BQR and TransHoney CQR). On August 1, 2011, and September 22, 2011, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to TransHoney. TransHoney filed responses to the supplemental questionnaires on August 22, 2011, September 1, 2011 (TransHoney 1SQR) and October 6, 2011.

The POR is December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise covered by the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j), the Secretary may, after consulting with the exporter or producer, rescind in whole or in part a review in progress under this subpart if a separate review (or a request for a review) under § 351.213 (administrative review), § 351.214 (new shipper review), § 351.215 (expedited antidumping review), or § 351.216 (changed circumstances review) covers merchandise of an exporter or producer subject to a review (or to a request for a review) under this section. On November 30, 2011, the Department published the final results of a new shipper review of this antidumping duty order covering exports of Villamora S.A. for the period December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010, the same time period as this POR. See Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR 74044 (November 30, 2011). After consulting with Villamora S.A., the Department is rescinding, in part, the antidumping duty administrative review on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010, with respect to Villamora S.A. See Memorandum to the File: 2009/2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Villamora S.A. (Villamora), dated December 6, 2011.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, supra, which were sold in the appropriate third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. For our discussion of market viability and selection of comparison markets, see the “Normal Value” section of this notice, infra. We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by CIPSA and TransHoney. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP). The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. See also 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). For EP, it is the starting price. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, all mandatory respondents claimed only EP sales.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

CIPSA reported that all of its third-country and U.S. market sales were made to importer/distributors or importer/packers at the same LOT. See CIPSA AQR at A-9 to A-13 and Exhibit A.3, CIPSA BQR at B-19, CIPSA CQR at C-16, and CIPSA 1SQR at 8-9, 17-18. TransHoney reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country market sales and the same channel of distribution. See TransHoney AQR at A-10 to A-15 and Exhibit A.3, TransHoney BQR at B-18, TransHoney CQR at C-16, and TransHoney 1SQR at 16 and Exhibit A.14.

The Department has determined that differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45022 (August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007)); see also 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). TransHoney and CIPSA reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. CIPSA and TransHoney claimed that their selling activities in both markets are essentially identical, and nothing on the record appears to suggest otherwise. Therefore, for TransHoney and CIPSA, we preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and have not made a LOT adjustment.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. For CIPSA, the Department used the invoice date as the date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales for these preliminary results. CIPSA asserts that changes in ordered terms have occurred in the past and its customers know they can request changes to an order prior to shipment. See CIPSA 1SQR at 10. As in past segments of this proceeding, we preliminarily determine that there is potential for change to the essential terms of sale between the contract date and invoice date and therefore invoice date continues to be the appropriate date of sale with respect to CIPSA's sales in the U.S. and third-country markets because of the potential for change to the essential terms of sale between the order date and invoice date.

For TransHoney, the Department, consistent with its practice, used the reported date of invoice as the date of sale for both the third-country and U.S. markets. TransHoney states that changes to the essential terms of sale can occur between the order date and invoice date, which is coincident with the date of actual shipment. See TransHoney AQR at A-17, and TransHoney 1SQR at 26-27. Consequently, we preliminarily find that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale with respect to TransHoney's and its affiliated entity's  4 sales in the U.S. and comparison markets.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under {section 772(c) of the Act}.” Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,” as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. For purposes of this administrative review, CIPSA and TransHoney classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. We based EP on prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States and made adjustments for movement expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared CIPSA's and TransHoney's respective aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to their respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. CIPSA's volume of home market sales did not exceed five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales; TransHoney had no home market sales during the POR. As a result, we preliminarily find that neither CIPSA's nor TransHoney's home markets provide a viable basis for calculating NV.

When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if: (i) The prices in such market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. In terms of volume of sales (and with five percent or more of sales by quantity to the United States), TransHoney and CIPSA both reported Italy as their third-country markets during the POR.

The record shows the aggregate quantities of TransHoney's and its affiliate  5 Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof)'s, as well as CIPSA's, sales to Italy are greater than five percent of TransHoney's and CIPSA's sales to the United States. In addition, the Department preliminarily determines there is no evidence on the record to demonstrate that these prices in Italy are not representative. See TransHoney AQR at Exhibit A.1 and CIPSA AQR at Exhibit A.1. Nor is there evidence that any other third-country market to which TransHoney or CIPSA sells would offer greater similarity of product to that sold to the United States. Further, we find there is no particular market situation in Italy with respect to TransHoney or Einsof or CIPSA that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, we preliminarily find TransHoney's and its affiliate's, along with CIPSA's, sales to Italy serve as the most appropriate basis for NV.

Therefore, NV for both companies is based on its third-country sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice, infra.

According to section 771(33) of the Act, the Department determines affiliation using a variety of criteria. TransHoney submitted, as part of its sales database, the third-country market sales made by another Argentine exporter, Einsof, a company with which TransHoney claims to be affiliated. To determine affiliation between companies, the Department analyzed in the immediately preceding administrative review of this order, TransHoney's responses and found that, pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, TransHoney and Einsof are affiliated because they are under common control. Specific matters related to the common control are proprietary in nature. For further details, see Memorandum to the File, “2009/2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Analysis of the Relationship Between TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) and Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof),” dated January 3, 2012. The memorandum includes the Memorandum to Richard Weible, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina: Analysis of the Relationship Between TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) and Einsof Trade S.A. (Einsof),” dated January 7, 2011, (TransHoney/Einsof Affliation Memorandum), which has been placed on the record of this review, as well as a discussion of any differences between the previous review and this one with respect to affiliation issues concerning TransHoney and Einsof.

Furthermore, in certain circumstances the Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity and determine a single weighted-average margin for that entity, in order to determine margins accurately and to prevent manipulation that would undermine the effectiveness of the antidumping law. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).

While 19 CFR 351.401(f) applies only to producers, the Department has found it to be instructive in determining whether non-producers should be collapsed and has used the criteria in the regulation in its analysis. See TransHoney/Einsof Affiliation Memorandum; see, e.g., Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 19926, 19926 (April 15, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has found that collapsing exporters is consistent with a “reasonable interpretation of the {antidumping duty} statute.” See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d. 1323, 1338 (CIT 2003) ( Hontex ). The CIT further noted that “to the extent that Commerce has followed its market economy collapsing regulations the {non-market economy (NME)} exporter collapsing methodology is necessarily permissible.” See id. at 1342.

During the 2008-2009 administrative review, the Department determined that TransHoney and Einsof should be treated as a single entity. After reviewing information on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that the fact pattern in this POR is substantially similar to the fact pattern in the 2008-2009 review of the order covering these companies. The Department preliminarily finds that, based on management overlap and intertwined relations, the relationship between these companies is such that both should be treated as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review and should receive a single antidumping duty rate. For further details, see TransHoney/Einsof Affiliation Memorandum.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the third-country market and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses ( e.g., certain Argentine government-requested testing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we reclassified one of CIPSA's reported direct selling expenses ( e.g., certain customer-requested testing expenses) as an indirect selling expense. We also made further deductions to price for certain movement expenses (offset for reported freight revenue), where appropriate, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See Analysis of Data Submitted by Compañía Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA) for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina, dated January 3, 2012.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the third-country market and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses ( i.e., certain Argentine government-requested testing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Additionally, we reclassified one of TransHoney's reported direct selling expenses (namely, certain customer-requested testing expenses) as an indirect selling expense. We also disregarded certain claimed commissions and insurance expenses. See Analysis of Data Submitted by TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney) for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Honey from Argentina, dated January 3, 2012.

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003)). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions from Argentine pesos to U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones retrieval service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010:

We have preliminarily assigned to six of the seven non-selected companies subject to this review listed above the rate of 0.77 percent, which was calculated in the Department's 2006-2007 administrative review of Patagonik S.A.; the most recent above de minimis rate from a completed segment of this proceeding. See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 32107 (July 7, 2009). In instances where the selected respondent companies have rates of zero, the Department's normal practice is to assign to the non-selected companies the most recent calculated rate from a prior completed segment of the proceeding that is not zero or de minimis, and not based entirely on facts available (or average of such rates). See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 76 FR 40329, 40332 (July 8, 2011) (unchanged in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 76 FR 69702 (November 9, 2011)). Also consistent with our practice, if any non-selected companies have their own calculated (non-adverse facts available) rate that is contemporaneous with or more recent than this rate, then the companies will receive that rate. Thus, we have preliminarily assigned to Patagonik S.A. its current de minimis rate of 0.27 percent, which was calculated in the 2008-2009 administrative review of the order. See Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 29192 (May 20, 2011).

Following these preliminary results, we intend to request from all non-selected companies certain information regarding sales of honey made to the United States during the POR to determine the appropriateness of our preliminary margin assignments for these companies. We will invite parties to consider any such information in their comments for purposes of our final results of this review.

The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where entered values were reported, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. Where entered values were not reported, we calculated importer- or customer- (where the importer was unknown) specific per-unit assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total quantity of the sales used to calculate those duties. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all of CIPSA's and TransHoney's entries made during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

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

To calculate the cash deposit rates for TransHoney and CIPSA, we divided their total dumping margins by the total net value of each of their sales during the review period. For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated a cash deposit rate based on the simple average of the rates determined for TransHoney and CIPSA for the period December 1, 2009, through November 31, 2010.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for any previously-reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR at 63673. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

As noted above, on September 6, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CVP-23 from the PRC. The Department did not receive comments from interested parties on our Preliminary Results.

The merchandise covered by this order is carbazole violet pigment 23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3',2'-m] triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and molecular formula of C 34 H 22 C l2 N 4 O 2. 2 The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form ( e.g., dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form ( e.g., pigments dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included within the scope of this order. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Based on its analysis of the record information, the Department preliminarily determined that the merchandise in the CBP data and the entry documentation on the record was not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty order on CVP-23 from the PRC. Accordingly, in the Preliminary Results, the Department indicated that it intended to rescind this administrative review because there was no information on the record which indicated that Toyo made sales, shipments, or entries to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR. We did not receive comments concerning the Preliminary Results. Therefore, the Department continues to find that the merchandise reflected in the CBP data and entry documentation on the record is not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty order on CVP-23 from the PRC. Furthermore, because Toyo is the only company subject to this administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, 3 we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on CVP-23 from the PRC for the December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010 POR. The Department intends to instruct CBP fifteen days after the publication of this notice to liquidate such entries with respect to the PRC-wide entity.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On December 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC covering the POR of December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 74682 (December 1, 2010). On January 28, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC with respect to New-Tec. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011) ( Initiation Notice ).

We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to New-Tec on February 2, 2011, and received timely responses from New-Tec in March 2011. We issued supplemental questionnaires to New-Tec covering sections A, C, and D of the original questionnaire in May 2011, August 2011, and November 2011 and received timely responses to those questionnaires.

On September 29, 2011, and November 7, 2011, respectively, we received separate rate applications from Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial Co., Ltd. (Yangjiang Shunhe) and Welcom Products Inc. (Welcom).

The POR is December 1, 2009, through November 30, 2010.

The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.

That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order.

Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular materials measuring less than 5/8 -inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. See, e.g ., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g ., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment or provided record evidence for us to reconsider our continued treatment of the PRC as an NME. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.

It is the Department's 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 ).

In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that all firms that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate application or certification. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 5138. To establish separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for which a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of the proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. In this administrative review, Yangjiang Shunhe and Welcom each submitted a separate-rate application long after the 60-day deadline (September 29, 2011, and November 7, 2011, respectively) for when separate rate applications were due ( i.e., March 29, 2011). The Department generally will not accept separate rate requests from companies that were not requested to be reviewed. See Initiation Notice (“All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate application or certification, as described below”). Because no request for review of Yangjiang Shunhe and Welcom was submitted by an interested party, we did not initiate an administrative review with regard to either company's shipments of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that neither firm is eligible to apply for a separate-rate in this review.

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 the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this review, New-Tec submitted complete responses to the separate rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence submitted by New-Tec includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control ( i.e., the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China and the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Joint Ventures), its individual business license, and narrative information regarding its operations and selection of management. The evidence provided by New-Tec supports a preliminary finding of a de jure absence of government control over its export activities. Specifically, record evidence indicates that: (1) There are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; (2) the government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing control of companies; and (3) the government has taken formal measures to decentralize control of companies. See New-Tec's March 2, 2011, submission at 2-10.

The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on whether the company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (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; (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).

In its March 2, 2011 submission, New-Tec submitted evidence demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) The company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of directors; (5) the general manager appoints the other management personnel; and (6) there are no restrictions on the company's use of export revenues.

Therefore, we preliminarily find that New-Tec has established that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

When the Department is investigating 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 factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise.

The Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. 1 Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are producers of comparable merchandise. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004). In the current segment of the proceeding, we received comments regarding surrogate country selection only from New-Tec. New-Tec argued that Thailand was the most comparable economically to the PRC and was a significant producer of hand trucks during the POR. See New-Tec's December 1, 2011 submission at 2. Among the countries identified as economically comparable to the PRC, based on record evidence, we find that Thailand is the most appropriate surrogate country for valuing FOPs because it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and we have reliable, publicly-available data from Thailand representing broad-market averages. Although New-Tec has submitted a financial statement from an Indian company producing identical merchandise, we note that New-Tec does not propose using India as a potential surrogate country. In addition, because we have determined that Thailand is both economically comparable to the PRC and a producer of comparable merchandise, and that Thai data is both publicly available and reliable, we need not resort to an alternative surrogate country which is not as economically comparable to the PRC as the countries on the Surrogate Country List. See 773(c)(4) of the Act; see also Memorandum to the File, from Scott Hoefke, Analyst, Subject: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated concurrently with this notice. 2

Actions in Spiny Lobster Amendment 11 include the creation of new closed areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the coast of Florida to help protect threatened staghorn and elkhorn coral colonies as well as gear marking requirements. Actions in Golden Crab Amendment 6 pertain to catch shares in this fishery. Amendment 18B to the Snapper Grouper FMP would limit participation in the golden tilefish fishery through the establishment of endorsements for the longline and hook-and-line sectors. Additionally, this amendment considers changes to the fishing year and trip limits as well as an allocation of an Annual Catch Limit (ACL) between gear groups.

Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3) addresses the following items: powerhead prohibitions in the North Carolina and South Atlantic EEZ; the possible expansion of deepwater coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC); the designation of HAPC for speckled hind and warsaw grouper; and the designation of Snapper Ledge within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as a Marine Protected Area (MPA). Additional considerations include: developing a recreational tagging program for deepwater grouper species; establishing a minimum size limit for hogfish; and changes in the bag and size limits for gray triggerfish. Shrimp Amendment 9 addresses the modification of the protocol for states to request concurrent closures of the EEZ during severe weather in order to expedite the closing process. This amendment also addresses the revision of the Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) proxy for pink shrimp.

1. January 24, 2012—Crowne Plaza Charleston Airport, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (843) 744-4422;

2. January 26, 2012—BridgePointe Hotel & Marina, 101 Howell Road, New Bern, NC 28562; telephone: (252) 636-3637;

3. January 30, 2012—Hilton Key Largo Resort, 97000 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037; telephone: (305) 852-5553;

4. January 31, 2012—Doubletree Hotel Cocoa Beach Oceanfront, 2080 North Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931; telephone: (321) 783-9222;

5. February 1, 2012—Crowne Plaza Jacksonville Riverfront, 1201 Riverplace Boulevard, Jacksonville, FL 32207; telephone: (904) 398-8800;

6. February 2, 2012—Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum, 175 Bourne Avenue, Pooler, GA 31322; telephone: (912) 748-8888.

Purpose of the Meeting: Meetings of the Board of Regents assure that USU operates in the best traditions of academia. An outside Board is necessary for institutional accreditation.

Agenda: The actions that will take place include the approval of minutes from the Board of Regents Meeting held October 25, 2011; acceptance of reports from working committees; recommendations regarding the approval of faculty appointments and promotions in the School of Medicine and the Postgraduate Dental College; recommendations regarding awarding doctoral degrees in the Graduate School of Nursing; and recommendations regarding the awarding of master's and doctoral degrees in the biomedical sciences and public health. The President, USU, will present a report. Reports will also be presented by the Office of Accreditation and Organizational Assessment, the Office of Research and the Office of General Counsel. These actions and reports enable the University to pursue its mission, which is to provide outstanding health care practitioners and scientists to the uniformed services.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to Federal statute and regulations (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165) and the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Janet S. Taylor at the address and phone number noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Written Statements: Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Board of Regents. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If such statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, it may not be provided to or considered by the Board of Regents until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Board of Regents Chairman and ensure such submissions are provided to Board of Regents Members before the meeting. After reviewing the written comments, submitters may be invited to orally present their issues during the February 2012 meeting or at a future meeting.

The Board is authorized by Title III, Part D, Section 347, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1066f). The Board is established within the Department of Education to provide advice and counsel to the Secretary and the Designated Bonding Authority as to the most effective and efficient means of implementing construction financing on Historically Black College and University campuses and to advise Congress regarding the progress made in implementing the program. The Board provides advice as to the capital needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), how those needs can be met through the program, and what additional steps might be taken to improve the operation and implementation of the construction-financing program.

The purpose of this meeting is to review current program activities, to make administrative and legislative recommendations to the Secretary and the U.S. Congress addressing the capital financing issues of HBCUs, and to discuss what additional steps might be taken to improve the operation of the HBCU Capital Financing Program.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting ( e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Donald Watson at (202) 219-7037, no later than January 13, 2012. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

An opportunity for public comment is available on Friday, January 20, 2012, between 1:30 p.m.-2 p.m. Each speaker will be allowed to speak for up to three minutes. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to the attention of Donald Watson, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6040, Washington, DC, by Friday, January 13, 2012.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of the Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Advisory Board, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6040, Washington, DC 20006, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

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 http://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.

Under the authority of section 153(a)(1)(I) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9543, which authorizes NCES to gather data on the financing of education, NCES collects data annually from SEAs through ED Form 2447. The report from SEAs includes attendance, revenue, and expenditure data from which NCES determines a State's “average per-pupil expenditure” (SPPE) for elementary and secondary education, as defined in section 9101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7801(2)).

In addition to using the SPPE data as general information on the financing of elementary and secondary education, the Secretary uses these data directly in calculating allocations for certain formula grant programs, including, but not limited to, the Title I, Part A of the ESEA; Impact Aid; and Indian Education programs. Other programs, such as the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program under Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and the Teacher Quality State Grants program (Title II, Part A of the ESEA), make use of SPPE data indirectly because their formulas are based, in whole or in part, on State Title I, Part A allocations.

By mid-January, the Census Bureau, acting as the data collection agent for NCES, will email to SEAs ED Form 2447 with instructions and a request that SEAs commence submitting FY 2011 data to the Census Bureau on January 30, 2012. SEAs are urged to submit accurate and complete data by March 15, 2012, to facilitate timely processing. Submissions by SEAs to the Census Bureau will be analyzed for accuracy and returned to each SEA for verification. All data, including any revisions to FY 2010 and FY 2011 data, must be submitted to the Census Bureau by an SEA not later than August 15, 2012. Any resubmissions of FY 2010 or FY 2011 data by SEAs in response to requests for clarification or reconciliation, or other inquiries, by NCES or the Census Bureau must be completed by Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Between August 15, 2012, and September 4, 2012, States may also, on their own initiative, resubmit data to resolve data issues not addressed in their final submission of NPEFS data by August 15, 2012. All outstanding data issues must be reconciled or resolved by the SEAs, NCES, and the Census Bureau prior to September 4, 2012.

In order to facilitate timely submission of data, the Census Bureau will send reminder notices to SEAs in June and July of 2012.

Having accurate and consistent information on time is critical to an efficient and fair allocation process and to the NCES statistical process. To ensure timely distribution of Federal education funds based on the best, most accurate data available, NCES establishes, for allocation purposes, August 15, 2012, as the final date by which the NPEFS Web form or ED Form 2447 must be submitted. Any resubmissions of FY 2010 or FY 2011 data by SEAs in response to requests for clarification or reconciliation, or other inquiries, by NCES or the Census Bureau must be completed through the NPEFS Web form or ED Form 2447 by Tuesday, September 4, 2012. If an SEA submits revised data after the final deadline that result in a lower SPPE figure, its allocations may be adjusted downward or the Department may direct the SEA to return funds. SEAs should be aware that all of these data are subject to audit and that if any inaccuracies are discovered in the audit process, the Department may seek recovery of overpayments for the applicable programs.

If an SEA's submission is received by the Census Bureau after August 15, 2012, the SEA must show one of the following as proof that the submission was mailed on or before that date:

1. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

2. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

3. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

4. Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.

If the SEA mails ED Form 2447 through the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

1. A private metered postmark.

2. A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

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 is available via the Federal Digital System at http://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.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On February 22, 2007 the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-318, which authorized CSW Power Marketing to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. CSW Power Marketing changed its name to AEPEP. On June 27, 2007, DOE rescinded Order No. EA-318 and issued Order No. EA-318-A to AEPEP under the same terms and conditions as the previous authorization. That authority will expire on February 22, 2012. On December 19, 2011, AEPEP filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-318-A for a ten-year term.

The electric energy that AEPEP proposes to export to Mexico will be purchased on the wholesale market in addition to purchase agreements AEPEP has entered into with the coal-fired Oklaunion Unit No. 1 near Vernon, Texas and various wind farms in the state of Texas. The power and energy to be purchased by AEPEP will be surplus to the needs of the selling entities.

The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by AEPEP have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended. In addition to facilities determined by DOE to be appropriate for open access transmission by third parties, AEPEP was also authorized to export using small radial block-loaded facilities at Redford and Presidio, Texas.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the AEPEP application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. 318-B. An additional copy is to be filed directly with Jay E. Jadwin, Chief Counsel, American Electric Power Service Corporation, 155 W. Nationwide Blvd., Suite 500, Columbus, OH 43215 AND Carolyn Y. Thompson, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001-2113.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845 or by emailing Angela Troy at Angela.Troy@hq.doe.gov .

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(l)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its decision and order as set forth below. The decision and order grants Samsung a waiver from the applicable residential refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1 for certain basic models of refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles, provided that Samsung tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. Today's decision prohibits Samsung from making representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless the product has been tested consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the decision and order below, and the representations fairly disclose the test results.

Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).

In the Matter of: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case Nos. RF-018, RF-019).

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of this notice. 1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1.

DOE's regulations for covered products contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model for covered consumer products when (1) the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m).

Any interested person who has submitted a petition for waiver may also file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

On January 27 and July 19, 2011, Samsung submitted petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver (petitions) from the test procedures applicable to residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1. Samsung's petitions were applicable to specified basic models of refrigerator-freezers that incorporate multiple defrost cycles. In its petitions, Samsung requested a waiver from the existing DOE test procedure applicable to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under 10 CFR part 430 because the existing test procedure does not account for multiple defrost cycles. Therefore, Samsung has asked to use an alternate test procedure that addresses defrost energy use and multiple defrost cycles in the same way as the new Appendix A test procedure DOE published in an interim final rule (75 FR 78810, Dec. 16, 2010) (codified at 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix A).

Whirlpool commented in response to Samsung's waiver petition that applying the second part of the interim final rule test to the fresh food defrost of one of these products results in an energy credit. Whirlpool's waiver comments discussed the data from testing performed by the Canadian Standards Association that examined the energy consumption of a Samsung model that uses multiple defrost cycles—Samsung model No. RFG297AAPN. Whirlpool asserted that the test results are illogical because the energy use contribution of the fresh food compartment defrost is negative ( i.e. an energy credit), and added that the energy use contribution of the freezer compartment defrost is underestimated. (Docket EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017, Whirlpool, No. 4 at p. 4) Whirlpool recommended that the test period for the second (defrost) part of the test for the fresh food defrost should end at the end of the second compressor “on” cycle after defrost, and that such a change to the test procedure for the fresh food defrost only would increase the measured energy use of the product by 1.6 percent.

After considering Whirlpool's comments suggesting that DOE modify the second part of the test, DOE reopened the comment period on the interim final rule and specifically requested comment on this topic. 76 FR 57613-57614 (Sept. 15, 2011). Whirlpool commented on the interim final rule and, consistent with its comments on the Samsung waiver, stressed that the end of the second part of the test be moved so that it coincides with the end of a compressor “on” cycle. Whirlpool asserted that this change should be made for all defrosts, whether they are for fresh food compartments or freezer compartments.

Whirlpool's interim final rule comments did not explain how the suggested test period would result in more accurate test results. Instead, the comments stated that the “underlying principle when measuring the energy consumption of any product which operates in cycles is to measure from the same point in one cycle to the same point in a successor cycle,” and asserted that the test procedure of Appendix A set forth in the interim final rule measures from a compressor stop to a compressor start for products with cycling compressors. Whirlpool did not, however, provide any explanation supporting the measurement from a point in one cycle to the same point in a successor cycle. The comments stated that the negative energy use contribution ( i.e., an energy credit) measured for the fresh food defrost of the Samsung product when using the Appendix A test period set forth in the interim final rule is not credible. As a result, DOE reexamined the test period contained in the interim final rule to help determine a means to account for the observation noted by Whirlpool.

More recently, DOE prepared an assessment demonstrating that a test period for the second part of the test both starting and ending at the end of a compressor “on” cycle is consistent with the full-cycle measurement specified for testing non-variable automatic defrost products. This document  2 shows mathematically that a calculation of energy use using the “section 4.2”  3 test period (“full test period”) matches the two-part calculation only when the second part of the test both starts and ends at the end of a compressor “on” cycle.

On the other hand, the compartment temperature is at its typical steady-state cycling maximum (the higher horizontal line of the temperature plot of figure 1 of 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix A) when test period T2 ends. Hence, while the compartment temperature has recovered to the range within which it varies during steady state operation, it has not recovered to the temperature state associated with the start of the test period— i.e. the temperature is warmer than at the start of the test period. In order to allow recovery to the start-of-test-period temperature, the test period would have to continue until the end of the compressor “on” cycle. This analysis illustrates that the test period prescribed by the interim final rule for the second part of the test is unlikely to fully account for the energy use associated with temperature recovery.

DOE concludes that the test period for the second part of the test specified in the interim final rule for products with cycling compressors and long-time or variable defrost may not accurately account for the energy use associated with defrost, which necessitates a change to enhance the accuracy of the measurement. DOE received no other comments on this topic during the comment periods for the test procedure interim final rule. In light of this new information, and its own review, DOE adopted the approach suggested by Whirlpool in its comments on the Samsung waiver and interim final rule to help ensure the procedure in Appendix A provides a greater level of accuracy. DOE also adopts this approach as the alternate test procedure in this Decision and Order.

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Samsung petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Samsung.

After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Samsung and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:

(1) The petitions for waiver submitted by the Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case Nos. RF-018 and RF-019) are hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.

(2) Samsung shall be required to test and rate the following Samsung models according to the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (3) below.

(3) Samsung shall be required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) above according to the test procedures for residential electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, appendix A1, except that, for the Samsung products listed in paragraph (2) only, include:

1. In section 1, Definitions, the following definition:

“Defrost cycle type” means a distinct sequence of control whose function is to remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated surface. There may be variations in the defrost control sequence such as the number of defrost heaters energized. Each such variation establishes a separate distinct defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved regularly during the compressor “off” cycles by warming of the evaporator without active heat addition is not a defrost cycle type.

2. In section 4, Test Period, the following:

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has a long-time automatic defrost system, the two-part test described in this section may be used. The first part is a stable period of compressor operation that includes no portions of the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that is otherwise the same as the test for a unit having no defrost provisions (section 4.1). The second part is designed to capture the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation.

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of the last regular compressor “on” cycle. The average temperatures of the fresh food and freezer compartments measured from the termination of the previous compressor “on” cycle to the termination of the last regular compressor “on” cycle must both be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. If any compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in either compartment to deviate from its average temperature for the first part of the test by more than 0.5 °F (0.3 °C), these compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and must be included in the second part of the test. As an example, a “precooling” cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the temperature(s) of one or both compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be included in the second part of the test. The test period for the second part of the test ends at the termination of the first regular compressor “on” cycle after both compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperatures of the compartments measured from this termination of the first regular compressor “on” cycle until the termination of the next regular compressor “on” cycle must both be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 1.

4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost Frequencies. This section applies to models with long-time automatic or variable defrost control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models with single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators have different defrost frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 shall be used. The second part of the method will be conducted separately for each distinct defrost cycle type.

3. In section 5, Test Measurements, the following:

5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost cycle Types. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

(4) Representations. Samsung may make representations about the energy use of its refrigerator-freezer products for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions outlined above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.

(5) This waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m).

(6) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

(7) This waiver applies only to those basic models set out in Samsung's January 27 and July 19, 2011 petitions for waiver. Grant of this waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 27, 2011 (76 FR 44904), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0424, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis (New).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2433.01, OMB Control No. 2040—NEW.

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

Abstract: EPA, in partnership with states, is conducting the State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis to enumerate current and future expenditures and resources for the administration and management of state water quality programs, and to quantify the resource needs for the administration and management of state water quality programs to implement the Clean Water Act (CWA). This effort builds on an expenditure and resource needs data collection effort conducted by EPA in collaboration with the states in 1998 and 2000.

EPA requires this information to comprehend resource expenditures and needs for the administration and management of the water quality programs under 33 U.S.C. 125 et seq. This effort, supported by EPA and the states, is necessary to develop strategies for better managing state water quality programs that implement the CWA, thus ensuring the long-term sustainability, efficiency, and effectiveness of these programs. This effort also helps states and EPA to effectively target resources to meet EPA's FY 2011-2015 strategic goals of protecting the nation's waters and enforcing environmental laws.

The data collection will facilitate creation of a detailed activity-based workload model to serve as a long-term budgeting, program management, and progress tracking tool for the states and EPA to use in the future. This is a one-time collection effort by the Office of Wastewater Management and responses to this ICR are voluntary.

This information will be collected by EPA and made available to the states and to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 63 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State water quality agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Frequency of Response: Once, Annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,252.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $49,740, which includes annual labor costs only, since no capital or operation and maintenance costs are associated with this ICR.

Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection, thus there is no currently approved ICR.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0027.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station, FCC Form 301.

Form Number: FCC Form 301.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; Not for profit entities; State, local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,604 respondents and 8,040 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-6.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 20,497 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $90,659,382.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 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: On January 28, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“First R&O”) in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 10-24. To enhance the ability of federally recognized Native American Tribes to provide vital radio services to their citizens on Tribal lands, in the First R&O the Commission established a Tribal Priority for use in its radio licensing procedures. On March 3, 2011, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (“Second R&O”), First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 11-28. On December 28, 2011, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order in MB Docket No. 09-52, FCC 11-190 (“Third R&O”). In the Third R&O the Commission further refined the use of the Tribal Priority in the commercial FM context, specifically adopting a “threshold qualifications” approach to commercial FM application processing.

In the commercial FM context, the Tribal Priority is applied at the allotment stage of the licensing process. A Tribe or Tribal entity initiates the process by petitioning that a new Tribal Allotment be added to the FM Table of Allotments using the Tribal Priority. A petitioner seeking to add a Tribal Allotment to the FM Table of Allotments, like all other FM allotment proponents, must file FCC Form 301 when submitting its Petition for Rule Making. Under the new “threshold qualification” procedures adopted in the Third R&O, once a Tribal Allotment has been successfully added to the FM Table of Allotments using the Tribal Priority through an FM allocations rulemaking, the Commission will announce by Public Notice a Threshold Qualifications Window (“TQ Window”). During the TQ Window, any Tribe or Tribal entity that could qualify to add that particular Tribal Allotment may file an FCC Form 301 application for that Tribal Allotment. Such an applicant must demonstrate that it meets all of the eligibility criteria for the Tribal Priority, just as the original Tribal Allotment proponent did at the allotment stage. If it wishes its previously filed Form 301 application to be considered at this stage, then during the TQ Window the original Tribal Allotment proponent must submit notice to process its pending Form 301 application immediately.

If only one acceptable application is filed during the TQ Window, whether by the original Tribal allotment proponent submitting notification to process its previously filed Form 301, or by another qualified applicant, that application will be promptly processed and the Tribal Allotment will not be auctioned. In the event that two or more acceptable applications are filed during the TQ Window, the Commission will announce a limited period in which the parties may negotiate a settlement or bona fide merger, as a way of resolving the mutual exclusivity between their applications. If a settlement or merger is reached, the parties must notify the Commission and the staff will process the surviving application pursuant to the settlement or merger. If a settlement cannot be reached among the mutually exclusive applicants, the Tribal Allotment will be auctioned during the next scheduled FM auction. At that time, only the applicants whose applications were accepted for filing during the TQ Window, as well as the original Tribal Allotment proponent, will be permitted to bid on that particular Tribal Allotment. This closed group of mutually exclusive TQ Window applicants must comply with applicable established auction procedures.

In the event that no qualifying party applies during the TQ Window, and the original Tribal allotment proponent requests that its pending Form 301 application not be immediately processed, the Tribal Allotment will be placed in a queue to be auctioned in the normal course for vacant FM allotments. When the Tribal Allotment is offered at auction for the first time, only applicants meeting the “threshold qualifications” may specify that particular Tribal Allotment on FCC Form 175, Application to Participate in an FCC Auction (OMB Control No. 3060-0600). Should no qualifying party apply to bid or qualify to bid on a Tribal Allotment in the first auction in which it is offered, then the Tribal allotment will be offered in a subsequent auction and any applicant, whether or not a Tribal entity, may apply for the Tribal Allotment.

Consistent with actions taken by the Commission in the Third R&O, Form 301 has been revised to accommodate applicants applying in a TQ Window for a Tribal Allotment. As noted above, an applicant applying in the TQ Window, who was not the original proponent of the Tribal Allotment at the rulemaking stage, must demonstrate that it would have qualified in all respects to add the particular Tribal Allotment for which it is applying. Form 301 contains a new question in Section II—Legal titled “Tribal Priority—Threshold Qualifications.” An applicant answering “yes” to the question must provide an Exhibit demonstrating that it meets all of the Tribal Priority eligibility criteria. The Instructions for the Form 301 have been revised to assist applicants with completing the responsive Exhibit.

In addition, Form 301 contains a new option under Section I—General Information—Application Purpose, titled “New Station with Petition for Rulemaking to Amend FM Table of Allotments using Tribal Priority.” A petitioner seeking to add a Tribal Allotment to the FM Table of Allotments must file Form 301 when submitting its Petition for Rule Making. This new Application Purpose field will assist the staff in quickly identifying Form 301 applications filed in connection with a petition to add a Tribal Allotment and initiating the “threshold qualification” procedures.

This information collection is being revised to accommodate applicants applying in a Threshold Qualifications Window for a Tribal Allotment that had been added to the FM Table of Allotments using the Tribal Priority under the new “threshold qualifications” procedures adopted in the Third R&O.

As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11), this document sets forth notice of the proposed new system of records to be maintained by the FCC. This notice is a summary of the more detailed information about the proposed new system of records, which may be obtained or viewed pursuant to the contact and location information given above in the ADDRESSES section. The purpose for adding this new system of records, FCC/PSHSB-2, “PSHSB Contact Database,” is to store the personally identifiable information (PII) that individuals may submit voluntarily via one or more of these customer comment formats:

Agenda: The agenda will include a discussion of a range of issues related to the resolution of systemically important financial companies pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. The agenda may be subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available, on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids ( e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the SR Advisory Committee before or after the meeting. This SR Advisory Committee meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet at http://www.vodium.com/MediapodLibrary/index.asp?library=pn100472_fdic_SRAC . This service is free and available to anyone with the following systems requirements: http://www.vodium.com/home/sysreq.html. Adobe Flash Player is required to view these presentations. The latest version of Adobe Flash Player can be downloaded at: http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash. Installation questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high speed Internet connection is recommended. The SR Advisory Committee meeting videos are made available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 4, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 6, 2012. Write “Sigma, File No. 101 0080” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/sigmaconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Sigma, File No. 101 0080” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 6, 2012. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a proposed consent order (“Agreement”) from Sigma Corporation (“Sigma”). The Agreement seeks to resolve charges that Sigma violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, by engaging in a variety of collusive and exclusionary acts and practices in the market for ductile iron pipe fittings (“DIPF”).

The Commission anticipates that the competitive issues described in the complaint will be resolved by accepting the proposed order, subject to final approval, contained in the Agreement. The Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Agreement and any comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Agreement or make final the proposed order contained in the Agreement.

The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment concerning the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Agreement and proposed order or in any way to modify its terms.

The proposed order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Sigma that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.

The following allegations are taken from the complaint and publicly available information.

DIPF are used in municipal water distribution systems to change pipe diameter or pipeline direction. DIPF suppliers distribute these products through wholesale distributors, known as waterworks distributors, which specialize in distributing products for water infrastructure projects. The end users of DIPF are typically municipal and regional water authorities.

Both imported and domestically produced DIPF are commercially available. Sigma and its largest competitors in the DIPF market, McWane, Inc. (“McWane”) and Star Pipe Products Ltd. (“Star”), all sell imported DIPF. McWane was the only domestic producer of a full line of small and medium-sized DIPF until Star's entry into domestic production in 2009.

There are no widely available substitutes for DIPF. Some projects require that only domestically produced DIPF be used. Domestically produced DIPF sold for use in these projects typically command higher prices than comparable imported DIPF.

DIPF prices are based off of published list prices and discounts, with customers negotiating additional discounts off of those list prices and discounts on a transaction-by-transaction basis. DIPF suppliers also offer volume rebates.

Between January 2008 and January 2009, Sigma allegedly conspired with McWane and Star to increase the prices at which imported DIPF were sold in the United States. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and at the request of McWane, Sigma changed its business methods to make it easier to coordinate price levels, first by limiting the discretion of regional sales personnel to offer price discounts, and later by exchanging information documenting the volume of its monthly sales, along with McWane and Star, through an entity known as the Ductile Iron Fittings Research Association (“DIFRA”).

After the collapse of the DIFRA information exchange in early 2009, Sigma attempted to revive the conspiracy by convincing McWane and Star to raise their prices and to resume the exchange of sales data through DIFRA. McWane and Star rejected Sigma's invitation to collude.

The collapse of DIFRA coincided with the enactment of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) in February 2009. In the ARRA, the United States Congress allocated more than $6 billion to water infrastructure projects, but included a provision requiring the use of domestically produced materials in those projects (the “Buy American” requirement). At the time the ARRA was passed, McWane was the sole supplier of a full line of domestic DIPF in the most commonly used size ranges, and possessed monopoly power in that market.

In response to the passage of the ARRA and its Buy American provision, Sigma, Star and others attempted to enter the domestically produced DIPF market in competition with McWane. Rather than compete with one another in the domestic DIPF market, Sigma and McWane executed a Master Distributor Agreement (“MDA”), whereby Sigma was appointed as a distributor of McWane's domestically produced DIPF. Through the MDA, Sigma accepted compensation from McWane in exchange for abandoning its planned entry into the domestic DIPF market. Sigma also agreed to adopt exclusive dealing policies similar to those adopted by McWane, in furtherance of a conspiracy with McWane to exclude Star and to monopolize the domestic DIPF market.

The complaint alleges that Sigma had no legitimate business justification for this course of conduct, and that Sigma's collusive and exclusionary conduct has caused higher prices for both imported and domestically produced DIPF.

We analyze first the various agreements allegedly reached by Sigma with its competitors to limit competition relating to imported DIPF, and then address Sigma's participation, along with McWane, in the alleged monopolization of the domestic DIPF market.

The January and June 2008 price restraints among Sigma, McWane and Star alleged in the complaint are the sort of naked restraints on competition that are per se unlawful. 2 The June 2008 agreement, which was allegedly reached after a public invitation to collude by McWane, illustrates how price fixing agreements may be reached in public. Here, McWane's invitation to collude was conveyed in a letter sent to waterworks distributors, the common customers of McWane, Sigma and Star. McWane's letter contained a section that was meaningless to waterworks distributors, but was intended to inform Sigma and Star of the terms on which McWane desired to fix prices. 3

The DIFRA information exchange was also illegal. The complaint alleges that the DIFRA information exchange played a critical role in the 2008 price fixing conspiracy, first as the quid pro quo for a price increase by McWane in June 2008, and then by enabling Sigma, McWane and Star to monitor each others' adherence to the collusive arrangement through the second half of 2008. 4

The complaint includes allegations of a stand-alone Section 5 violation, namely that Sigma invited McWane and Star to collude with Sigma to increase DIPF prices in early 2009. 5 The term “invitation to collude” describes an improper communication from a firm to an actual or potential competitor that the firm is ready and willing to coordinate on price or output. Such invitations to collude impose a significant risk of anticompetitive harm to consumers, and as such, violate Section 5 of the FTC Act absent a legitimate business justification.

The complaint alleges that, after the passage of the ARRA, Sigma prepared to enter the domestic DIPF market in competition with McWane. However, McWane wanted to avoid this competition, so McWane and Sigma agreed that Sigma would participate in the domestic DIPF market only as a distributor of McWane's product. Through this arrangement, McWane shared a portion of its monopoly profits in the domestic DIPF market with Sigma in exchange for Sigma's commitment to abandon its plans to enter that market in competition with McWane. Such agreements are presumptively unlawful. 6

The elements of a conspiracy to monopolize are: (1) The existence of a combination or conspiracy; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) a specific intent to monopolize. 7 Here, the complaint alleges that through their MDA arrangement, McWane and Sigma agreed to limit competition between themselves in the domestic DIPF market, and to exclude their rivals in that market, including Star, by the adoption of duplicate exclusive dealing policies, and did so with the common and specific intent to maintain and share monopoly profits in the domestic DIPF market.

The proposed order is designed to remedy the unlawful conduct charged against Sigma in the complaint and to prevent the recurrence of such conduct.

Paragraph II.A of the proposed order prohibits Sigma from participating in or maintaining any combination or conspiracy between any competitors to fix, raise or stabilize the prices at which DIPF are sold in the United States, or to allocate or divide markets, customers, or business opportunities.

Paragraph II.B of the proposed order prohibits Sigma from soliciting or inviting any competitor to participate in any of the actions prohibited in Paragraphs II.A.

Paragraph II.C of the proposed order prohibits Sigma from participating in or facilitating any agreement between competitors to exchange “Competitively Sensitive Information” (“CSI”), defined as certain types of information related to the cost, price, output or customers of or for DIPF. Paragraph II.D of the proposed order prohibits Sigma from unilaterally disclosing CSI to a competitor, except as part of the negotiation of a joint venture, license or acquisition, or in certain other specified circumstances. Paragraph II.E of the proposed order prohibits Sigma from attempting to engage in any of the activities prohibited by Paragraphs II.A, II.B, II.C, or II.D.

The prohibitions on Sigma's communication of CSI with competitors contained in Paragraphs II.C and II.D of the proposed order are subject to a proviso that permits Sigma to communicate CSI to its competitors under certain circumstances. Under the proposed order, Sigma may participate in an information exchange with its competitors in the DIPF market provided that the information exchange is structured in such a way as to minimize the risk that it will facilitate collusion among the Sigma and its competitors. Specifically, the proposed order requires any exchange of CSI to occur no more than twice yearly, and to involve the exchange of aggregated information more than six months old. In addition, the aggregated information that is exchanged must be made publicly available, which increases the likelihood that an information exchange involving Sigma will simultaneously benefit consumers. The proposed order also prohibits Sigma's participation in an exchange of CSI involving price, cost or total unit cost of or for DIPF when the individual or collective market shares of the competitors seeking to participate in an information exchange exceed specified thresholds. The rationale for this provision is that in a highly concentrated market the risk that the information exchange may facilitate collusion is high. Due to the highly concentrated state of the DIPF market as currently structured, an information exchange involving Sigma and relating to price, output or total unit cost of or for DIPF is unlikely to reoccur in the foreseeable future.

The proposed order has a term of 20 years.

The Commission has voted separately (1) to issue a Part 3 Administrative Complaint against Respondents McWane, Inc. (“McWane”) and Star Pipe Products, Ltd. (“Star”), and (2) to accept for public comment a Consent Agreement settling similar allegations in a draft Part 2 Complaint against Respondent Sigma Corporation (“Sigma”). While I have voted in favor of both actions, I respectfully object to the inclusion—in both the Part 3 Administrative Complaint and in the draft Part 2 Complaint—of claims against McWane and Sigma, to the extent that such claims are based on allegations of exclusive dealing, as explained in Part I below. I also respectfully object to naming Star, a competitor of McWane and Sigma, as a Respondent in the Part 3 Administrative Complaint, which alleges, inter alia, that Star engaged in a horizontal conspiracy to fix the prices of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPFs) sold in the United States, and in a related, information exchange, as described in Part II below.

For reasons similar to those that I articulated in a recent dissent in another matter, Pool Corp., FTC File No. 101-0115, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1010115/111121poolcorpstatementrosch.pdf, I do not think that the Part 3 Administrative Complaint against McWane and the draft Part 2 Complaint against Sigma adequately allege exclusive dealing as a matter of law. In particular, there is case law in both the Eighth and Ninth Circuits blessing the conduct that the complaints charge as exclusive dealing.

I also object to the allegations in the Part 3 Administrative Complaint and in the draft Part 2 Complaint that name Star as a co-conspirator in the alleged horizontal price-fixing of DIPF sold in the United States and the related, alleged DIFRA information exchange. 8 I do not consider naming Star, along with McWane and Sigma, as a co-conspirator to be in the public interest. There are at least three reasons why this is so. First, although there may be reason to believe Star conspired with McWane and Sigma in this oligopolistic industry, Star seems much less culpable than the others. More specifically, I believe that we must be mindful of the consequences of public law enforcement in assessing whether the public interest favors joining Star as a co-conspirator. 9 Second, I am concerned that a trier of fact may find it hard to believe that Star could be both a victim of McWane's alleged “threats” to deal exclusively with distributors, and at more or less the same time (the “exclusive dealing” program began in September 2009), a co-conspirator with McWane in a price-fixing conspiracy (June 2008 to February 2009). (This concern further explains why I do not have reason to believe that the exclusive dealing theory is a viable one.) Third, I am concerned that Star's alleged participation in the price-fixing conspiracy and information exchange relies, in part, on treating communications to distributors as actionable signaling on prices or price levels. 10 See, e.g., Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1305-07 (11thCir. 2003).

Section 332 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in Section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. The required regulations setting forth the criteria for designating HPSAs are codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 5.

Section 333A(a)(1)(A) of the PHS Act requires that the Secretary give priority in the assignment of National Health Service Corps personnel to entities serving HPSAs with the greatest health professional shortage. Section 333A(b) of the PHS Act requires that the Secretary establish criteria specifying the manner in which she determines HPSAs of greatest shortage and publish the criteria, and any revisions to the criteria, in the Federal Register . The criteria established by the Secretary create a method for scoring HPSAs based on relative shortage.

Correctional facility HPSA scores are currently extrapolated from the degree-of-shortage (DOS) groups determined in the primary care, mental health, and dental HPSA designation process. See 42 CFR part 5, Appendices A, B and C. The determination of DOS groups for these facilities is based primarily on internee/inpatient-to-provider ratios, which is similar to the population-to-provider ratio used for other types of HPSAs. This notice revises the criteria for scoring primary care, mental health and dental correctional facility HPSAs. The Secretary will utilize a combination of the correctional facility's DOS group and an indicator of the supply of providers in the geographic area where the facility is located, as measured by the designation of a geographic HPSA and its relative geographic HPSA score.

The table below defines the points correctional facilities will receive based on their DOS group:

The table below defines the points correctional facilities will receive based on their location in a geographic HPSA and the geographic HPSA's score:

Points for the DOS and the geographic HPSA score will be equally weighted. The maximum HPSA score for a correctional facility is 24.

The criteria used to make determinations under section 333A(a)(1)(A) of the HPSAs with the greatest shortages described in this announcement will not involve data collection activities that fall under the purview of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the methods for determining HPSAs with the greatest shortages fall under the purview of the Paperwork Reduction Act, HRSA will seek OMB clearance for proposed data collection activities.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessels and Certificate of Use.

OMB Number: 1651-0092.

Form Number: CBP Form 5125.

Abstract: CBP Form 5125, Application for Withdrawal of Bonded Stores for Fishing Vessel and Certificate of Use, is used to request the permission of the CBP port director for the withdrawal and lading of bonded merchandise (especially alcoholic beverages) for use on board fishing vessels involved in international trade. The applicant must certify on CBP Form 5125 that supplies on board were either consumed, or that all unused quantities remain on board and are adequately secured for use on the next voyage. CBP uses this form to collect information such as the name and identification number of the vessel, ports of departure and destination, and information about the crew members. The information collected on this form is authorized by Section 309 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and is provided for by 19 CFR 10.59(e). CBP Form 5125 is accessible at http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_5125.pdf.

Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with a change to the burden hours as a result of increasing the estimated response time from five minutes to twenty minutes. There are no changes to the information collected or to CBP Form 5125.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 500.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 165.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Public/Private Partnerships for the Mixed-Finance Development of Public Housing Units.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2577-New.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD is requesting a new, separate OMB Control Number for all existing information collection documents needed to perform due diligence before approving a Mixed-Finance financial closing and committing HUD public housing funds to the development of a Mixed-Finance project. Most of the information collection documents included in this request resolve PRA non-compliance issues. The documents are currently collected by HUD, have been standardized or modified to decrease burden hours. One new document automates existing manual financial calculations.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-50030, HUD-50029, HUD-50150, HUD-50151, HUD-50154, HUD-50155.

Members of Affected Public: State and Local Governments, Public Housing Agencies, Real Estate Developers, Public Housing Residents.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of respondents is 130 annually, responding once with each housing development financial closing, with 920 annual responses. The total reporting burden is 16,995 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Existing collection pending an OMB control number.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). We have prepared this EA to evaluate the impacts of several alternatives related to the potential issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) to the applicant, as well as impacts of the implementation of the supporting proposed habitat conservation plan (plan).

The applicant proposes to develop a plan as part of their application for an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The proposed plan will include measures necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts, to the maximum extent practicable, of potential proposed taking of a federally listed species to be covered by the plan, and the habitats upon which it depends, resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Shiloh IV Wind Plant Project within the proposed plan area, to include portions of the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area in Solano County, California.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Under the Act, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The term “harm” is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

However, under specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take that occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

1. The taking will be incidental;

2. The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

3. The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;

4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

5. The applicants will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.

The proposed covered activities under this plan include constructing and installing the wind turbines and associated electrical facilities and access roads, expanding the existing enXco operations and maintenance yard by 5,000 square feet, installing a new 230-kilovolt substation (to be built on an existing pad), maintaining the new wind turbines and the associated facilities, and, later, decommissioning the facility and restoring the site. Specifically, proposed covered activities include grading, excavating to support access roads, trenching to install underground electrical lines, installing of erosion-control measures during covered construction and maintenance activities, installing new gravel roads, pouring a cement footing to support each turbine, installing of other infrastructure, gravel placement for road maintenance, vehicle travel, transport of equipment and supplies, and other similar actions necessary to support the construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project.

The proposed action presented in the draft EA will be compared to the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated future conditions can be compared. Other alternatives considered, including their potential impacts, are also addressed in the draft EA.

Under the No Action alternative, we would not issue a permit, and the applicant would not construct the project. The no-action alternative would not achieve the applicant's objectives and would not allow the development of the project in a designated wind resource area.

Under the Reduced Take Alternative, wind turbines would be sited farther than 500 feet from aquatic habitats, which would reduce the number of turbines that would be constructed. This alternative would not meet the applicant's objective of a generating capacity of 100 megawatts.

The Shiloh IV Wind Plant Project would be constructed on 3,100 acres encompassing the Plan Area in the Collinsville-Montezuma Hills Wind Resources Area, south of State Route 12 in Solano County, California. The Plan Area is within and surrounded by existing energy-producing facilities and will effectively repower the enXco V project, currently present on the site. Adjacent energy-producing facilities include Shiloh I to the north and west, High Winds to the east, Shiloh II to the north, and Montezuma II to the south and east.

The applicant proposes to develop its wind energy facility that would deliver renewable energy to the Pacific Gas & Electric California Independent System Operator power grid to meet California's Renewable Portfolio Standard goals and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) and Solano County's General Plan. Up to 50 wind turbines would be built in the Plan Area. The project would be constructed in a location that supports suitable habitat for the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander, a species listed as threatened under the Act. The Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander is the only proposed “Covered Species.”

The “Covered Activities” included in the plan include the construction and installation of wind turbines and associated facilities and access roads, maintenance of the wind turbines and associated facilities, and decommissioning of the site. All turbines are proposed to be located in cultivated agricultural lands. The project is expected to result in permanent loss of 25 acres of agricultural land. Temporary construction effects are expected on 130 acres of agricultural land (115 acres during construction and up to 15 acres for maintenance activities) and approximately 2 acres of grassland. All land cover types affected would be restored within 1 year of impact. No direct effects on aquatic breeding habitat would occur.

The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects to the Covered Species associated with the Covered Activities by fully implementing the plan. The following mitigation measures will be implemented for Central CTS as part of the plan: Minimize impact area; avoid injury of the covered species during implementation of Covered Activities; avoid habitat impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation generated by Covered Activities; minimize the risk of project-related toxic spills that could adversely affect the covered species or its habitat; restore all temporarily disturbed covered species' habitat in the Plan Area to pre-project conditions within 1 year of disturbance; ensure implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures; and offset unavoidable permanent habitat impacts on the covered species through the purchase of approximately 37 acres of credits at a Service and California Department of Fish and Game-approved conservation bank, to ensure temporary and permanent effects are mitigated.

Under the proposed action alternative, we would issue an incidental take permit for the applicant's proposed project, which includes the activities described above and in more detail in the plan.

As described in our EA, we have made the preliminary determination that approval of the proposed plan and issuance of the permit would qualify as FONSI under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as provided by Federal regulations (40 CFR 1500, 5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4) and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 and 516 DM 8). Our EA articulates the project effects on all potential resources that could be adversely affected, including aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, climate change, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, minerals and paleontological resources, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public health hazards, recreation, traffic and transportation, and utilities and public service systems. It also includes an analysis of alternatives, and other required analyses such as unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, short-term uses versus long-term productivity and cumulative effects, and the environmentally preferable alternative (the proposed project).

We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We particularly seek comments on the following:

1. Biological information concerning the species;

2. Relevant data concerning the species;

3. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species;

4. Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species;

5. The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and

6. Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.

We will identify in the FONSI if we need to prepare further NEPA documentation. We will also consider public comments on the draft EA when making the final determination on whether to prepare additional NEPA documents on the proposed action.

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.

You may obtain copies of the permit application, plan, and EA from the individuals in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Copies of these documents are available for public inspection, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ).

We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA public-involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, including the plan and comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander from the implementation of the Covered Activities described in the plan. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice.

Introduction

With this notice, we initiate our process for developing a CCP for Plum Tree Island NWR, in the city of Poquoson, VA. This notice complies with our CCP policy to advise other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct detailed planning on this refuge.

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 of developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife 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 will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

Our CCP process provides participation opportunities for Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments, agencies, organizations, and the public. Throughout the process, we will have formal comment periods and hold public meetings to gather comments, issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of Plum Tree Island NWR. You may also send comments during the planning process by mail, email, or fax (see ADDRESSES ).

We will conduct the environmental review of this project and develop an EA in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ); NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); other appropriate Federal laws and regulations; and our policies and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations.

Plum Tree Island NWR is one of four refuges that comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex. The 3,502-acre refuge is located along the Atlantic Flyway in the city of Poquoson, VA. It was established in 1972 to conserve wetlands and important migratory bird habitat in the lower Chesapeake Bay. The refuge's salt marsh, scrub-shrub, and forest habitats support a variety of native wildlife species, including waterfowl, marshbirds, and shorebirds. The refuge's beaches are also home to the federally threatened northeastern beach tiger beetle ( Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis ).