Title: Importation of Tomatoes From Certain Central American Countries.

OMB Number: 0579-0286.

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, pink or red tomatoes from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates with an additional declaration statement, production site and packinghouse inspection records, monitoring and auditing of the trapping program, trapping records, and labeling of boxes.

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 0.140236445 hours per response.

Respondents: Importers and Central American national plant protection organizations and producers.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 40.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 61.325.

Estimated annual number of responses: 2,453.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 344 hours. (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.

Title: Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program.

OMB Number: 0579-0237.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized, among other things, to protect the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock and for eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible.

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of cervids, which include elk, deer, and moose, typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. The presence of CWD in cervids causes significant economic and market losses to U.S. producers. In an effort to accelerate the control and limit the spread of this disease, APHIS initiated rulemaking to create a cooperative, voluntary Federal-State-private sector CWD Herd Certification Program designed to actively identify farmed or captive herds infected with CWD and provide for the management of these herds to prevent further disease spread.

On July 21, 2006, APHIS published a final rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 41682-41707, Docket No. 00-108-1-3) establishing regulations in 9 CFR part 55 for a Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program to help eliminate CWD from farmed or captive cervid herds in the United States and in 9 CFR part 81 for interstate movement requirements to prevent CWD spread.

After publication of the CWD 2006 final rule, and before its effective date of October 19, 2006, APHIS received three petitions requesting consideration of several requirements of the rule. On September 8, 2006, we published a document in the Federal Register (71 FR 52983, Docket No. 00-108-4) that delayed the effective date of the final rule while APHIS considered those petitions. On November 3, 2006, we published another document in the Federal Register (71 FR 64650-64651, Docket No. 00-108-5) that described the nature of the petitions and made the petitions available for public review and comment, with a comment period closing on December 4, 2006. We subsequently extended that comment period until January 3, 2007, in a Federal Register document published on November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67313, Docket No. 001086).

As part of the 2006 final rule, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved information collection activities associated with the voluntary CWD program requirements (OMB number 0579-0237). Because the final rule never went into effect, APHIS did not collect information related to the voluntary CWD program, and OMB's approval of the information collection was discontinued in April 2009.

After reviewing the merits of the petitions and public comments received in response to them, APHIS proposed changes to the 2006 final rule on March 31, 2009 (74 FR 14495-14506, Docket No. 00-108-7), with a comment period closing June 1, 2009. APHIS is in the process of developing rulemaking that would, if adopted, implement a voluntary CWD herd certification program and any approved information collection activities for the program.

Further, reinstatement of the information collection for a CWD program would involve a memorandum of understanding between APHIS and participating States; requests by businesses (VS forms 11-1/11-1A) and States to participate in the program; wild cervid identification for interstate movement; farmed cervid identification; reporting of cervid escapes, disappearances, and deaths; recordkeeping (herd records); certificates and/or animal identification documents to move cervids interstate; a letter to appeal suspension; a herd plan; and a laboratory submission form.

We are requesting OMB to approve for 3 years the reinstatement of information collection activities for the voluntary CWD program, if implemented, to help eliminate CWD from farmed or captive cervid herds in the United States.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as 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 information collection, 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 information collection 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 3.4897877 hours per response.

Respondents: State animal health officials; attending veterinarians; and owners/producers of elk, deer, and moose herds.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,390.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 18.887866.

Estimated annual number of response hours: 45,142.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 157,536 hours. (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.

In a document published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1051-1052, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0115), we announced that there would be a meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan in Atlanta, GA, on January 25, 2012. Due to circumstances beyond our control, we must cancel the meeting. We regret any inconvenience caused by the cancellation.

Title: Agriculture Innovation Centers.

OMB Number: 0570-0045.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2012.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Agriculture Innovation Center applicants must provide required information to demonstrate eligibility for the program and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Grantees are required to provide progress reports for the duration of the grant agreement to ensure continued compliance and to measure the success of the program.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 107.5 hours per response.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

Estimated Number of Responses: 24.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 58.5 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, (202) 692-0040.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Rural Development, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Rural Development's estimate of the burden to collect the required information, including the validity of the strategy used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments on the paperwork burden may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-55, November 18, 2011) provided that the Secretary of the USDA shall carry out the Rural Development Voucher program as follows:

This notice outlines the process for providing voucher assistance to the eligible impacted families when an owner prepays a Section 515 loan or USDA action results in a foreclosure after September 30, 2005.

This section sets forth the design features of the Rural Development Voucher Program, including the eligibility of families, the inspection of the units, and the calculation of the subsidy amount.

Rural Development Vouchers under this part are administered by the Rural Housing Service; an Agency under the Rural Development mission area, in accordance with requirements set forth in this Notice and further explained in, “The Rural Development Voucher Program Guide,” which can be obtained by contacting any Rural Development office. Contact information for Rural Development offices can be found at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app. These requirements are generally based on the housing choice voucher program regulations of HUD set forth at 24 CFR part 982, unless otherwise noted by this Notice.

The Rural Development Voucher Program is intended to offer protection to eligible multifamily housing tenants in properties financed through Rural Development's Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program (515 property) who may be subject to economic hardship through prepayment of the Rural Development mortgage. When the owner of a 515 property pays off the loan prior to the loan's maturity date (either through prepayment or foreclosure action), the Rural Development affordable housing requirements and rental assistance subsidies generally cease to exist. Rents may increase, thereby making the housing unaffordable to tenants. When a prepayment occurs, whether or not the rent increases, the tenant may be responsible for the full payment of rent. The Rural Development Voucher Program applies to any 515 property where the mortgage is paid off prior to the maturity date in the promissory note and the payment occurs after September 30, 2005. This includes foreclosed properties. Tenants in foreclosed properties are eligible for a Rural Development Voucher under the same conditions as properties that go through the standard prepayment process.

The Rural Development Voucher will help tenants by providing an annual rental subsidy, renewable on the terms and conditions set forth herein and subject to the availability of funds, that will supplement the tenant's rent payment. This program enables a tenant to make an informed decision about remaining in the property, moving to a new property, or obtaining other financial housing assistance. Low-income tenants in the prepaying property are eligible to receive a voucher to use at their current rental property, or to take to any other rental unit in the United States and its territories.

There are some general limitations on the use of a voucher:

(1) The rental unit must pass a Rural Development health and safety inspection, and the owner must be willing to accept a Rural Development Voucher;

(2) Also, Rural Development Vouchers cannot be used for units in subsidized housing like Section 8 and public housing where two housing subsidies would result. The Rural Development Voucher may be used for rental units in other properties financed by Rural Development, but it will not be used in combination with the Rural Development Rental Assistance program.

(3) The Rural Development Voucher may not be used to purchase a home.

In order to be eligible for the Rural Development Voucher under this Notice, a family must:

(a) Be residing in the Section 515 project on the date of the prepayment of the Section 515 loan or upon foreclosure by Rural Development;

(b) The date of the prepayment or foreclosure must be after September 30, 2005;

(c) As required by Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 [42 U.S.C. 1436a] the primary tenant and co-tenant, if applicable, must be a United States citizen, United States non-citizen national or qualified alien.

(1) For each family member who contends that he or she is a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen with eligible immigration status, the family must submit to Rural Development a written declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, by which the family member declares whether he or she is a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen with eligible immigration status:

(i) For each adult, the declaration must be signed by the adult; and

(ii) For each child, the declaration must be signed by an adult residing in the assisted dwelling unit who is responsible for the child.

(2) Each family member, regardless of age, must submit the following evidence to the responsible entity:

(i) For citizens, the evidence consists of a signed declaration of U.S. citizenship. Rural Development may request verification of the declaration by requiring presentation of a United States passport, social security card, or other appropriate documentation;

(ii) For noncitizens who are 62 years of age or older, the evidence consists of: (A) A signed declaration of eligible immigration status; and

(B) Proof of age document; and

(iii) For all other noncitizens, the evidence consists of:

(A) A signed declaration of eligible immigration status;

(B) Alien registration documentation or other proof of immigration registration from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that contains the individual's alien admission number or alien file number; and

(C) A signed verification consent form, which provides that evidence of eligible immigration status may be released to Rural Development and USCIS for purposes of verifying the immigration status of the individual. Rural Development shall provide a reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 30 days, to submit evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status, or to appeal to the Immigration and Naturalization Service the verification determination of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and;

(d) The family must be a low-income family on the date of the prepayment or foreclosure. A low-income family is a family whose annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the family median income for the area as defined by HUD. HUD's definition of median income can be found at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il11/index.html

During the prepayment or foreclosure process, Rural Development will evaluate every tenant family to determine if it is low income. If Rural Development determines a family is low-income, immediately following the foreclosure or prepayment Rural Development will send the primary tenant a letter offering the family a voucher and will enclose a Voucher Obligation Request Form and a citizenship declaration form. If the family wants to participate in the Rural Development Voucher Program, the tenant has 10 months from the date of prepayment or foreclosure to return the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the citizenship declaration to the local Rural Development office. If Rural Development determines that the tenant is ineligible, Rural Development will provide administrative appeal rights pursuant to 7 CFR part 11.

Rural Development will monitor the prepayment request process or foreclosure process, as applicable. As part of prepayment or foreclosure Rural Development will obtain a rent comparability study for the property ninety days prior to the date of prepayment or foreclosure. The rent comparability study will be used to calculate the amount of voucher each tenant is entitled to receive. All tenants will be notified if they are eligible and the amount of the voucher within 90 days following the date of prepayment or foreclosure. The tenant notice will include a description of the Rural Development Voucher Program, a Voucher Obligation Request Form, and letter from Rural Development offering the tenant participation in Rural Development Voucher Program. The tenant has 10 months from the date of prepayment or foreclosure to return the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the signed citizenship declaration. Failure to submit the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the signed citizenship declaration within the required timeframes will terminate the tenant's the voucher. A tenant's failure to respond within the required timeframes is not appealable. Once the primary tenant returns the Voucher Obligation Request Form and the citizenship declaration to Rural Development, a voucher will be issued within 30 days. All information necessary for a housing search, explanations of unit acceptability, and Rural Development contact information will be provided by Rural Development to the tenant at the time the Voucher Obligation Form and citizenship declaration is received.

The family receiving a Rural Development Voucher has an initial period of 60 calendar days from issuance of the voucher to find a housing unit. At its discretion, Rural Development may grant one or more extensions of the initial period for up to an additional 60 days. Generally the maximum voucher period for any family participating in the Rural Development Voucher Program is 120 days. Only if the family needs and requests an extension of the initial period as a reasonable accommodation to make the program accessible to a disabled family member, Rural Development will extend the voucher search period beyond the 120 days. If the Rural Development Voucher remains unused after a period of 150 days from original issuance, the Rural Development Voucher will become void, any funding will be cancelled, and the tenant will no longer be eligible to receive a Rural Development Voucher.

The initial lease term for the housing unit where the family wishes to use the Rural Development Voucher must be for one year.

Once the family finds a housing unit, Rural Development will inspect and determine if the housing standard is acceptable within 30 days of Rural Development's receipt of the HUD Form 52517 “Request for Tenancy Approval Housing Choice Voucher Program” found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/forms/files/52517.pdf and the Disclosure of Information on Lead-Based Paint Hazards. The inspection standards currently in effect for the Rural Development Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Program apply to the Rural Development Voucher Program. Rural Development must inspect the unit and ensure that the unit meets the housing inspection standards set forth at 7 CFR 3560.103. Under no circumstances may Rural Development make voucher rental payments for any period of time prior to the date that Rural Development physically inspects the unit and determines the unit meets the housing inspection standards. In the case of properties financed by Rural Development under the Section 515 program, Rural Development may accept the results of physical inspections performed no more than one year prior to the date of receipt by Rural Development of Form HUD 52517, in order to make determinations on acceptable housing standards. Before approving a family's assisted tenancy or executing a Housing Assistance Payments contract, Rural Development must determine that the following conditions are met: (1) The unit has been inspected by Rural Development and passes the housing standards inspection or has otherwise been found acceptable as noted previously; and (2) the lease includes the HUD Tenancy Addendum. A copy of the HUD Tenancy Addendum will be provided by Rural Development when the tenant is informed he/she is eligible for a voucher.

Once the conditions in the above paragraph are met, Rural Development will approve the unit for leasing. Rural Development will then execute with the owner a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract, Form HUD-52641. The HAP contract must be executed before Rural Development Voucher payments can be made. Rural Development will use its best efforts to execute the HAP contract on behalf of the family before the beginning of the lease term. In the event that this does not occur, the HAP contract may be executed up to 60 calendar days after the beginning of the lease term. If the HAP contract is executed during this 60-day period, Rural Development will pay retroactive housing assistance payments to cover the portion of the approved lease term before execution of the HAP contract. Any HAP contract executed after the 60-day period is untimely, and Rural Development will not pay any housing assistance payment to the owner for that period. In establishing the effective date of the voucher HAP contracts, Rural Development may not execute a HAP contract that is effective prior to the Section 515 loan prepayment.

As stated earlier, if eligible, the tenant will be notified of the maximum voucher amount within 90 days following prepayment or foreclosure. The maximum voucher amount for the Rural Development Voucher Program is the difference between the comparable market rent for the family's former Section 515 unit and the tenant's rent contribution on the date of the prepayment. The voucher amount will be based on the comparable market rent; the voucher amount will never exceed the comparable market rent at the time of prepayment for the tenant's unit if the tenant chooses to stay in-place. Also, in no event may the Rural Development Voucher payment exceed the actual tenant lease rent. The amount of the voucher does not change either over time or if the tenant chooses to move to a more expensive location.

An eligible family that is issued a Rural Development Voucher may elect to use the assistance in the same project or may choose to move to another location. The Rural Development Voucher may be used at the prepaid property or any other rental unit in the United States and its territories that passes Rural Development physical inspection standards, and where the owner will accept a Rural Development Voucher and execute a Form HUD 52641. Tenants and landlords must inform Rural Development if the tenant plans to move during the HAP agreement term, even to a new unit in the same complex. All moves (within a complex or to another complex) require a new obligation, a new inspection and a new HAP agreement. In addition, HUD Section 8 and federally assisted public housing is excluded from the Rural Development Voucher Program because these units are already federally subsidized. Tenants with a Rural Development Voucher would have to give up the Rural Development Voucher to accept the assistance at those properties. The Rural Development Voucher may be used in other properties financed by Rural Development, but it cannot be used in combination with the Rural Development Rental Assistance program. Tenants with a Rural Development Voucher that apply for housing in a Rural Development-financed property must choose between using the voucher or Rental Assistance. If the tenant relinquishes the Rural Development Voucher in favor of Rental Assistance, the tenant is not eligible to receive another Rural Development Voucher.

The Rural Development Voucher Program provides voucher assistance for 12 monthly payments. The voucher is issued to the household in the name of the primary tenant, as the voucher holder. The voucher is not transferable from the voucher holder to any other household member except in the case of the voucher holder's death or involuntary household separation such as the incarceration of the voucher holder or transfer of the voucher holder to an assisted living or nursing home facility. Upon receiving documentation of such cases, the voucher may be transferred at the Agency's discretion to another tenant on the voucher holder's lease.

The voucher is renewable subject to the availability of appropriations to the USDA. In order to renew a voucher, a tenant must return a signed Voucher Obligation Form which will be sent to the tenant within 60-90 days before the current voucher expires. If the voucher holder fails to return the renewal Voucher Obligation Form before the current voucher funding expires, the voucher will be terminated.

In order to ensure continued eligibility to use the Rural Development Voucher, at the time they apply for renewal of the voucher, tenants must certify that the current family income does not exceed 80 percent of family median income. Rural Development will advise the tenant of the maximum income level when the renewal Voucher Obligation Form is sent.

Renewal requests will have no preference and will be processed as a new application as described in this Notice.

The information collection requirements contained in this document are those of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0169. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Petitions

On December 29, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received petitions concerning imports of utility scale wind towers (“wind towers”) from the PRC and Vietnam filed in proper form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (“Petitioner”). See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China and Antidumping Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers from Vietnam filed on December 29, 2011 (the “Petitions”). On January 5 and 6, 2012, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions. Petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 11, 2012, (hereinafter, “First Supplement to the PRC Petition,” “First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,” and “First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions,” respectively). The Department requested additional clarifications from Petitioner on January 12, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Meredith Rutherford, titled “Phone Call to Counsel for the Petitioner,” dated January 12, 2012. Petitioner provided these additional clarifications on January 12, 2012, (hereinafter, “Second Supplement to the PRC Petition” and “Second Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,” respectively). Further, the Department requested additional information and clarifications to the scope and the Petitions on January 13, 2012. Petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 17, 2012, (hereinafter, “Second Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions,” “Third Supplement to the PRC Petition,” and “Third Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,” respectively). The Department requested additional clarifications concerning the surrogate value for one material input from Petitioner on January 17, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Karine Gziryan, titled “Phone Call to Counsel for the Petitioner,” dated January 17, 2012. Petitioner provided these additional clarifications on January 18, 2012, (hereinafter, “Fourth Supplement to the PRC Petition”).

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

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

19 CFR 351.204(b) states that, in the case of a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country, the Department normally will examine in an investigation merchandise sold during the two most recently completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was filed. The regulations further state that the Department may examine merchandise sold during any additional or alternate period it concludes is appropriate.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b), the two most recently completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was filed would be the second and third fiscal quarters of 2011, April through September 2011.

For this investigation, Petitioner has requested that the Department consider expanding the period of investigation (“POI”) to include more than two fiscal quarters. According to Petitioner, the subject merchandise involves a lengthy bidding process, custom specifications for production and long lead times. Petitioner claims that a POI of normal duration may not capture a large number of sales.

The Department will consider Petitioner's arguments, as well as comments from other interested parties, on this matter and will make a determination regarding the POI as the investigation proceeds. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Folding Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15400, 15400-01 (March 19, 2001) (where the Department did not make a determination regarding the length of the POI at initiation in a case where the merchandise was sold using long-term contracts).

The products covered by these investigations are wind towers from the PRC and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of the investigations, please see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Petitioner submitted revised scope language on January 12, 2012, and January 17, 2012. Among the revisions was the following substantive provision:

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

We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of wind towers to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.

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

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments filed in accordance with the Department's electronic filing requirements, available at 19 CFR 351.303(g), by February 7, 2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by February 14, 2012.

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product ( see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

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

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that wind towers constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the PRC (“PRC Initiation Checklist”) at Attachment II, and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from Vietnam (“Vietnam Initiation Checklist”) at Attachment II, dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 2010 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. See Volume I of the Petitions at 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 and I-29, and First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions at 5-6 and Supplemental Exhibits I-2 and I-3; see also PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

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

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

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (“NV”). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales and revenues, reduced production, reduced shipments, reduced capacity utilization rate, underselling and price depression and suppression, reduced workforce, decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petitions at 23-54. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations of imports of wind towers from the PRC and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price and the factors of production (“FOPs”) are also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. See PRC Initiation Checklist and Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Petitioner calculated export price (“EP”) based on declarations of the price bid for wind towers by a certain Chinese exporter/reseller and the lost U.S. sale by a U.S. producer during the POI, as identified in one Declaration Regarding Lost U.S. Sales and one Declaration Regarding U.S. Sales Offers provided by Petitioner. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits II-4 and II-1; First Supplement to the PRC Petition at Supplemental Exhibit II-5; see also PRC Initiation Checklist. Petitioner calculated the EP using the quoted transaction price as the best information reasonably available. According to Petitioner, the offer made by the Chinese producer reflects the ex-factory EP; therefore, Petitioner made no adjustments to the quoted price. See Volume II of the Petitions at 6 and Exhibits II-4 and II-22; see also PRC Initiation Checklist.

Petitioner calculated EP based on a Vietnamese exporter's sales of wind towers to wind tower users and distributors in the United States. Specifically, Petitioner stated that official import statistics were used to calculate two U.S. prices by month and port for shipments from the Vietnamese exporter. See Volume I of the Petitions at 4-8 and Exhibit I-19; Volume IV of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit IV-2; First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 3-4; Second Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at Attachment 1; see also Vietnam Initiation Checklist. Petitioner stated that, because these U.S. prices were derived from official U.S. import statistics and were based on the Customs value of the goods, its U.S. prices are already ex-work prices and, therefore, no adjustments for movement expenses are necessary. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 8-9 and Exhibit IV-8; see also Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Petitioner states that the Department has long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country and this designation remains in effect today. See Volume II of the Petitions at 7; see also Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966, 1968 (January 11, 2011); Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 57449, 57452 (September 21, 2010).

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of the PRC investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC investigation is appropriately based on FOPs valued in a surrogate market-economy (“ME”) country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the PRC investigation, all parties, in addition to the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issue of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country under section 773(c) of the Act because it is a ME country that is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, such as fabricated steel towers and masts. See Volume II of the Petitions at 8-9 and Exhibit II-8. Further, surrogate values data from South Africa are available and reliable. See Volume II of the Petitions at 8 and Exhibit II-6. Moreover, Petitioner notes that the Department has previously used South Africa as the surrogate country in previous investigations involving the PRC. See Volume II of the Petitions at 9, citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 71137, 71139 (November 29, 2002). Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of one producer of wind towers (“Wind Tower Producer”). Petitioner asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge, production methods and consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer are similar to the production methods and consumption rates of Chinese producers. See Volume II of the Petitions at 10-11, 15-16, and Exhibit II-10; First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 5-6 and Supplemental Exhibit II-4.

Petitioner valued most FOPs based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, South Africa import statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”). See Volume II of the Petitions at 19-20 and Exhibits II-16 through II-17; see also First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 5-6 and Supplemental Exhibits II-4 and II-6. Petitioner excluded from these import statistics values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, as the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies. 3 See Volume II of the Petitions at 19.

In addition, Petitioner made adjustments for inflation for certain FOPs using the South African producer price index, as reported in the International Monetary Fund publication, International Financial Statistics (IFS)—South Africa. See Volume II of the Petitions at 16 and Exhibit II-11. Petitioner also made South African Rand/U.S. dollar (“USD”) currency conversions using average exchange rates for the POI, based on Federal Reserve exchange rates. See Volume II of the Petitions at 16 and Exhibit II-12.

Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume II of the Petitions at 10. Petitioner calculated labor costs using South African wage rates for manufacturing industries, as reported by the International Labor Organization (“ILO”) in its Yearbook of Labor Statistics. The Department's normal methodology is to value labor in a specific industry using Chapter 6A of the Yearbook of Labor Statistics. However, Petitioner stated that the ILO does not report industry-specific South African wages in Chapter 6A, so Petitioner used manufacturing data reported in Chapter 5A, for the year 2008, as the best information available, and then inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POI using the South African consumer price index. See Volume II of the Petitions at 22-23 and Exhibit II-20; First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 7-8 and Supplemental Exhibit II-8.

Petitioner determined electricity costs using the electricity consumption rates, in kilowatt hours, derived from the Wind Tower Producer's experience. See Volume II of the Petitions at 10. Petitioner valued electricity using an average of South African electricity rates published by Eskom for industrial or heavy commercial use during the POI. See Volume II of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit II-18, and First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 6-7 and Supplemental Exhibit II-7.

Petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas consumption rates derived from the Wind Tower Producer's experience. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits II-10 and II-15. Petitioner valued natural gas costs using rates published by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, which demonstrate a gas reseller “reference price” per gigajoule (“Gj”) of natural gas. Petitioner converted the Gj denominated rate to a rate per mill British Thermal Unit. See Volume II of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit II-19; see also First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 7.

Petitioner used the 2010-2011 financial statements of the South African construction company Mazor Group Ltd. (“Mazor Group”) to value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit. Petitioner identified Mazor Group as a producer of comparable merchandise because it has a steel division that fabricates large scale steel structures. See PRC Initiation Checklist; see also First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 8-9 and Supplemental Exhibits II-9 and II-10.

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

Petitioner states that the Department has long treated Vietnam as a NME country and this designation remains in effect today. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 9-10; see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 56813 (November 3, 2009), unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16434 (April 1, 2010).

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for Vietnam has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of the Vietnam investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for the Vietnam investigation is appropriately based on FOPs valued in a surrogate ME country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the Vietnam investigation, all parties, including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issue of Vietnam's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner claims that India is an appropriate surrogate country under section 773(c) of the Act because it is an ME country that is at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 11-12 and Exhibit IV-10. Further, surrogate values data from India are available and reliable. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 11 and Exhibit IV-9. Moreover, Petitioner states that the Department has previously found that India was an appropriate source of surrogate value information in previous investigations involving Vietnam. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 11, citing Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 56813, 56815 (November 3, 2009). Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of one producer of wind towers (“Wind Tower Producer”). Petitioner asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge, production methods and consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer are similar to the production methods and consumption rates of Vietnamese producers. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 12-13, 17-18, and Exhibit IV-12; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 4-5 and Supplemental Exhibit IV-2.

Petitioner valued most FOPs based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Indian import statistics from GTA. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 21-24 and Exhibit IV-17; see also First Supplement to Vietnam Petition at 5, 8, and Supplemental Exhibit IV-4. Petitioner excluded from these import statistics values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, as the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with generally available export subsidies. 4 See Volume IV of the Petitions at 20-21.

In addition, Petitioner made Indian Rupee/USD currency conversions using average exchange rates for the POI, based on Federal Reserve exchange rates. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 19 and Exhibit IV-15; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 8 and Supplemental Exhibit IV-4.

Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24-25 and Exhibit IV-12. Petitioner calculated labor costs using Indian wage data collected by the ILO and disseminated in Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook of Labor Statistics in 2005, under the industry category “Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment NEC,” as this category reflects the nature of work performed to make wind towers and then inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POI using the Indian consumer price index. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24-25 and Exhibit IV-21; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 7-8.

Petitioner determined electricity costs using electricity consumption rates, in kilowatt hours, derived from the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 23 and Exhibit IV-12. Consistent with the Department's practice, Petitioner utilized the Indian electricity rate reported by Central Electric Authority of the Government of India to value electricity. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 23 and Exhibit IV-18.

Petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas consumption rates derived from the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24 and Exhibit IV-12. To value natural gas, Petitioner calculated an average natural gas rate relevant to Indian consumers of natural gas. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24. The average was obtained from a schedule of natural gas tariffs collected throughout India, disseminated in a January 2011 report entitled “Pricing of Natural Gas in India.” See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 9 and Supplemental Exhibit IV-6.

Petitioner determined stacking frame costs based on the usage depicted in production process pictures on a Vietnamese producer's Web site. 5 See Volume IV of the Petitions at 27-28 and Exhibits IV-2, IV-13, and IV-24; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 6-7; Third Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 1 and Supplemental Exhibit IV-2. Petitioner valued the stacking frame packing materials using GTA India import statistics. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 28 and Exhibit IV-17.

One financial statement was placed on the record for consideration to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit. Petitioner submitted the 2010-2011 financial statements of an Indian ship producer, ABG Shipyard Limited (“ABG”). See Vietnam Initiation Checklist; see also Volume IV of the Petitions at 25-26 and Exhibit IV-22. The Department finds that ABG's financial statements are sufficiently representative to value the surrogate financial ratios for wind towers for purposes of initiation.

The Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation. See Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of wind towers from the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of EP and NV calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for wind towers from the PRC is 213.54 percent. See PRC Initiation Checklist. Based on a comparison of EPs and NV calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for wind towers from Vietnam range from 140.54 percent to 143.29 percent. See Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

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

On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation governing the deadline for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). The Department stated that “(w)ithdrawal will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.” See id. at 74931.

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

For the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from known exporters/producers identified with complete contact information in the Petitions and Supplements to the Petitions. See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-14, and First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 1-2 and Supplemental Exhibits II-1 and II-2. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers in the PRC will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.

The Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. See, e.g., Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008). On the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register , the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaires, along with the filing instructions, on the Import Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is due no later than February 8, 2012.

For the Vietnam investigation, Petitioner listed only two known exporters/producers in its Petition. See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-14, and First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 1 and Supplemental Exhibit IV-1. Accordingly, the Department will send these two companies the Department's antidumping questionnaires.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (“Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin”), available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in previous antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the application for these investigations to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in these investigations are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register . The separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice. In the PRC investigation, for exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in the “Respondent Selection” section above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. The quantity and value questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register . In the Vietnam investigation, the Department will request information regarding separate rate eligibility in the questionnaire being sent to the two known exporters/producers identified in the Petition. If any other Vietnamese exporters/producers wish to file a separate rate application, they must follow the instructions described above and on the Department's Web site. Such applications are due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice.

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

See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).

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

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

The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than February 13, 2012, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of wind towers from the PRC and Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to any country will result in the investigation being terminated for that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

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

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

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

On December 29, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of utility scale wind towers from the People's Republic of China (PRC) filed in proper form by the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (the Petitioner). 1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Against Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated December 29, 2011 (Petition).

On January 5, 2012, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires requesting information and clarification of certain areas of the general issues and CVD sections of the Petition. 2 On January 6, 2012, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding the scope. Petitioner filed a supplement to the Petition regarding the CVD section on January 9, 2012. Petitioner filed a response to the general issues and scope requests on January 11, 2012 (hereinafter, First Supplemental to the AD/CVD Petitions). Further, the Department issued a request for additional clarification to the scope on January 13, 2012. Petitioner filed a response to this request on January 17, 2012, (hereinafter, Second Supplemental to the AD/CVD Petitions).

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of utility scale wind towers from the PRC received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that imports from these producers/exporters materially injure, and threaten further material injury to, an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that it requests the Department to initiate. See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition,” below.

The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011.

The products covered by this investigation are utility scale wind towers from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, please see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Petitioner submitted revised scope language on January 12, 2012, and January 17, 2012. Among the revisions was the following substantive provision:

The Department has not adopted this specific revision recommended by Petitioner for the purposes of initiation. 3 Given the scarcity of information on this product, the Department has had neither the time nor the administrative resources to evaluate this proposed language prior to the initiation date. However, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by February 7, 2012, 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on the record of the PRC CVD investigation, as well as the records of the PRC and Vietnam antidumping duty investigations. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 4 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually ( i.e., in paper form) with the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.

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

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on January 3, 2012, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the PRC (GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. On January 11, 2012, the Department held consultations with representatives of the GOC via conference call. See Memorandum to the File, regarding “Consultations with Officials of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers,” dated January 18, 2012 (Consultations Memorandum).

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

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

With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that utilty scale wind towers constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see “Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China” (CVD Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 2010 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3, and Exhibits I-3 and I-29, and First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 5-6, and Supp. Exhibits I-2 and I-3; see also CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the CVD Petition, supplemental submission, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. First, the CVD Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the CVD Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the CVD Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the CVD Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the CVD Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See id.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the CVD Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. See id.

Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Petitioner alleges that imports of utility scale wind towers from the PRC are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threatening to cause, material injury to the domestic industry producing utility scale wind towers. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.

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

Section 702(b)(i) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner(s) supporting the allegations.

The Department has examined the CVD Petition on utility scale wind towers from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of utility scale wind towers in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation Checklist.

We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:

For a description of each of these above-listed programs and a full discussion of the Department's decision to initiate an investigation of these programs, see Initiation Checklist.

We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC.

For further information explaining why the Department is not initiating an investigation of the above-listed program, see Initiation Checklist.

For this investigation, the Department expects to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the signature date of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5 p.m. EST of the seventh calendar day of publication of this notice. Comments should be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic submissions requirements must be filed manually ( i.e., paper form) with the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.

We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

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

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition and amendments thereto have been provided to representatives of the GOC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized utility scale wind towers from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

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

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. See section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011. See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) ( Interim Final Rule ) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. Foreign governments and their officials may continue to submit certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the effective date of the Interim Final Rule, or in the format provided in the Interim Final Rule. See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2, 2011). The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

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

Background

Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial stock assessment reports (SARs, or Reports) were completed in 1995.

NMFS convened a workshop in June 1994, including representatives from NMFS, FWS, and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), to prepare draft guidelines for preparing SARs. The report of this workshop (Barlow et al., 1995) included the guidelines for preparing SARs and a summary of the discussions upon which the guidelines were based. The draft guidelines were made available, along with the initial draft SARs, for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1994) and were finalized August 25, 1995 (60 FR 44308).

In 1996, NMFS convened a second workshop (referred to as the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks, or “GAMMS,” workshop) to review the guidelines and to recommend changes to them, if appropriate. Workshop participants included representatives from NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the three regional scientific review groups (SRGs). The report of that workshop (Wade and Angliss, 1997) summarized the discussion at the workshop and contained revised guidelines. The revised guidelines represented minor changes from the initial version. The revised guidelines were made available for public review and comment along with revised stock assessment reports on January 21, 1997 (62 FR 3005) and later finalized.

In September 2003, NMFS again convened a workshop (referred to as GAMMS II) to review guidelines for SARs and again recommend minor changes to the guidelines. Participants at the workshop included representatives of NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the regional SRGs. Changes to the guidelines resulting from the 2003 workshop were directed primarily toward identifying population stocks and estimating PBR for declining stocks of marine mammals. The revised guidelines were made available for public review and comment on November 18, 2004 (69 FR 67541), and the revisions were completed and finalized on June 20, 2005 (70 FR 35397).

In February 2011, NMFS convened another workshop (referred to as GAMMS III) to review guidelines for preparing SARs and again recommends changes to the guidelines. Participants at the workshop included representatives from NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the three regional SRGs. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft revisions to the guidelines for preparing SARs, contained in Appendix IV of the GAMMS III workshop report. The GAMMS III workshop report is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. Below are brief summaries of the recommended revisions to the guidelines based on the most recent workshop.

The objectives of the GAMMS III workshop were to (1) consider methods for assessing stock status (i.e., how to apply the Potential Biological Removal framework, or PBR) when abundance data are outdated, nonexistent, or only partially available; (2) develop policies on stock identification and application of PBR to small stocks, transboundary stocks, and situations where stocks mix; and (3) develop consistent national approaches to a variety of other issues, including reporting mortality and serious injury (M&SI) information in assessments. Nine specific topics were discussed at the workshop. The deliberations of these nine topics resulted in a series of suggested modifications to the current Report guidelines (NMFS, 2005). The report of the GAMMS III workshop includes summaries of the presentations and discussions for each of the agenda topics, as well as suggested revisions to the guidance document for preparing Reports. Appendices of the workshop report provide a variety of supporting documents, including the full suggested text revision of the Guidelines for Preparing the Stock Assessment Reports (Appendix IV).

PBR calculations with outdated abundance estimates: For an increasing number of marine mammal stocks, the most recent abundance estimates are more than 8 years old. Under existing guidelines (NMFS, 2005), these are considered to be outdated and thus not used to calculate PBR. The current practice is to consider the PBR for a stock “undetermined” after supporting survey information is more than eight years old, unless there is compelling evidence that the stock has not declined. However, “undetermined” PBR is confusing, does not support management decisions, and may be interpreted in such a way that there is no limit to the level of allowable mortality. The following revisions to calculate PBRs for stocks with old abundance information are: (1) During years 1-8 after the most recent abundance survey, “uncertainty projections” will be used, based on uniform distribution assumptions, to serially reduce the N min estimate by a small increment each year; (2) After 8 years, and assuming no new estimate of abundance has become available, then a worst-case scenario is assumed (i.e., a plausible 10 percent decline per year since the most recent survey), and so a retroactive 10 percent decline per year is applied; and (3) If data to estimate a population trend model are available, such a model can be used to influence the uncertainty projections during the first 8 years.

Improving stock identification: For most marine mammal species, few stock definition changes have been made since the initial SARs were written. Most stocks were defined at scales that were larger than major eco-regions, suggesting that the scale is likely too large. A recommended addition to the guidelines is the direction that each Report will state in the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section whether it is plausible the stock contains multiple demographically independent populations that should be separate stocks, along with a brief rationale. If additional structure is plausible and human-caused mortality or serious injury is concentrated within a portion of the range of the stock, the Reports should identify the portion of the range in which the mortality or serious injury occurs.

Assessment of very small stocks: The PBR estimate for some stocks may be very small (just a few animals or even less than one). In such cases, low levels of observer coverage may introduce substantial small-sample bias in bycatch estimates. A draft revision to the guidelines is the inclusion of a table that provides recommendations for the amount of sampling effort (observer coverage and/or number of years of data pooling) required to limit small-sample bias, given a certain PBR level, in the Technical Details section of the SARs guidelines. Further, if suggested sampling goals (per the table) cannot be met, then mortality should be estimated and reported, but the estimates should be qualified in the SARs by stating they very well could be biased.

Assessment of small endangered stocks: Some endangered species, like Hawaiian monk seals, are declining with little to no direct human-caused mortality and the stock's dynamics therefore do not conform to the underlying model for calculating PBR. Thus, PBR estimates for some endangered species stocks have not been included, or have been considered “undetermined” in SARs. In such cases, if feasible, PBR should still be calculated and included in the SARs to comply with the MMPA, but a draft revision to the guidelines is that Report authors may depart from these guidelines if sound reasons are given in the SAR.

Apportioning PBR across feeding aggregations, allocating mortality for mixed stocks, and estimating PBR for transboundary stocks: In some cases, mortality and serious injury occur in areas where more than one stock of marine mammals occur. The draft revised guidelines specify that when biological information is sufficient to identify the stock from which a dead or seriously injured animal came, the mortality or serious injury should be associated only with that stock. When one or more deaths or serious injuries cannot be assigned directly to a stock, then those deaths or serious injuries may be partitioned among stocks within the appropriate geographic area, provided there is sufficient information to support such partitioning (e.g., based on the relative abundances of stocks within the area). The Reports will contain a discussion of the potential for over or under-estimating stock-specific mortality and serious injury. In cases where mortalities and serious injuries cannot be assigned directly to a stock and available information is not sufficient to support partitioning those deaths and serious injuries among stocks, the draft revised guidelines state that the total unassigned mortality and serious injuries should be assigned to each stock within the appropriate geographic area. When deaths and serious injuries are assigned to each overlapping stock in this manner, the Reports will contain a discussion of the potential for over-estimating stock-specific mortality and serious injury.

NMFS strengthened the language in the draft guidelines regarding trans-boundary stocks, cautioning against extrapolating abundance estimates from one surveyed area to another unsurveyed area to estimate range-wide PBR. However, informed interpolation (e.g.,. based on habitat associations) may be used, as appropriate and supported by existing data, to fill gaps in survey coverage and estimate abundance and PBR over broader areas. If estimates of mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. EEZ cannot be determined, PBR calculations should be based on abundance in the EEZ and compared to mortality within the EEZ.

Clarifying reporting of mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing: Currently, SARs do not consistently summarize mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing. The draft revised guidelines specify that SARs include a summary of all human-caused mortality and serious injury including information on all sources of mortality and serious injury. Additionally, a summary of mortality and serious injury incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries should be presented in a table, while mortality and serious injury from other sources (e.g., recreational fisheries, other sources of M&SI within the U.S. EEZ, foreign fisheries on the high seas) should be clearly distinguished from U.S. commercial fishery-related mortality. Finally, the draft revised guidelines contain the addition of a subsection entitled “Summary of the most important potential Human-caused Mortality and Serious Injury threats that are unquantified” in the SARs, and the SARs should also indicate if there are no known major sources of unquantifiable human-caused mortality and serious injury.

When stock declines are sufficient for a strategic designation: There is no formal process to periodically evaluate the depleted status of non-ESA listed marine mammal stocks, and the current Report guidelines (NMFS, 2005) do not provide any guidance for recommending that a stock be designated as depleted. Therefore, the draft revised guidelines include the following: “Stocks that have evidence suggesting at least a 50 percent decline, either based on previous abundance estimates or historical abundance estimated by back-calculation, should be noted in the Status of Stocks section as likely to be below OSP. The choice of 50 percent does not mean that OSP is at 50 percent of historical numbers, but rather that a population below this level would be below OSP with high probability. Similarly, a stock that has increased back to levels pre-dating the known decline may be within OSP; however, additional analyses may determine a population is within OSP prior to reaching historical levels.”

Additionally, the draft revised guidelines include the following clarification: “A stock shall be designated as strategic if it is declining and has a greater than 50 percent probability of a continuing decline of at least 5 percent per year. Such a decline, if not stopped, would result in a 50 percent decline in 15 years and would likely lead to the stock being listed as threatened. The estimate of trend should be based on data spanning at least 8 years. Alternative thresholds for decline rates and duration, as well as alternative data criteria, may also be used if sufficient rationale is provided to indicate that the decline is likely to result in the stock being listed as threatened within the foreseeable future. Stocks that have been designated as strategic due to a population decline may be designated as non-strategic if the decline is stopped and the stock is not otherwise strategic.”

And finally, to the draft revised guidelines include the following direction regarding recovery factors for declining stocks: “A stock that is strategic because, based on the best available scientific information, it is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future (sec. 3(19)(B) of the MMPA) should use a recovery factor between 0.1 and 0.5.”

Assessing stocks without abundance estimates or PBR: For many stocks, data are so sparse that it is not possible to produce an N min or therefore not possible to estimate PBR. When mortality and/or population abundance estimates are unavailable, the PBR approach cannot be used to assess populations, in spite of a statutory mandate to do so. The draft revised guidelines include the addition to the Status of Stocks section the following sentence: “Likewise, trend monitoring can help inform the process of determining strategic status.”

Characterizing uncertainty in key SAR elements: It is difficult to infer the overall uncertainty for key parameters as they are currently reported in the SARs. The draft revised guidelines direct that in the Stock Definition and Geographic Range, Elements of the PBR Formula, Population Trend, Annual Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury and Status of the Stock sections, SAR authors are to provide a description of key uncertainties associated with parameters in these sections and evaluate the effects of these uncertainties in sufficient detail to support a synthesis of how accurately stock status could be assessed.

Including non-serious injuries and disturbance in SARs: A final draft revision to the guidelines is the addition that if there are no known habitat issues or other factors causing a decline or impeding recovery, this should be stated in the Status of Stocks section.

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and reports will be available on the Council's Web page, www.juvenilecouncil.gov, where you may also obtain information on the meeting.

Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Other federal agencies take part in Council activities including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and the Substance and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS.

The preliminary agenda for this meeting includes: (a) A presentation on and discussion of the import of the Pathways to Desistance study, research conducted by Dr. Edward Mulvey on serious youth offending; (b) a demonstration by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and GreatSchools of their initiative to provide evidence-based data to help inform families' decisions about housing and schools; and (c) other agency announcements.

For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register online at www.juvenilecouncil.gov no later than Friday, February 3, 2012. Should problems arise with web registration, call Daryel Dunston at (240) 221-4343 or send a request to register to Mr. Dunston. Include name, title, organization or other affiliation, full address and phone, fax and email information and send to his attention either by fax to (301) 945-4295, or by email to ddunston@edjassociates.com . [ Note: these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. Space is limited.

Written Comments: Interested parties may submit written comments and questions by Friday, February 3, 2012, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov . The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions from the public may also be invited at the meeting.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the Task Force Members to convene and gather data from panels and briefers on the Task Force's topics of inquiry.

Agenda: (Please refer to http://dtf.defense.gov/rwtf/meetings.html for the most up-to-date meeting information).

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces about its mission and functions. If individuals are interested in making an oral statement during the Public Forum time period, a written statement for a presentation of two minutes must be submitted as below and must identify it is being submitted for an oral presentation by the person making the submission. Identification information must be provided and at a minimum must include a name and a phone number. Individuals may visit the Task Force Web site at http://dtf.defense.gov/rwtf/ to view the Charter. Individuals making presentations will be notified by Friday, February 17, 2012. Oral presentations will be permitted only on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 from 8:00-8:30 a.m. EST before the Task Force. The number of oral presentations will not exceed ten, with one minute of questions available to the Task Force members per presenter. Presenters should not exceed their two minutes.

Written statements in which the author does not wish to present orally may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Task Force through the contact information in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

Statements, either oral or written, being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed no later than 5 p.m. EST, Wednesday, February 15, 2012 which is the subject of this notice. Statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Task Force until its next meeting. Please mark mail correspondence as “Time Sensitive for February Meeting.” The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Task Force Co-Chairs and ensure they are provided to all members of the Task Force before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

Reasonable accommodations will be made for those individuals with disabilities who request them. Requests for additional services should be directed to Heather Jane Moore, (703) 325-6640, by 5 p.m. EST, Wednesday, February 15, 2012.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (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, 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Teacher Status Update 2012 for Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS:13).

OMB Control Number: 1850-0598.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Once.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 12,870.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 2,145.

Abstract: The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is an in-depth, nationally-representative survey of first through twelfth grade public and private school teachers, principals, schools, library media centers, and school districts. Kindergarten teachers in schools with at least a first grade are also surveyed. For traditional public school districts, principals, schools, teachers and school libraries, the survey estimates are state-representative. For public charter schools, principals, teachers, and school libraries, the survey estimates are nationally-representative. For private school principals, schools, and teachers, the survey estimates are representative of private school types. There are two additional components within SASS's 4-year data collection cycle: The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) and the Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS), which are conducted a year after the SASS main collection. In preparation for TFS, in the year following SASS, schools that provided a teacher list form in SASS schools are sent a Teacher Follow-up Survey Teacher Status update form (TFS-1) requesting information regarding the occupational status of each interviewed teacher. These data are used to stratify the teachers for TFS sampling into groups of “stayers” (still teaching at the same school), “movers” (still teaching, but at a different school) or “leavers” (no longer teaching). The current school principal or someone else in the front office knowledgeable about the school's staff completes the TFS-1. This submission requests approval for collecting data on the current status of SASS teachers using the TFS-1 form.

Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain or from the Department's Web site at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 04755. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11)) requires the Department to publish in the Federal Register this notice of a new system of records. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR part 5b.

The Privacy Act applies to information about an individual and that is individually identifying information that is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”

The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is authorized under Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Section 1307 of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to bypass a State educational agency (SEA) and use all or part of the State's allocation under Title I, Part C, to make arrangements with any public or private nonprofit agency to carry out the purpose of the MEP in that State. The Secretary may do so if the State is unable or unwilling to conduct educational programs for migratory children, if the bypass would result in more efficient and economic administration of this program, or if the bypass would add substantially to the children's welfare. The target states no longer choose to receive Federal MEP funding and therefore no longer operate a MEP. Under the authority of section 1307 of the ESEA, in July 2011 the Department issued a contract to the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit (CSIU) of Pennsylvania to assist with the administration and operation of the MEP in the target States.

The Department, through the CSIU and its subcontractors, will collect, maintain, use, and disseminate information on eligible migratory children in order to: (1) Verify children's eligibility for MEP services; (2) help ensure that migratory children in the target States receive educational and supportive services that address their special needs in a coordinated and efficient manner; (3) help to ensure, by collecting, maintaining, and transferring children's educational records, that migratory children in the target States are not penalized by disparities in State curricula, graduation requirements, academic content, and student academic achievement standards as they move among States; (4) help migratory children overcome educational disruption, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, health-related problems, and other factors that inhibit their ability to make a successful transition to postsecondary education or employment; (5) enable the contractor to provide to the Department MEP performance report data typically submitted by SEAs; and (6) enable the contractor to report to the Department the numbers of eligible children in the target States so that the Department can continue to determine the amount of funds to be made available to provide educational and supportive services to eligible migratory children in the target States.

The CSIU will document children's eligibility for MEP services on a Certificate of Eligibility (COE), as required by 34 CFR 200.89(c). The COE serves as the official record of the contractor's determination of MEP eligibility in accordance with program regulations in 34 CFR part 200, subpart C. Data from the MEBPSD will be transmitted to the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system (18-14-04)—an electronic system of records maintained by the Department that exchanges, on an interstate and intrastate basis, as necessary and appropriate, educational and health information about migrant children who are eligible to participate in the MEP.

Whenever an agency publishes a new system of records or makes a significant change to an established system of records, the Privacy Act requires the agency to publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register. The agency is also required to submit reports to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The Department filed a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB on January 19, 2012.

Accordingly, this system of records will become effective at the later date of the expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on February 28, 2012 or February 23, 2012, unless the system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review.

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: 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: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a new system of records to read as follows:

The DOE's Office of Fossil Energy is cancelling the EIS for the proposed Mountaineer Commercial Scale CCS Project in Mason County, WV. DOE selected this project, as proposed by AEP, under a competitive solicitation in Round 3 of the Clean Coal Power Initiative. DOE's proposed action was to provide $334 million in cost-shared financial assistance to AEP to support the construction and operation of AEP's proposed project. On June 7, 2010, DOE announced its intent (75 FR 32171) to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed project and held a public scoping meeting.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountaineer Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Project (DOE/EIS-0445D) for public review and comment on March 4, 2011 (76 FR 12108). DOE also announced availability of the draft EIS and provided the location and time for a public hearing in a separate announcement on March 11, 2011 (76 FR 13396). The planned public hearing was postponed in late March 2011 due to the uncertainty of AEP's plans. DOE received a letter from AEP, dated July 7, 2011, announcing its intent to terminate its cooperative agreement with DOE at the end of Phase I, “Project Definition,” citing unfavorable economic conditions and regulatory uncertainty. AEP completed its Phase I obligations to DOE and is in the process of completing final reporting in accordance with the cooperative agreement.

DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR Part 765 in the Federal Register on May 23, 1994, (59 FR 26714) to carry out the requirements of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq. ) and to establish the procedures for eligible licensees to submit claims for reimbursement. DOE amended the final rule on June 3, 2003, (68 FR 32955) to adopt several technical and administrative amendments ( e.g., statutory increases in the reimbursement ceilings). Title X requires DOE to reimburse eligible uranium and thorium licensees for certain costs of decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action incurred by licensees at active uranium and thorium processing sites to remediate byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the United States Government. To be reimbursable, costs of remedial action must be for work which is necessary to comply with applicable requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq. ) or, where appropriate, with requirements established by a State pursuant to a discontinuance agreement under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for reimbursement must be supported by reasonable documentation as determined by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR part 765. Funds for reimbursement will be provided from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established at the Department of Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or obligation of funds shall be subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. ), sets forth various provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of Title III of EPCA established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.”  1 Part C of Title III includes measures to improve the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial equipment.

In this notice, DOE seeks data and information on the energy use of a variety of miscellaneous residential and commercial electrical equipment. For the purposes of this request for information, these products are organized into the following categories.

This category includes devices that offer audio amplification, optical disc drive functions, and/or audio digital signal processing as a primary function. Example products include DVD and Blu-ray players, stereo systems, and clock radios.

This category includes devices and systems that primarily perform logical operations and process data, and components of such devices. Example products include desktop computers (including integrated computers), laptop computers, servers, monitors, and video game consoles.

This category includes devices whose principle function is to remove dirt, stains, and/or odors from interior dwelling spaces and furniture. Example products include steam cleaners and vacuum cleaners.

This category includes devices whose primary function(s) include generating hard copy output from electronic input, generating electronic output from hard copy input, generating hard copy duplicates from hard copy originals, or some combination of these. Example products include printers, scanners, copiers, facsimile (fax) machines, and multi-function devices (such as a combination printer, scanner and fax).

This category includes devices whose principle function(s) is to pass Internet Protocol traffic among various network interfaces. Example products include routers, modems, switches, and integrated home access devices. This category also includes security equipment.

This category includes electrical devices that primarily deliver thermal energy (heat) for the purpose of space conditioning a person's body or single room. Example products include electric blankets and space heaters.

This category includes electrical devices that primarily deliver thermal energy (heat) for the purpose of personal grooming. Example products include clothing irons and hair dryers.

This category includes electrical devices that primarily deliver thermal energy (heat) for the purpose of food or beverage preparation. Example products include toasters, toaster ovens, slow and rice cookers, and coffee makers.

This category includes devices that are a combination of converters, switches, and energy storage devices (such as batteries) constituting a power system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input power failure. Example products include static, rotary, modular and multi-mode UPSs. (Note that while DOE currently has an ongoing rulemaking to cover residential UPSs, 2 it does not cover exclusively commercial-sector UPSs.).

This category includes electrical equipment designed to move people or goods between floors of a structure. Example products include elevators and escalators.

The energy use of many miscellaneous residential and commercial electrical equipment (including audio-video equipment, computer systems, imaging equipment, network equipment, thermal kitchen equipment, and uninterruptible power supplies) has been increasing in the last twenty years due to increased ownership and use of miscellaneous electrical (particularly electronic) devices, rapid growth in internet connections in both residential and commercial settings, and increased computing power of many electronic devices. The energy use of household cleaning equipment, personal space heating equipment, thermal household equipment, and vertical transport equipment may not have grown appreciably, but the energy use of these types of products and equipment remains high. Significant variation in the annual energy consumption of different basic models exists for many of these types of products and equipment, which indicates that technologies likely exist to reduce their energy consumption.

DOE calculated average energy use for the products described in this request for information based on several reports and DOE's own estimates. 3 Table 1 summarizes available estimates for miscellaneous residential electrical products. Subsequent discussion provides additional detail on DOE's energy use calculations for each product category. DOE seeks feedback from interested parties on any revised estimates of residential energy use for miscellaneous electrical equipment.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for audio-video equipment, in households that used the product, based on data from reports on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 9 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of residential audio-video equipment included compact audio, computer speakers, home theater in-a-box systems, MP3 player docking stations, portable audio, radios, clock radios, Blu-ray players, digital versatile disk (DVD) players, video cassette recorders (VCR) and audio-video receivers. See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes the presence of one type of audio or video equipment within a household is not necessarily correlated with the presence of another type of audio or video equipment. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type of audio or video equipment to be more than 99%, by calculating the total uncorrelated probability of all device combinations. 10

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 11 therefore DOE estimated the number of households in which audio or video equipment was used to be 116 million. The estimated total household energy use of audio-video equipment was 33.2 billion kWh. Therefore, the estimated average annual U.S. household energy use for homes with audio-video equipment was 286 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for computer systems in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 12 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of residential computer systems included desktop computers, portable (laptop, netbook, and tablet) computers, monitors (for desktop and portable computers), external storage devices, and video game consoles. See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes that monitors and external storage devices are only present along with a computer, but the presence of one type of computer system (desktop computer, portable computer or game console) within a household is not necessarily correlated with the presence of another type of computer system. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type of computer equipment to be 93%, by calculating the total uncorrelated probability of all device combinations.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 13 therefore, the number of households in which computer systems were used was approximately 108 million. The total reported household energy use of computer systems was 58.8 billion kWh. Therefore, the estimated average annual U.S. household energy use for computer systems was 544 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for household cleaning equipment, in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 14 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of household cleaning equipment included vacuum cleaners; no data were available for other types of devices, including steam cleaning equipment and possibly other devices, which may be potentially significant categories of residential energy use. See Table 1 for more information. The percentage of households with at least one type of household cleaning equipment is estimated to be 98%.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 15 therefore, the number of households using household cleaning equipment was approximately 114 million. The total estimated household energy use of household cleaning equipment was 4.8 billion kWh. Therefore, the average U.S. per-household energy use of household cleaning equipment was 42 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for imaging equipment in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 16 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of residential imaging equipment included printers, copiers, fax machines, and multi-function devices (such as a combination printer, scanner and fax). See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes the presence of one type of imaging equipment in a household is not necessarily correlated with the presence of another type of imaging equipment. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type of imaging equipment to be 76%, by calculating the total uncorrelated probability of all device combinations.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 17 therefore, the number of households in which imaging equipment was used was approximately 88 million. The total reported household energy use of imaging equipment was 1.9 billion kWh. Therefore, the estimated average annual U.S. household energy use for imaging equipment was 21 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for network equipment in households that used the product, based on data from reports on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 18 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of residential network equipment included modems, routers, integrated access devices (IAD, which are combination modem/routers), and security equipment. See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes the presence of an IAD within a household excludes the presence of a modem and vice-versa. DOE also believes that routers are 100% correlated with the presence of a modem or IAD, and that security equipment is uncorrelated with other network equipment. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type of network equipment to be 76%, by calculating the total probability of all device combinations.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 19 therefore, the number of households using network equipment was approximately 88 million. The total reported household energy use of network equipment was 8.0 billion kWh. Therefore, the average U.S. per-household energy use for network equipment was 90 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for personal space heating equipment, in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 20 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of personal space heating equipment included electric blankets; no data were available for other types of devices, including electric space heaters, which may be a potentially significant category of residential energy use. See Table 1 for more information. The percentage of households with at least one type of personal space heating equipment was estimated to be 25%.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 21 therefore, the number of households using personal space heating equipment was approximately 29 million. The total reported household energy use of personal space heating equipment was 3.5 billion kWh. Therefore, the average U.S. per-household energy use of personal space heating equipment was 121 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for thermal household equipment, in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads. 22 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of thermal household equipment included clothes irons and hair dryers; no data were available for other types of devices, which may be potentially significant categories of residential energy use. See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes the presence of one type of thermal household equipment within a household is not necessarily correlated with the presence of another type of thermal household equipment. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type of thermal household equipment to be 99%, by calculating the total uncorrelated probability of all device combinations.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 23 therefore, the number of households using thermal household equipment was approximately 115 million. The total reported household energy use of thermal household equipment was 9.9 billion kWh. Therefore, the average U.S. per-household energy use thermal household equipment was 86 kWh.

DOE calculated average residential energy use for thermal kitchen equipment, in households that used the product, based on data from a report on residential miscellaneous electric loads  24 and DOE's own estimates. 25 These reports provide annual energy use per device, and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of residential thermal kitchen equipment included coffee makers, rice cookers, slow cookers, toasters and toaster ovens. See Table 1 for more information. Based on these data, DOE believes the presence of one type of thermal kitchen equipment within a household is not necessarily correlated with the presence of another type of thermal kitchen equipment. Therefore, DOE estimated the percentage of households with at least one type thermal kitchen equipment to be 99%, by calculating the total uncorrelated probability of all device combinations.

The total number of households in the U.S. in 2011 was 116 million; 26 therefore, the number of households using thermal kitchen equipment was approximately 115 million. The total reported household energy use of thermal kitchen equipment was 12.7 billion kWh. Therefore, the average U.S. per-household energy use of thermal kitchen equipment was 110 kWh.

Many other types of residential products or equipment not covered in the discussion above are listed in Appendix A of Roth et al. (2007). The data available for these types of products and equipment include estimates of numbers of installed devices, unit energy consumption and national energy consumption, but no energy savings potentials. Some of these devices, and other devices not listed in the appendix, represent significant energy consumption and may warrant evaluation by DOE.

DOE calculated average estimated energy use for the commercial equipment described in this request for information based on several reports and DOE's own estimates. 27 Table 2 summarizes available estimates for miscellaneous commercial electrical equipment. Subsequent discussion provides additional detail on DOE's energy use calculations for each product category. DOE seeks feedback from interested parties on any revised estimates of commercial energy use for miscellaneous electrical equipment.

DOE calculated average commercial energy use for computer systems based on data from reports on commercial miscellaneous electric loads. 33 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of commercial computer systems include desktop computers, laptop computers, desktop monitors, and servers. See Table 2 for more information. The total number of computer systems in all commercial settings in the U.S. was estimated at between 186 and 282 million in 2008. The total reported energy use of devices in all commercial settings was estimated at between 69.5 and 122.8 billion kWh.

DOE calculated average commercial energy use for imaging equipment based on data from reports on commercial miscellaneous electric loads. 34 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of commercial imaging equipment included ink-jet printers, laser printers, impact printers, copiers, scanners, fax machines, and multi-function devices (such as a combination printer, copier and fax). See Table 2 for more information. The total number of imaging equipment in all commercial settings in the U.S. was estimated at between 75.3 and 97.2 million in 2008. The total reported energy use of devices in all commercial settings was estimated at between 18.4 and 30.9 billion kWh.

DOE calculated average commercial energy use for network equipment based on data from a study on network equipment energy use. 35 This report provides annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of commercial network equipment included commercial routers/wireless local area networks (WLAN), commercial switches, Internet service provider (ISP) equipment and security equipment. See Table 2 for more information. The total number of network equipment in the U.S. in all commercial settings was estimated to be 109 million in 2008. The total reported commercial energy use of network equipment was 12.5 billion kWh.

DOE calculated average commercial energy use for uninterruptible power supplies based on data from reports on commercial miscellaneous electric loads. 36 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of uninterruptible power supplies included double conversion, line interactive, and standby, all of which are typically found in data centers. See Table 2 for more information. The total number of uninterruptible power supplies in the U.S. in all commercial settings was 14.7 million in 2008. The total reported commercial energy use of uninterruptible power supplies was 6.4 billion kWh.

DOE calculated average commercial energy use for vertical transport equipment, based on data from reports on commercial miscellaneous electric loads. 37 These reports provide annual energy use per device and the total number of devices in operation in the U.S. Types of vertical transport equipment included elevators and escalators. See Table 2 for more information. The total number of vertical transport equipment in all commercial settings in the U.S. was estimated to lie between 660 and 735 thousand in 2008. The total reported energy use of devices in all commercial settings was estimated to lie between 3.9 and 6.1 billion kWh.

Reports on miscellaneous residential and commercial electric products and equipment as well as DOE's own estimates, as discussed above, provided estimates of typical energy savings from these products and equipment ranging from 3% to more than 80%. In the sections below, the technical savings potential has been determined by comparing the energy use of best-in-class devices to the average energy use for a particular device. DOE seeks feedback from interested parties on any revised estimates of energy savings potential for miscellaneous residential and commercial electrical equipment.

Typical energy savings for audio equipment vary from approximately 3% to 60%, with most of the savings at the high end of the range, and typical energy savings for video equipment vary from approximately 35% to 85%. While the power draw in active and idle modes has generally decreased in home audio and video products as a result of gradual technology improvements and an increased focus on power management by manufacturers, the majority of energy savings opportunities continue to exist in these two modes.

Typical energy savings for computer systems and computer components vary from approximately 30% to 45%.  38 Most of these savings arise from better power management, but some savings are due to lower power draw values in each mode as well, presumably from more efficient components. Improvements in power consumption among notebook computers, particularly chip-level voltage and clock frequency scaling, can be applied to desktop computer systems as the architecture is virtually identical. 39

ENERGY STAR has evaluated potential savings for vacuum cleaners and determined that a 17% to 33% energy savings is possible by reducing motor size from 12 amps to between 8 and 10 amps, with no impact on performance. 40 Little other information exists about energy savings opportunities for vacuum cleaners, aside from one identified technology that utilizes a closed air circuit to reduce the suction motor power, achieving a 50% reduction in energy use. 41 The energy savings potential of other household cleaning equipment devices is unknown.

Typical energy savings for imaging equipment can be up to 90%. 42 Most of these savings arise from better power management, but some savings are due to lower power draw values in each mode ( i.e., active and standby modes). More efficient electrophotographic (e.g., laser) technology can also reduce active mode energy use in some devices.

Typical energy savings for network equipment are approximately 40%. 43 Network equipment typically does not scale energy consumption with utilization. As a result, there is very little difference between the active and sleep mode power consumption. Some technologies exist that allow network ports to power down when not in use, but wake within a fraction of a second. It is not known, however, if such options are feasible for security systems. 44

The energy savings opportunities of personal space heating equipment are mostly unknown.

While limited information exists, clothes irons and hair dryers appear to have limited savings opportunities, though hair dryers may offer some savings by reducing standby losses from ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI). 45 The energy savings potential of other thermal household equipment devices is unknown.

Typical energy savings for examined types of thermal kitchen equipment vary from approximately 20% to 33%. 46 Approaches include use of more insulating materials, increasing the radiant efficiency of heating elements, modifying the internal geometry of the devices to prevent undesirable heat loss, and automatic shutoff control. In particular, for coffee makers, the use of a thermal insulating carafe to keep brewed coffee hot could reduce energy consumption by 26%, with minimal impact on consumer utility, other than a slightly smaller capacity (which could be compensated by a larger exterior volume) and slow cooling of the beverage (which could conceivably be addressed by periodic reheating). For toasters and toaster ovens, infrared heating elements offer the ability to reduce amount of energy required to heat the elements and are also very efficient radiators.

Typical energy savings for uninterruptible power supplies are approximately 50%. 47 The main means of accomplishing these savings are through replacement of double conversion (from AC to DC back to AC current) to DC-based power distribution, and minimizing UPS system sizing by moving from a single, central UPS system to distributional approach, where small UPS systems are dedicated to each machine.

Typical energy savings for vertical transport equipment vary from approximately 25% to 30%, though some manufacturers of efficient escalators claim savings up to 50%. 48 Some important improvements include: Variable-voltage, variable-frequency drives, gearless permanent magnet motors, regenerative braking drives (for elevators), motor efficiency controllers, controls to shut off lights and fans when not in use, destination control software to optimize elevator trips, and higher-efficiency lighting technology (CFL, LED).

Reducing energy consumption when equipment is idle or off must be balanced against network availability and the need for continuous communication among many types of miscellaneous electrical equipment, especially computer systems, imaging equipment, network equipment, and, increasingly, audio-video equipment. Security requirements and wake-up time are also important considerations for almost all equipment of these types. DOE seeks data and information on potential utility impacts associated with efficiency improvements for the various product and equipment types discussed above.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOE jointly administer the voluntary ENERGY STAR labeling program ( www.energystar.gov ) for various products and equipment. ENERGY STAR currently has standards for miscellaneous residential and commercial electrical equipment that includes audio-video equipment, computers, displays, imaging equipment, and set-top boxes & cable boxes. ENERGY STAR programs for network equipment and uninterruptible power supplies are currently under development.

DOE will accept information and data in response to this Request for Information under the timeline provided in the DATES section above. Information submitted to the Department by email should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text file format. Those responding should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the electronic signature of the author. Comments submitted to the Department by mail or hand delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles will be accepted. Comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record and will be made publicly available.

DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of its consideration of miscellaneous residential and commercial electrical equipment. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues:

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0085, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) 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;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0085.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the following industries and associated NAICS Codes: Elemental Phosphorous—325188; Phosphogypsum Stacks—212392; Underground Uranium Mines—212291; and Uranium Mills—212291.

Title: NESHAP for Radionuclides (40 CFR part 61, subparts B, K, R and W) (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1100.14, OMB Control No. 2060-0191.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. 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: In the context of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857), Section 114 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to require any person who owns or operates any emission source or who is subject to any requirements of the Act to: (1) Establish and maintain records, (2) Make reports, install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment or method, (3) Sample emissions in accordance with EPA-prescribed locations, intervals and methods, and (4) Provide information as may be requested. EPA's regional offices use the information collected to ensure that public health continues to be protected from the hazards of radionuclides by compliance with health based standards. This information is required for those facilities meeting the definition of each Subpart. EPA's compliance monitoring activities vary widely. EPA could issue a letter requesting information about compliance or could conduct a full scale investigation, including on-site inspections.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 134 hours 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.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 47.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 134 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $1,358,000. This includes an estimated burden cost of $666,000 and an estimated cost of $693,000 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

There is a decrease of 14 hours per facility in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects a reduction in the number of facilities affected due to limited investment in uranium mining and a moratorium on DOE uranium lease tracts for Subpart B; closure of a conventional uranium mill in Subpart W; with no change in the number of Subpart R and K facilities. Increased costs are due to inflation and estimates of radium-226 sampling for phosphogypsum stacks that remove material.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on areas that may include, among other things, “advice about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice, including environment-related strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental justice.”

A. Public Comment: Members of the public who wish to attend the Friday, January 27, 2012, public teleconference or provide public comment must pre-register by 11 a.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 23, 2012. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five minutes. To accommodate the large number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments also can be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of Speaker; Name of Organization/Community; City and State; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by 11 a.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 23, 2012, will be included in the materials distributed to the members of the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to EPA's support contractor, APEX Direct, Inc., via email or fax as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

B. Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Ms. Estela Rosas, EPA Contractor, APEX Direct, Inc., at (877) 773-1489 or via email at NEJACTeleconJan2012@AlwaysPursuingExcellence.com. To request special accommodations for a disability, please contact Ms. Rosas at least seven working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the “Registration” section above.

Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at green.eugene@epa.gov by Wednesday, January 25, 2012. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to participate in the teleconference should contact Eugene Green at green.eugene@epa.gov or (202) 564-2432 by January 25, 2012.

Meeting Access: Concerns regarding accessibility and/or accommodations for individuals with disabilities, should be directed to Eugene Green at green.eugene@epa.gov or (202) 564-2432. To ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for accommodations at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

A. Purpose

The General Services Administration (GSA) has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of the Federal Acquisition Service's (FAS's) Stock, Special Order, and Schedules Programs. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of various types of FAS contracts. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection and reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives. As such, GSAR 516.506, Solicitation provision and clauses, specifically directs contracting officers to insert 552.216-72, Placement of Orders, when the contract authorizes FAS and other activities to issue delivery or task orders and 552.216-73, Ordering Information, directs the Offeror to elect to receive orders placed by FAS by either facsimile transmission or computer-to-computer Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).

Respondents: 7,143.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 7,143.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 1785.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0248, GSAR 516-506, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses; 552.216-72, Placement of Orders Clause, and 552.216-73, Ordering Information Clause, in all correspondence.