The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

On September 20, 2011, FSIS published a Federal Register notice announcing a final determination that raw, non-intact beef products or raw, intact beef products that are intended for use in raw, non-intact product, that are contaminated with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145, are adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1) and (m)(3)(76 FR 58157; Sep. 20, 2011).

FSIS announced that it intended to implement a verification sampling and testing program for the six non-O157 STEC, as it already does for E. coli O157:H7. The Agency intended to begin this verification sampling and testing on March 5, 2012. The Agency noted that it would initially sample raw beef manufacturing trimmings and other ground beef components for the six non-O157 STEC, but that it would consider other products, including raw ground beef, contaminated with these STEC to be adulterated (76 FR 58160). The Agency asked for comments on its plans for implementing the program (76 FR 58157, 58164).

In addition, FSIS asked for comments on: Agency plans for a baseline survey of relevant STEC prevalence in raw beef products, whether to hold technical or other public meetings, validation guidance for pathogen detection test kits, various cost estimates, the type of outreach and information that would be most useful to establishments preparing for implementation of the Agency's policy, and information that foreign governments might need to address inspection equivalency or implementation concerns.

In response to comments, FSIS extended the public comment period from November 21, 2011, to December 21, 2011, and held a public meeting by teleconference on December 1, 2011 to solicit comments (76 FR 72331; Nov. 23, 2011). FSIS intends to publish a Federal Register notice discussing and responding to the comments that it received.

Many of the comments requested a delay of the implementation date for testing for the relevant STECs for various reasons, including the need for test kits to detect these organisms to become more widely available.

While FSIS is confident that reliable test kits will be available for commercial use before March 5, allowing additional time for beef establishments to begin sampling and testing with these new kits will facilitate compliance with the non-O157 STEC policy. Accordingly, beginning the week of June 4, 2012, rather than on March 5, FSIS will begin scheduling verification tasks for non-O157 STEC control of raw beef manufacturing trimmings. FSIS will collect excision (N60) samples for testing raw beef manufacturing trimmings derived from cattle slaughtered on or after June 4, 2012, for the seven relevant STECs (O157:H7 plus O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145). For production lots of raw beef manufacturing trimmings not accompanied by documentation showing the date of slaughter of the cattle from which the beef was derived, or for production lots that contain mixtures of raw beef manufacturing trimmings derived from cattle slaughtered before and after June 4, 2012, FSIS will sample the production lot only for O157-STEC. For production lots of raw beef manufacturing trimmings not accompanied by documentation showing that the date of slaughter of the cattle from which the beef was derived, or for production lots that contain mixtures of raw beef manufacturing trimmings derived from cattle slaughtered before and after June 4, 2012, FSIS will sample the production lot only for O157 STEC. For production lots with documentation that the beef in the production lot contains only product derived from cattle slaughtered on or after June 4, 2012, FSIS will test the samples for the seven relevant STECs. The slaughter date of June 4, 2012, is important for implementing the verification testing program for raw beef manufacturing trimmings because FSIS can be certain that, as of this date, trimmings derived from cattle slaughtered on or after this date will have been produced under a slaughter and further processing system that the Agency expects to control for the six additional STEC.

With the implementation of verification testing for beef manufacturing trimmings on June 4, FSIS will also consider raw, non-intact beef products or raw, intact products intended for use in non-intact beef products that are contaminated with STEC O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145, to be adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1) and (m)(3). FSIS will generally not regard raw, non-intact beef products found to have these pathogens as adulterated until it implements this verification testing program. However, if product is associated with an STEC outbreak before that time, the product will be deemed adulterated and subject to recall, consistent with current FSIS practice.

Finally, the Agency notes that in February 2012, it contacted foreign governments already approved for the export of raw beef to the United States and informed them that FSIS would make a limited amount of reagents used in the FSIS laboratory method for non-O157 STECs available to a foreign government if that government wanted to conduct a comparative analysis of its method and methods used with test kits assessed by FSIS. Although these comparative analyses are not a necessary precondition for FSIS to begin verification testing of raw beef manufacturing trimmings on June 4, 2012, FSIS believes that the results of such comparative analyses could be useful.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free email subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The Update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/. Options range from recalls, export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

Reservations for oral comments will be confirmed on a first-come, first-serve basis during the listening session. All comments and the official transcript of the meeting, when they become available, may be reviewed on the NIFA Web page for six months.

The mission of the CYFAR Program is to marshal resources of Land-Grant and Cooperative Extension Systems, so that, in collaboration with other organizations, they can develop and deliver educational programs that equip youth who are at risk for not meeting basic human needs with the skills they need to lead positive, productive, and contributing lives. Through an annual congressional appropriation for the CYFAR Program, NIFA allocates funding to land-grant university Extension services for community-based programs for at-risk children and their families. NIFA is seeking stakeholder input regarding CYFAR's structure of the professional development and technical support program for fiscal year 2013. The focus of the webinar will be to address the following questions:

Stakeholders' comments provided on the questions above will provide guidance to NIFA in restructuring the program and assisting NIFA leadership in more fully addressing stakeholder needs.

NIFA plans to consider stakeholder input received from this public meeting as well as other written comments in developing the FY 2013 program guidelines. NIFA anticipates

releasing the FY 2013 Request for Applications (RFA) by winter 2012.

Background

On December 19, 2011, Yixing Union timely submitted an allegation of a ministerial error with respect to the Final Results of the November 20, 2008, through April 30, 2010, administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(c)(ii). No other party submitted comments regarding ministerial error allegations.

A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Act includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).

After analyzing Yixing Union's comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that a ministerial error existed in a certain calculation in the Final Results. Specifically, the Department inadvertently applied marine insurance to all, rather than a portion, of Yixing Union's U.S. sales. Correction of this error results in a change to Yixing Union's final antidumping duty margin. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, as well as the Department's analysis, see Final Results of the 2008-2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order for Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Allegation of Ministerial Error, dated concurrently with this notice.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review of citric acid from the PRC. Listed below is the revised weighted-average dumping margin resulting from these amended final results:

We will disclose the calculation performed for these amended final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these amended final results of review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Court of International Trade has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the liquidation of certain entries during the period of review, therefore, assessment instructions will be issued as appropriate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively on any entries made on or after December 14, 2011, the date of publication of the Final Results, for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Yixing Union, the cash deposit rate will be the amended final margin rate shown above in the “Ministerial Errors” section of this notice; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 156.87 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On July 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India covering the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 38609, 38610 (July 1, 2011). The Department received a timely request from Petitioners  1 for a CVD administrative review of five companies: Ester Industries Limited (Ester), Garware Polyester Ltd. (Garware), Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal), Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), and SRF Limited (SRF). The Department also received timely requests for a CVD review from Vacmet India Ltd. (Vacmet) and Polypacks Industries of India (Polypacks).

On August 26, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Jindal, Polyplex, SRF, Vacmet, and Polypacks. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 (August 26, 2011). Subsequently, Vacmet and Polypacks timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review; on September 20, 2011, the Department published a rescission, in part, of the CVD administrative review with respect to Vacmet and Polypacks. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Rescission, In Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 58248 (September 20, 2011).

On September 12, 2011, SRF filed a certification of no shipments and requested that the Department rescind the CVD administrative review of the company.

On November 25, 2011, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for CVD administrative reviews of Ester, Garware, Polyplex, and Jindal. The Department published a rescission, in part, of the CVD administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Polyplex, and Jindal on January 11, 2012. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Rescission, In Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 1668 (January 11, 2012). The administrative review of SRF continued.

The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

SRF submitted a letter to the Department on September 12, 2011, certifying that it had no shipments of subject merchandise that entered the United States during calendar year 2010, which is the period of review (POR). Petitioners did not comment on SRF's claim of no shipments or entries.

Previously, on September 1, 2011, the Department released the results of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data query to interested parties with an administrative protective order for this segment of the administrative review, which showed SRF had no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. After the receipt of SRF's no shipment certification, we sent a “no shipments inquiry” message to CBP, which posted the message on October 12, 2011. 2 We have not received any responses from CBP regarding the no shipments inquiry indicating that there were any suspended entries from SRF during the POR. See Memorandum to the File through Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, “Claim of No Shipments from SRF Limited in the 2010 Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India” (dated concurrently with this notice).

Based on our analysis of all of the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that SRF had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, 3 we preliminarily determine to rescind the review for SRF. Because SRF is the sole remaining company in this administrative review, the rescission of the review with respect to SRF would result in a rescission of the administrative review in its entirety.

The Department is setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding the Department's preliminary intent to rescind the administrative review for SRF. Interested parties should submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments must be filed electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) ( https://iaaccess.trade.gov/ ). The period for public comment is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all views prior to making a final determination concerning whether to rescind the administrative review.

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

The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. See 19 CFR 351.225(o). Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on November 29, 2011. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 76 FR 73596 (November 29, 2011). This current notice covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations completed by Import Administration between April 1, 2011, and June 30, 2011, inclusive, and it also lists any scope or anticircumvention inquiries pending as of June 30, 2011. As described below, subsequent lists will follow after the close of each calendar quarter.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: R&D Chemicals, Inc.; “Bite Lite” brand candles are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; April 18, 2011.

A-570-601: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: New Trend Engineering Limited; its wheel hub units are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; April 18, 2011.

A-570-601: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Bosda International (USA) LLC and Kingdom Auto Parts Ltd.; its wheel hub units are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; June 14, 2011.

A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Lucky Distributing, Inc.; Lucky Distributing, Inc.'s cast smart splitter is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; June 6, 2011.

A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Lifetime Products, Inc.; its 33-inch round tables are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 2, 2011.

A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Meco Corporation; its pedestal tables are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 19, 2011.

A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Acme Furniture Industry Inc.; partially upholstered daybed with trundle unit is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; fully upholstered daybed without trundle unit is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; April 15, 2011.

A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Ashley Furniture Industries Inc.; certain polyurethane mirrors and an upholstered mirror are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; April 26, 2011.

A-570-900: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc.; certain rescue/demolition blades are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; June 27, 2011.

A-570-912/C-570-913: Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc.; its Trac Master and Traction Master tires are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; April 26, 2011.

A-570-916/C-570-917: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: The Super Poly Partnership; the laminated woven sacks produced by The Super Poly Partnership from imported woven fabric are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; May 18, 2011.

A-570-922/C-570-923: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Smith-Western Co.; certain decorative refrigerator magnets are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; April 15, 2011.

A-570-928: Uncovered Innersprings from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Wickline Bedding Enterprises; Wickline's premium and standard unfinished mattresses are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 31, 2011.

A-570-932: Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Powerline Hardware, LLC; the spool bolts and shank pins it imports are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 13, 2011.

A-570-932: Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: A.L. Patterson; its engineered steel coil rod is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 24, 2011.

A-570-937/C-570-938: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Global Commodity Group LLC (“GCG”); the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)-origin portion of GCG's “blended” citric acid is within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, and is dutiable according to the amount of citric acid from the PRC that it contains; May 2, 2011.

A-570-941/C-570-942: Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Olson Wire Products Co., Ltd.; its certain supermarket shelving units and commercial oven racks that fit within size parameters of the scope of the antidumping duty order are subject to the antidumping duty order; its certain supermarket shelving units and commercial oven racks that do not fit within the size parameters of the scope ( i.e. shelving and racks with dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches; baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 inches by 4 inches; or subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches) are not within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; June 8, 2011.

A-570-951: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Eurow & O'Reilly Corporation; knitted fleece automotive electric blanket is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; April 14, 2011.

A-588-804: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan.

Requestor: Aisin Holdings of America; worm assemblies and seat track rollers are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; May 12, 2011.

A-588-804: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan.

Requestor: American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation; magnetic encoders used in antilock braking systems in automobiles are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; June 1, 2011.

A-570-922/C-570-923/A-583-842: Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.

Requestor: Jingzhou Meihou Flexible Magnet Co. Ltd; its rolls of meter-wide magnet sheeting, craft magnets, and door gasket extrusions are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; May 10, 2011.

None.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Trade Associates Group, Ltd.; whether its candles (multiple designs) are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 11, 2009.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Sourcing International, LLC; whether its flower candles are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 24, 2009.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Sourcing International; whether its candles (multiple designs) are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 28, 2009.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Sourcing International; whether its floral bouquet candles are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 25, 2009.

A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Candym Enterprises Ltd.; whether its vegetable candles are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested November 9, 2009.

A-570-601: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: DF Machinery International, Inc.; whether certain agricultural hub units are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested May 12, 2011.

A-570-831: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: General Mills, Inc.; whether minced garlic is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested April 13, 2011.

A-570-864: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: ESM; whether U.S.-origin pure magnesium exported to the PRC for atomization and re-exported to the U.S. is within the scope of the order; requested February 11, 2011; initiated May 2, 2011.

A-570-864: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: US Magnesium LLC; whether pure magnesium feedstock exported from the PRC to Mexico and then processed into granular magnesium before exportation to the U.S. is within the scope of the order; requested April 29, 2011; initiated July 5, 2011.

A-570-891: Hand Trucks from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: WelCom Products; whether its MC2 Magna Cart, MCI Magna Cart and MCK Magna Cart are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested October 12, 2010; initiated October 27, 2010; preliminary ruling May 9, 2011.

A-570-920/C-570-921: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Paper Resources, LLC.; whether certain lightweight thermal paper (“LWTP”) converted into smaller LWTP rolls in the PRC, from jumbo LWTP rolls produced in certain third countries, is within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; requested February 24, 2011; initiated April 4, 2011.

A-570-951: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: HoMedics Inc.; whether its knitted electric heating blanket is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 22, 2011.

A-570-967: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: A.O. Smith Corporation; whether water heater anodes are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 14, 2011.

A-570-967/C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: American Fence Manufacturing Company LLC; whether fence sections, posts and gates are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; requested June 15, 2011.

A-570-967/C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Endura Products; whether door thresholds containing aluminum extrusions imported from the PRC are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; requested: June 2, 2011.

A-570-967/C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Origin Point Brands; whether imported aluminum fencing systems are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; requested June 27, 2011.

A-201-830: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico.

Requestor: Nucor Corporation and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.; whether wire rod with an actual diameter between 4.75 and 5.00 millimeters is within the scope of the antidumping order; requested 2/14/2011; initiated May 31, 2011.

A-475-822: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy.

Requestor: AAVID Thermalloy LLC. (“AAVID”); whether 24 steel clips imported by AAVID are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested June 1, 2011.

A-201-837/A-570-954/C-570-955: Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico and the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Fedmet Resources Corporation: whether its magnesia alumina carbon bricks are within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; accepted June 28, 2011.

A-533-838/C-533-839/A-570-892: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India and the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Nation Ford Chemical Co., and Sun Chemical Corp.; whether finished carbazole violet pigment exported from Japan is within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; requested February 23, 2010; preliminary ruling May 6, 2011.

A-570-958/C-570-959/A-560-823/C-560-824: Coated Paper from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia.

Requestor: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries, Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills, PT. Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk, and Paper Max, Ltd.; whether certain packaging paperboard products and certain playing card products are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; requested June 2, 2011.

A-570-836: Glycine from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc.; whether glycine from the PRC, when processed and re-packaged in India and exported as Indian-origin glycine, is circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested December 18, 2009; initiated October 22, 2010.

A-570-849: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: ArcelorMittal USA, Inc.; Nucor Corporation; SSAB N.A.D., Evraz Claymont Steel and Evraz Oregon Steel Mills; whether certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC that contains a small level of boron is circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested February 17, 2010; preliminary determination published February 22, 2011.

A-570-894: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc.; whether certain imports of tissue paper from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam are circumventing the antidumping duty order through means of third country assembly or completion; requested February 18, 2010; initiated March 29, 2010; preliminary determination published April 6, 2011.

A-570-916/C-570-917: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: Coating Excellence International, LLC and Polytex Fibers Corporation; whether laminated woven sacks that are printed with two ink colors, but have the appearance of three or more colors in register, are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; requested January 26, 2011; initiated April 22, 2011.

A-570-918: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: M&B Metal Products Inc.; whether certain imports of steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam are circumventing the antidumping duty order through means of third country assembly or completion of merchandise imported from the PRC; requested May 5, 2010; initiated July 22, 2010; preliminary determination published May 10, 2011.

A-570-929: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China.

Requestor: SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co.; whether unfinished small diameter graphite electrodes produced in the PRC and completed and assembled in the United Kingdom are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested November 30, 2010; initiated February 17, 2011.

A-821-807: Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from Russia.

Requestor: AMG Vanadium, Inc.; whether vanadium pentoxide imports from Russia that are converted into ferrovanadium in the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested February 25, 2011; initiated May 2, 2011.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

I. Abstract

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

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4327) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) require that an environmental analysis be completed for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment. NEPA applies only to the actions of Federal agencies. While those Federal actions may include a Federal agency's decision to fund non-Federal projects under grants and cooperative agreements, NEPA requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of actions proposed to be taken by these recipients only when the Federal agency has sufficient discretion or control over the recipient's activities to deem those actions as Federal actions. To determine whether the activities of the recipient of a Federal financial assistance award (i.e., grant or cooperative agreement) involve sufficient Federal discretion or control, and to undertake the appropriate environmental analysis when NEPA is required, NOAA must assess information which can only be provided by the Federal financial assistance applicant. Thus, NOAA has developed an environmental information questionnaire to provide grantees and Federal grant managers with a simple tool to ensure that project and environmental information is obtained. The questionnaire applies only to those programs where actions are considered major Federal actions or to those where NOAA must determine if the action is a major Federal action. The questionnaire includes a list of questions that encompasses a broad range of subject areas. The applicants are not required to answer every question in the questionnaire. Each program draws from the comprehensive list of questions to create a relevant subset of questions for applicants to answer. The information provided in answers to the questionnaire is used by NOAA staff to determine compliance requirements for NEPA and conduct subsequent NEPA analysis as needed. The information provided in the questionnaire may also be used for other regulatory review requirements associated with the proposed project, such as issuance of permits.

Methods of submittal include paper forms via the mail, Internet, and facsimile transmission.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0538.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; state, local, or tribal government; and Federal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,000 in reporting/recordkeeping costs.

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

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

I. Abstract

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

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA allows permits authorizing the taking of endangered species for research/enhancement purposes. The corresponding regulations established procedures for persons to apply for such permits. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders. The regulations contain two sets of information collections:

(1) Applications for research/enhancement permits, and (2) reporting requirements for permits issued.

The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions. To issue permits under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised, will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species; requirements regarding other species are being addressed in a separate information collection.

Submissions may be in paper or electronic format.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0402.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Federal government; State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 160.

Estimated Time per Response: Permit applications, 12 hours; permit modification requests 6 hours; and annual or final reports, 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 835.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $500 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee to discuss and provide expert guidance to Council staff on two projects being conducted as part of a NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program grant that address the relationship between trends in coral reef communities and their associated fisheries. The first project involves development of a publicly-accessible spatial database of Gulf of Mexico corals (shallow, mesophotic and deep sea) and related fisheries information that will be used to enhance spatial planning and management actions. The Committee will be asked to provide expert advice and recommendations about datasets and data sources as well as data gaps and needs. The second project involves convening a workshop of respected coral experts and managers to examine the interrelationships between corals and fisheries relative to long-term trends in coral condition. The Committee will be asked to provide expert advice and recommendations about participants and various potential conference topics including threats to coral health, management, coral habitats, habitat suitability models, and emerging research.

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site, ftp.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

The Committee is meeting concerning the arbitration system that is part of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program. The Committee will give specific attention to the development of the price formula for golden king crab under the arbitration system. Additional information is posted on the Council Web site: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The ABC Control Rule Working Group will meet to discuss potential revisions to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule that was recently implemented as part of the Council's Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment. While all areas of the control rule will be subject to review, particular attention will be given to whether the P-star approach used to determine ABC in Tier 1 of the control rule realistically captures scientific uncertainty, and possible revisions to the Tier 2 method for data poor stocks. Recommendations from the Working Group will be presented to the Scientific and Statistical Committee when it meets in late March.

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630. Materials will also be available to download from the ABC Control Rule Working Group folder of the Council's FTP site, which is accessible from the Quick Links section of the Council Web site ( http://www.gulfcouncil.org ).

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the ABC Control Rule Working Group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Working Group will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These Webinars are accessible to people with disabilities. For assistance with any of our Webinars contact Kathy Pereira at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the Webinar.

NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and announced public scoping meetings for the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 18) on December 21, 2011 (76 FR 79153). The subject document contained an error that needs to be corrected.

In the background information for the December 21, 2011 notice there is a reference to a March 7, 2011 control date for the NE multispecies fishery. Because the date reflects the wrong month, therefore, NMFS, through this notice, corrects the control date to April 7, 2011. Other published materials referencing the control date reflect the correct date of April 7, 2011.

The NOI published on December 21, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-32694, on page 79154, in column 2, in the first full paragraph, line 2, correct the month “March” to read as “April.”

The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on February 14, 2012 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program/Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program Deferment Request Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0011.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,130,831.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 500,933.

Abstract: These forms serve as the means by which borrowers in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Programs may requires deferment of repayment on their loans if they meet certain statutory and regulaotry criteria. The U.S. Department of Education uses the information collected on these forms to determine whether a borrower meets the eligibility requirements for the specific deferment type that the borrower has requested. The burden hours associated with this collection is increasing for one reason; namely, that the collection is being combined with the soon-to-be discontinued 1845-0005 so that the forms associated with this collection may be used in both the FFEL and Direct Loan Program.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 04789. 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 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.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: Income Contingent Repayment Plan and Income-Based Repayment Plan Alternative Documentation of Income.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0016.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 294,924.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 123,868.

Abstract: This form serves as the means by which a borrower who is repaying Direct Loan Program loans under the Income-Contigent Repayment (ICR) Plan or the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan provides the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) with alternative documentation of the borrower's income if the borrower's adjusted gross income (AGI) is not available from the IRS, or if the Department believes that the borrower's most recently reported AGI does not accurately reflect the borrower's current income. Under the Direct Loan Program regulations, a borrower's AGI is used to calculate the monthly loan repayment amount under the ICR and IBR plans.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 04793. 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 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.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program: Mandatory Forbearance Requests.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0018.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25,842.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,814.

Abstract: These forms serve as the means by which a borrower may request forbearance of repayment on his or her William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) or Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans based on participation in an eligible intersnhip/residency program, national guard duty, receiving benefits under the Department of Defense's Student Loan Repayment Program, or having a federal education loan debt burden that equals or exceeds 20 percent of the borrower's monthly gross income. The U.S. Department of Education and FFEL Program lenders and servicers use the information collected on these forms to determine whether a borrower meets the eligibility requirements for the specific forbearance type that the borrower has reqested. This collection is being revised so that it may be used by both the Direct Loan and FFEL Programs and also expands one of the mandatory forbearance forms to include additional mandatory forbearances; as a result additional data elements have been added to spport the additional forbearances.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 04798. 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 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.

Title and OMB Number: Election Administration in Urban and Rural Areas; OMB Number Pending.

Summary of the Collection of Information: The survey requests information at the local level concerning the following categories:

Background: (1) Number of years served as an election official; (2) number of registered voters; (3) jurisdiction described as urban or rural; (4) jurisdiction required to provide language assistance; (5) office have full responsibility for elections in the jurisdiction; (6) alternative forms of voting allowed in the jurisdiction (absentee-excuse required, no-excuse absentee, early voting, all vote-by-mail).

Voter Outreach: (7) Type of voter outreach provided to the public; (8) outreach efforts coordinated with third-party/civic organizations; type of voter outreach coordinated; type of organizations with which the jurisdiction works; (9) voter outreach activities that focus on specific groups; (10) cost of voter outreach efforts in 2010; (11) estimated cost of voter outreach efforts in 2012; (12) how voter outreach efforts were paid for; (13) ease or difficulty of engaging in voter outreach; (14) reasons outreach may have been difficult.

Personnel: (15) Number of paid full-time, part-time, and temporary staff in 2010; 16) number of poll workers used in 2010; (17) number of paid full-time, part-time, and temporary staff in 2012; (18) number of poll workers used in 2012; (19) poll worker pay; (20) sources for recruiting poll workers; (21) ease or difficulty of obtaining poll workers; (22) reasons obtaining poll workers may have been difficult; (23) jurisdiction offer split shifts for poll workers; (24) additional comments.

Affected Public (Respondents): Local governments that administer Federal elections.

Affected Public: Local government.

Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Burden Per Response: 45 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,250 hours.

Frequency: One-time data collection.

Under the authority of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), Public Law 111-5, section 1605(b)(2), the head of a Federal department or agency may issue a “determination of inapplicability” (a waiver of the Buy American provision) if the iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality (“nonavailability”). The authority of the Secretary of Energy to make all inapplicability determinations was re-delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for EERE projects under the Recovery Act, in Redelegation Order No. 00-002.01E, dated April 25, 2011. Pursuant to this delegation the Acting Assistant Secretary, EERE, has concluded that: (1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station; (2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection; (3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system); and (4) network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol—Staefa brand system—to a non-proprietary open source protocol, are not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality. The above items, when used on eligible EERE Recovery Act-funded projects, qualify for the “nonavailability” waiver determination.

EERE has developed a robust process to ascertain in a systematic and expedient manner whether or not there is domestic manufacturing capacity for the items submitted for a waiver of the Recovery Act Buy American provision. This process involves a close collaboration with the United States Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), in order to scour the domestic manufacturing landscape in search of producers before making any nonavailability determinations.

The MEP has 59 regional centers with substantial knowledge of, and connections to, the domestic manufacturing sector. MEP uses their regional centers to `scout' for current or potential manufacturers of the product(s) submitted in a waiver request. In the course of this interagency collaboration, MEP has been able to find exact or partial matches for manufactured goods that EERE grantees had been unable to locate. As a result, in those cases, EERE was able to work with the grantees to procure American-made products rather than granting a waiver.

Upon receipt of completed waiver requests for the four products in the current waiver, EERE reviewed the information provided and submitted the relevant technical information to the MEP. The MEP then used their network of nationwide centers to scout for domestic manufacturers. The MEP reported that their scouting process did not locate any domestic manufacturers for these exact or equivalent items.

In addition to the MEP collaboration outlined above, the EERE Buy American Coordinator worked with other manufacturing stakeholders to scout for domestic manufacturing capacity or an equivalent product for each item contained in this waiver.

EERE also conducted significant amounts of independent research to supplement MEP's scouting efforts, including utilizing the solar experts employed by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. EERE's research efforts confirmed the MEP findings that the goods included in this waiver are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality.

The nonavailability determination is also informed by the inquiries and petitions to EERE from recipients of EERE Recovery Act funds, and from suppliers, distributors, retailers and trade associations—all stating that their individual efforts to locate domestic manufacturers for these items have been unsuccessful.

Specific technical information for the manufactured goods included in this non-availability determination is detailed below:

(1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station

These are used in the installation of EV charging stations. Two national trade organizations representing American manufacturers of this equipment verified that these are not manufactured in the US. Further, MEP did not identify a potential manufacturer.

(2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection

These card racks are installed into existing traffic systems and are not manufactured domestically. Neither transportation manufacturing trade associations nor MEP identified any US manufacturer of this product.

(3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system)

This waiver is limited to systems that require compatibility with this extremely high water column. No US manufacturers (four manufacturers of this type of equipment were identified by EERE and MEP and contacted) were able to meet this need.

(4) Network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol- Staefa brand system to a non-proprietary open source protocol

For use where a Staefa system was installed previously, and where utilizing a domestic control module would mean that the existing energy management controls would have to be removed and a new energy management controls system would have to replace the existing Staefa system. This product allows the grantee to convert from the proprietary protocol to an open-source protocol- providing a wider variety of controls in the future.

In these cases, the grantee is unable to use a domestic control module because the existing system runs off of a proprietary communication protocol (rather than LON or BACnet), and the entire system would have to be replaced to install additional controllers. Trade organizations, DOE and MEP all agreed that this was the only controller capable of properly interfacing with this protocol.

In light of the foregoing, and under the authority of section 1605(b)(2) of Public Law 111-5 and Redelegation Order 00-002-01E, with respect to Recovery Act projects funded by EERE, I hereby issue a “determination of inapplicability” (a waiver under the Recovery Act Buy American provision) for: ((1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station; (2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection; (3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system); and (4) network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol- Staefa brand system- to a non-proprietary open source protocol.

Having established a proper justification based on domestic nonavailability, EERE hereby provides notice that on January 24, 2012, four (4) nationwide categorical waivers of section 1605 of the Recovery Act were issued as detailed supra. This notice constitutes the detailed written justification required by Section 1605(c) for waivers based on a finding under subsection (b).

This waiver determination is pursuant to the delegation of authority by the Secretary of Energy to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy with respect to expenditures within the purview of his responsibility. Consequently, this waiver applies to all EERE projects carried out under the Recovery Act.

I. Background and Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the clothes washers that are the focus of this notice. 1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). The test procedure for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1.

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that enable a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered products. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) will grant a waiver if it is determined that the basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or if the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(l)), 431.401(f)(4). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii), 430.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l), 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m) or 430.401(g), as appropriate.

The waiver process also allows the Assistant Secretary to grant an interim waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(g), 430.401(e)(3). An interim waiver remains in effect for 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the petition for waiver, whichever is sooner. DOE may extend an interim waiver for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 430.27(h), 430.401(e)(4).

On December 23, 2010, DOE issued enforcement guidance on the application of waivers for large-capacity clothes washers and announced steps to improve the waiver process and refrain from certain enforcement actions. This guidance can be found on DOE's Web site at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/LargeCapacityRCW_guidance_122210.pdf.

On November 28, 2011, LG submitted a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1. LG requested the waiver for specified basic models with capacities greater than 3.8 cubic feet because the mass of the test load used in the procedure, which is based on the basket volume of the test unit, is currently not defined for basket sizes greater than 3.8 cubic feet. Table 5.1 of Appendix J1 defines the test load sizes used in the test procedure as linear functions of the basket volume. LG requests that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on a revised Table 5.1. The table is identical to the Table 5.1 found in DOE's clothes washer test procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 75 FR 57556 (September 21, 1010). DOE notes that the Table 5.1 proposed in the September 2010 NOPR was amended to correct rounding errors in the supplemental proposed rule issued on July 26, 2011 http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/rcw_tp_snopr.pdf (76 FR 49238, Aug. 9, 2011).

An interim waiver may be granted if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. (10 CFR 430.27(g), 430.401(e)(3)).

DOE has determined that LG's application for interim waiver does not provide sufficient market, equipment price, shipments, and other manufacturer impact information to permit DOE to evaluate the economic hardship LG might experience absent a favorable determination on its application for interim waiver. DOE has determined, however, that it is likely LG's petition will be granted, and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant LG relief pending a determination on the petition. Previously, DOE granted test procedure waivers to other manufacturers for products with capacities larger than currently specified in the test procedure. See, e.g., Electrolux (76 FR 11440 (Mar. 2, 2011)) and Samsung (76 FR 13169 (Mar. 10, 2011), 76 FR 50207 (Aug. 12, 2011), 76 FR 70996, (Nov. 16, 2011)). DOE has also granted previous waivers to LG for similar products. See, e.g., 76 FR 11233, Mar. 1, 2011; 76 FR 21879, Apr. 19, 2011; 76 FR 64330, Oct. 18, 2011; 77 FR 4999, Feb. 1, 2012. In these waivers, DOE established an alternate test procedure extending the linear relationship between the maximum test load size and clothes washer container volume up to 6.0 cubic feet. As noted above, this revised table would be established by adoption of DOE's September 2010 test procedure NOPR, as amended in the supplemental proposal issued on July 26, 2011.

The current DOE test procedure specifies test load sizes only for machines with capacities up to 3.8 cubic feet. For the reasons set forth in DOE's September 2010 NOPR, DOE believes that extending the linear relationship between test load size and container capacity to larger capacities is valid. In addition, testing a basic model with a capacity larger than 3.8 cubic feet using the current procedure could evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Based on these considerations, and the waivers granted to LG and other manufacturers for similar models, it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted. DOE also believes that the energy efficiency of similar products should be tested and rated in the same manner. As a result, DOE grants an interim waiver to LG for the basic models of clothes washers with container volumes greater than 3.8 cubic feet specified in its petition for waiver, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(g) . DOE also provides for the use of an alternative test procedure extending the linear relationship between test load size and container capacity, described below. Therefore, it is ordered that:

The application for interim waiver filed by LG is hereby granted for the specified LG clothes washer basic models, subject to the specifications and conditions below.

LG shall be required to test and rate the specified clothes washer products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section III, “Alternate Test Procedure.”

The interim waiver applies to the following basic residential model groups:

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. LG may submit a subsequent petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of clothes washers for which it seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that grant of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for LG in a subsequent Decision and Order.

The alternate procedure approved today is intended to allow LG to make valid representations regarding its clothes washers with basket capacities larger than provided for in the current test procedure. This alternate test procedure is based on the expanded Table 5.1 of Appendix J1 that appears in DOE's clothes washer test procedure NOPR (75 FR 57556, Sept. 21, 1010), altered slightly to correct rounding errors as specified in DOE's supplemental proposal issued on July 26, 2011.

During the period of the interim waiver granted in this notice, LG shall test its clothes washer basic models according to the provisions of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J1, except that the expanded Table 5.1 below shall be substituted for Table 5.1 of appendix J1.

Through today's notice, DOE announces receipt of LG's petition for waiver from certain parts of the test procedure that apply to clothes washers and grants an interim waiver to LG. DOE is publishing LG's petition for waiver in its entirety pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), 430.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to measure the energy consumption of clothes washers with capacities larger than the 3.8 cubic feet specified in the current DOE test procedure.

DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), 430.401(c)(1), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is John I. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and Communications, LG Electronics USA, Inc., 1776 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

LG Electronics, Inc. (LG) respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 430.27, as related to DOE's test procedure for clothes washers. DOE has already granted LG waivers relating to testing of certain models. 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011); 75 Fed. Reg. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010). The current Petition and Application would expand the number of models subject to the grant of a waiver. LG requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application .

LG is a manufacturer of clothes washers and other products sold worldwide, including in the United States. LG's U.S. operations are LG Electronics USA, Inc., with headquarters at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 (tel. 201- 816-2000). Its worldwide headquarters are located at LG Twin Towers 20, Yoido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu Seoul, Korea 150-721; (tel. 011-82-2-3777-1114); URL: http.www.LGE.com. LG's principal brands include LG® and OEM brands, including GE® and Kenmore®.

The test procedure under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq., provides for clothes washers to be tested with specified allowable test load sizes. See 10 C.F.R. Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. Jl, Table 5.1. The largest average load under Table 5.1 is 9.20 lbs. LG believes that it is appropriate for DOE to grant a waiver that would allow for testing and rating of specified models (see Appendix 1 hereto) with larger test loads where the model has a container volume that is greater than the largest volume shown on Table 5.1.

DOE has already granted waivers and/or interim waivers to a number of manufacturers, including LG, Whirlpool, General Electric, Samsung, and Electrolux for testing with larger test loads for specified models with container volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011) (LG); id. 70996 (Nov. 16, 2011) (Samsung); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011) (LG); id. 48149 (Aug. 8, 2011) (Samsung); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011 (LG); id. 21881 (April 19, 2011) (Samsung); id. 13169 (March 10, 2011) (Samsung); id. 11440 (March 2, 2011) (Electrolux); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011) (LG); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011) (LG); 75 Fed. Reg. 81258 (Dec. 27, 2010) (Electrolux); id. 76968 (Dec. 10, 2010) (GE); id. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010) (LG); id. 57915 (Sept. 23, 2010) (GE); id. 57937 (Sept. 23, 2010) (Samsung); id. 69653 (Nov. 15, 2010) (Whirlpool); id. 76962 (Dec. 10, 2010) (Electrolux); id. 76968 (Dec. 10, 2010) (GE); id. 81258 (Dec. 27, 2010) (Electrolux); 71 Fed. Reg. 48913 (Aug. 22, 2006) (Whirlpool). The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) has submitted comments to DOE suggesting that the DOE test procedure be amended to provide for testing with loads in excess of those shown in Table 5.1 when testing is done on clothes washers with volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. See AHAM Comments on the Framework Document for Residential Clothes Washers; EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019; RIN 1904-AB90, at Appendix B—AHAM Proposed Changes to J1 Table 5.1 (Oct. 2, 2009). In addition, DOE has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to adopt the AHAM proposed Table 5.1. 75 Fed. Reg. 57556 (Sept. 21, 2010). And it has issued Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemakings to the same effect. 76 Fed. Reg. 69870 (Nov. 9, 2011); id. 49238 (Aug. 9, 2011). Further, DOE has issued a guidance document indicating the appropriateness of waivers for testing with larger test loads for clothes washers with volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. DOE, IGC Enforcement Guidance on the Application of Waivers and on the Waiver Process (Dec. 23, 2010), at http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/LargeCapacityRCW_guidance22210.pdf .

LG requests that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on the revised Table 5.1 in Appendix 2 hereto. This is the Table 5.1 as already set forth in the waivers granted to LG for certain models. See 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011); 75 Fed. Reg. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010). The revised Table 5.1 should be applied to LG's testing and rating of other models as specified in Appendix 1 hereto. 1

The waiver should continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure.

LG also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the foregoing models. The petition for waiver is likely to be granted, as evidenced not only by its merits, but also because DOE has granted waivers and/or interim waivers to LG, Whirlpool, GE, Samsung, and Electrolux and has proposed a corresponding amendment to its test procedure. Hence, grant of an interim waiver for LG is appropriate.

We would be pleased to discuss this request with DOE and provide further information as needed.

LG requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application. In that regard, DOE has stated in its December 23, 2010 Enforcement Guidance (supra) that it “commits to act promptly on waiver requests.” LG repeated this in its March 7, 2011 notice concerning its certification, compliance and enforcement rule. 76 Fed. Reg.12422, 12442 (“The Department renews its commitment to act swiftly on waiver requests”). 2 LG appreciates this commitment by DOE.

We hereby certify that all manufacturers of domestically marketed units of the same product type have been notified by letter of this petition and application, copies of which letters are set forth in Appendix 3 hereto.

In a letter dated January 29, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA its waiver and authorization request pursuant to section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), regarding its regulations for Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail yards (Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment or CHE). 1 CARB's CHE regulations were adopted at CARB's December 8, 2005 public hearing (by Resolution 05-62) and were subsequently modified after making the regulation available for supplemental public comment by CARB's Executive Officer through Executive Order R-06-007 on June 2, 2006. The CHE regulations are codified at title 12, California Code of Regulations section 2479. 2

EPA published a Federal Register notice for public hearing and comment on CARB's request on February 1, 2011. 3 No hearing request was received and thus no hearing took place. EPA received a total of three written comments from BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railway Company, SSAT Terminal Pier A (SSAT), and Ports America Equipment Services (Ports America). 4 EPA also received supplemental comment from CARB. 5

CARB has requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption or grant a new authorization for certain portions of its CHE regulations. For other portions of its CHE regulation, CARB has requested that EPA find the requirements fall within the scope of a previously granted waiver or authorization, or in the alternative grant a new waiver of preemption or authorization. Finally, for one portion of its CHE regulation, CARB has requested that EPA find the requirements are not preempted by section 209 of the Clear Air Act, that if EPA finds they are preempted, the requirements fall within the scope of a previously granted waiver or, in the alternative, EPA grant a new waiver of preemption. 6

CARB's CHE regulations set performance standards for engines equipped in newly purchased, leased, or rented (collectively known as “newly acquired”), as well as in-use, mobile cargo handling equipment used at ports or intermodal rail yards in California. The standards vary depending on the type of vehicle, whether the engine is used in off-road equipment or a vehicle registered as an on-road motor vehicle, and whether they are newly acquired or already in-use. 7

Yard trucks and other mobile cargo handling equipment registered to operate on California highways acquired after January 1, 2007 must be equipped with engines that are certified to the on-road engine emission standards for the model year in which they are acquired.

Any yard truck not registered for on-road operation (off-road yard trucks) acquired after January 1, 2007 must be equipped either with an engine certified to the on-road emission standards for the model year in which it is acquired or the final Tier-4 off-road emission standard applicable to the engine's rated power.

Engines in newly acquired CHE other than yard trucks that are not registered for on-road operation (non-yard trucks) must—if technically feasible and available for purchase, lease, or rental—meet one of two certification standards: (1) The on-road engine certification standards or (2) the off-road Tier 4 certification standards for the model year and rated power of the engine. Alternatively, if neither of the options is feasible or available, a newly acquired non-yard truck must be equipped with an engine that is certified to the most stringent off-road engine emission standards for the type of vehicle and application for the model year in which it is acquired. In addition, under this alternative, within one year of acquiring the vehicle, the owner or operator must install the highest level verified diesel emission control strategy (VDECS) that is approved by CARB and available for that engine. If no VDECS is verified by CARB and available by the end of the one-year period, the owner or operator must install the highest level VDECS within six months after one becomes available.

For in-use yard trucks, whether on-road or off-road, the regulations require they meet one of three compliance options: such vehicles must (1) be certified to the 2007 or later model year on-road engine standards; (2) be certified to Tier 4 off-road standards; or (3) apply VDECS that reduce emissions to levels that comply with diesel PM and NOx emissions of a certified final Tier 4 off-road diesel engine for the same power rating.

The date by which each in-use yard truck in an owner or operator's fleet must be brought into compliance depends on the number of trucks in the fleet, the model year of the trucks, whether the trucks are equipped with on-road or off-road engines, and whether the engines were equipped with VDECS by December 31, 2006.

For in-use non-yard trucks, the regulations identify and establish separate requirements for three categories or vehicles: Basic cargo handling equipment, bulk cargo handling equipment and rubber-tired gantry (RTG) cranes. Basic cargo handling equipment consists of top handlers, side handlers, reach stackers, forklifts, straddle carriers and any other type of equipment (other than RTG cranes) that handles cargo containers. Bulk cargo handling equipment consists of dozers, loaders, excavators, mobile cranes, sweepers, railcar movers, aerial lifts and any other type of equipment (except forklifts) that handles non-containerized or bulk cargo.

For all three categories of in-use non-yard trucks, vehicles can be brought into compliance using any of three options. Option 1 is the same for all three categories: Use of an engine or power system—including diesel, alternative fueled, or heavy-duty pilot ignition engine—certified to the 2007 or later model year on-road or Tier 4 off-road engine standards for the rated power and model year of the engine.

Option 2 two is identical for basic cargo handling equipment and bulk cargo handling equipment, but varies slightly for RTG cranes. Basic cargo handling equipment and bulk cargo handling equipment must comply by installing a pre-2007 model year certified on-road engine or a certified Tier 2 or Tier 3 off-road engine and applying the highest level VDECS that is certified for the specific engine family and model year. However, if no Level 2 or higher VDECS is available, the engine must be upgraded to either a certified Tier 4 off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS must be installed by December 31, 2015.

Under option 2, RTG cranes use a certified Tier 2 or Tier 3 off-road engine and the highest VDECS available but, in contrast to basic and bulk cargo handling equipment, need not upgrade, regardless of whether or not the highest VDECS available was Level 2 or below.

Option 3 is similar for both basic and bulk cargo handling equipment. Basic cargo handling equipment may comply using a pre-Tier 1 or a Tier 1 off-road engine equipped with the highest level VDECS available. However, if the highest level VDECS available is not Level 3 or higher, the engine must be upgraded to either a certified Tier 4 off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS by December 31, 2015. For bulk cargo handling equipment, the requirements of this option are the same except an upgrade is required if no Level 2 or higher VDECS is initially available. Lastly, under the option 3, RTG cranes may comply using a pre Tier 1 or certified Tier 1 off-road engine equipped with the highest level VDECS available. However, if no VDECS is available or the highest level VDECS is a Level 1 or 2, then the RTG crane engine must be replaced with a Tier 4 certified off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS must be installed by the later of December 31, 2015 or December 31st of the model year of the initially compliant engine plus 12 years.

The date by which each in-use non-yard truck in an owner or operator's fleet must be brought into compliance depends on the size and model-year composition of the in-use non-yard trucks in the fleet

By letter dated July 26, 2004, CARB requested that EPA grant California a waiver of federal preemption for its 2007 California Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Standards, which primarily align California's standards and test procedures with the federal standards and test procedures for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. 8 After offering an opportunity for hearing and public comment, on August 26, 2005 EPA granted California's request for waiver. 9

On July 18, 2008, CARB notified EPA of additional regulations and amendments to its new nonroad compression ignition engine regulations. EPA determined that a portion of those regulations fell within the scope of the previously granted authorization and granted a new authorization for the remainder of the regulations. 10

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act preempts states and local governments from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines. It provides:

If California amends regulations that were previously granted a waiver of preemption, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the scope of the previously granted waiver if three conditions are met. These conditions for confirming a within-the-scope request are discussed below.

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator to grant California authorization to enforce its own standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards. On October 8, 2008, the regulations promulgated in that rule were moved to 40 CFR part 1074, and modified slightly. The applicable regulations, 40 CFR § 1074.105, provide:

In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation under section 209(e)(1). To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.

EPA can confirm that amended regulations are within the scope of a previously granted waiver of preemption or authorization if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not undermine our previous determination with respect to consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any new issues affecting EPA's prior waiver determinations.

In MEMA I, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be `clear and compelling evidence' to show that proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards. 19 The court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare. 20

With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof under section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.”  21

Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the waiver in a section 209 proceeding:

EPA sought comment on a range of issues, including whether certain or all of CARBs CHE regulation should be evaluated under the within the scope criteria or under the criteria for a full authorization and waiver of preemption. EPA did not receive any comments contending that any portions of the CHE regulations should be subjected to full waiver or authorization analysis.

CARB maintains that its requirements for newly acquired on-highway yard and non-yard trucks are covered by a waiver granted by EPA for 2007 and later model year (MY) on-highway heavy-duty diesel engines, or conversely its requirements are within the scope of that waiver decision. 25

CARB also maintains that its requirements for newly acquired off-road yard trucks should be analyzed under the within the scope criteria since the compliance options involve either the use of a 2007 and later MY on-highway heavy-duty diesel engine (and thus the same within the scope rationale noted above) or the use of an engine meeting the final Tier 4 off-road engine standards which EPA previously authorized. 26 Similarly, for the requirements associated with newly acquired off-road non-yard trucks CARB also states that options 1 and 2 should be considered within the scope of the prior waiver and authorization noted above, and that option 3 (the VDECS option) should be granted a full authorization.

In addition to the requirements associated with newly acquired mobile cargo handling equipment, the CHE regulations also set forth in-use performance standards applicable to non-new yard and non-yard trucks. To the extent the in-use standards apply to yard and non-yard trucks registered on-road, CARB maintains such requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act and therefore do not require a waiver from EPA. To the extent the in-use standards apply to non-new off-road yard and non-yard trucks (those not registered for on-road operation) CARB requests a full authorization from EPA.

Despite CARB's contentions, EPA has determined that California's CHE regulations to the extent they apply to nonroad engines require a full authorization and to the extent they apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines require a full waiver of preemption. While CARB acknowledges their CHE requirements are standards relating to the control of emissions they nevertheless suggest that such standards have either been previously waived or authorized by EPA. However, the analysis does not end there. The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of “standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines” in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246 (2004) supports the conclusion that “standards” not merely be limited to a design or performance standard relating to the production of certain vehicles that meet particular emission characteristics but also that the means of enforcing the emission limits is pertinent. California's new engine requirements should be considered as standards relating to the control of emissions. As the Court noted, “Manufacturers (or purchasers) can be made responsible for ensuring that vehicles comply with emission standards, but the standards themselves are separate from those enforcement techniques. While standards target vehicles or engines, standard-enforcement efforts that are proscribed by § 209 can be directed to manufacturers or purchasers.”  27 In this instance, while the underlying standards as applied toward the production of new heavy-duty diesel highway engines or new nonroad diesel engines have either previously been waived or authorized by EPA, CARB is newly applying the standards to operators at ports and rail yards and requiring them to acquire CHE with specific emission characteristics to the exclusion of other CHE.

Therefore, with respect to newly acquired yard and non-yard trucks EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full waiver criteria. Similarly, for newly acquired off-road yard and non-yard trucks EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full authorization criteria.

In addition to the extent the CHE in-use standards apply to yard and non-yard trucks registered on-road EPA agrees with CARB's assessment that such requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act (which only applies to “new” motor vehicles and “new” motor vehicle engines) and therefore do not require a waiver from EPA. Lastly, to the extent the in-use standards apply to non-new off-road yard and non-yard trucks (those not registered for on-road operation) EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full authorization criteria as requested by CARB.

Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. When evaluating California's protectiveness determination, EPA compares the stringency of the California and Federal standards at issue in a given waiver request. That comparison is undertaken within the broader context of the previously waived California program, which relies upon protectiveness determinations that EPA previously found were not arbitrary and capricious.

Similarly, section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Administrator finds that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

EPA previously found that CARBs regulations establishing emission standards for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy duty on-road diesel engines are as protective of the public health and welfare as comparable federal standards. 28 CARB has found that to the extent the CHE regulations permit newly acquired on-road yard trucks, newly acquired on-road non-yard trucks and in-use yard trucks to comply by using current model year certified on-road diesel engines, they do not undermine the board's previous determination that its emission standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards. 29

EPA previously found that CARB's regulations for new nonroad Tier 4 engines are at least as protective of the public health and welfare as comparable federal standards. 30 CARB has found that to the extent the CHE regulations permit newly acquired off-road yard trucks, newly acquired off-road non-yard trucks and in-use yard trucks to comply by using Tier 4 off-road CI emission standards engines, they do not undermine the board's previous determination that its emission standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards. 31

No commenter expressed an opinion or presented any evidence suggesting that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in making its above-noted protectiveness findings. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that California was arbitrary and capricious in its findings that California's CHE requirements are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.

Under section 209(b)(1)(B) of the Act, EPA cannot grant a waiver if California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” To evaluate this criterion, EPA considers whether California needs a separate motor vehicle emissions program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.

Similarly, section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Administrator finds that California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are necessary to meet such conditions. 32

Over the past forty years, CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California. 33 In Resolution 05-62, CARB affirmed its longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor vehicle and engine program to meet its serious air pollution problems. Likewise, EPA has consistently recognized that California continues to have the same “geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with the large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious pollution problems.”  34 Furthermore, no commenter has presented any argument or evidence to suggest that California no longer needs a separate motor vehicle emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California. Therefore, EPA has determined that we cannot deny California a waiver or authorization for its CHE requirements under section 209(b)(1)(B) or section 209(e)(2)(ii), respectively.

Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA must deny a California waiver request if the Agency finds that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. The scope of EPA's review under this criterion is narrow. EPA has stated on many occasions that the determination is limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with federal test procedures. Previous waivers of federal preemption have stated that California's standards are not consistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures conflict, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.

Similarly, Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).

As noted above, EPA considers CARB's nonroad authorization requests under certain criteria including whether CARB's requirements are consistent with section 209(a) of the Act (to be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, California's requirements must not apply to new motor vehicles or engines). However, in this instance California's CHE requirements affect both new motor vehicles and engines along with affecting nonroad vehicles and engines. To the extent the CHE requirements do affect motor vehicles and engines (CHE motor vehicle requirements) CARB explicitly requests a waiver of preemption under section 209(b) rather than an authorization under section 209(e)(2). EPA is evaluating the CHE motor vehicle requirements under section 209(b). The purpose of section 209(b) is to waive the preemption otherwise created by section 209(a). To the extent the CHE requirements affect nonroad vehicles and engines (CHE nonroad requirements) CARB explicitly requests an authorization under section 209(e)(2). By logical extension and definition such CHE nonroad requirements only pertain to nonroad vehicles and engines and are thus not motor vehicles under section 209(a).

No commenter presented otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's authorization request on the basis that California's CHE requirements are not consistent with section 209(a).

To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act, California's CHE nonroad requirements must not affect new farming or construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that CHE equipment is not used in farm and construction equipment or vehicles or engines used in locomotives. 35 No commenter presented otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis that California's APS requirements are not consistent with section 209(e)(1). 36

As noted above, EPA's evaluation of CARB nonroad authorization requests (e.g. the CHE nonroad requirements) includes consideration of whether their requirements are consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act. In addition, EPA's evaluation of CARB waiver requests (e.g., the CHE motor vehicle requirements) includes consideration of whether their requirements are consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C). Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA must deny a California request if the Agency finds that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. The scope of EPA's review under this criterion is narrow. EPA has stated on many occasions that the determination is limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with federal test procedures. Previous waivers of federal preemption have stated that California's standards are not consistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures conflict, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.

CARB states that the CHE regulations are consistent with section 202(a). CARB states that the technological feasibility of the emission requirements related to yard trucks registered for operation on-road is not disputed since such vehicles need only meet the 2007 on-road engines standards previously waived by EPA. CARB's CHE regulations do not change the underlying test procedures for on-road engines. CARB notes that newly acquired non-yard trucks registered for operation on-road are similar to yard trucks noted above in terms of applicable emission standards and test procedures.

With respect to off-road yard and non-yard trucks CARB notes that the applicable emission standards (either the 2007 on-road standards previously waived by EPA or the Tier 4 nonroad standards previously authorized by EPA) are technologically feasible. CARB also notes that to the extent operators use option 3 (the use of a lower tier engine if option 1 and 2 are not available, and the subsequent installation of VDECS) it is feasible given the number of VDECS verified to date.

EPA received comment from SSAT noting problems with “post 07 yard truck issues” and challenges associated with non-yard trucks and VDECs. With respect to the yard truck issue it appears that SSAT is concerned that it is only able to use a certain manufacturer's engine and such engine has exhaust gas leak issues that includes disabling the EGR system. SSAT contends that it is dealing with a 25% failure rate. CARB notes in response that the exact nature of the failure rate at the terminals is unclear and its conclusions seem to be based on opinion rather than any data in the record. CARB surmises the problem may be associated with maintenance or operational practices. SSAT provided no further explanation as to why the engine it identified is the only usable engine. Based on the limited information submitted by SSAT, and as CARB notes the fact that 38 other terminals have voluntarily acquired new yard trucks equipped with new on-road CI engines with none reporting EGR problems and none submitting comment to EPA, we find that opponents of the waiver have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the new yard truck emission standards are infeasible or otherwise inconsistent with section 202(a).

With regard to non-yard trucks EPA received comment from SSAT and Ports America regarding the use of VDECS for compliance. 37 The commenters' comments include: VDECS become plugged and do not operate properly; the compliance extension provisions are ambiguous, forcing fleet owners to undergo an arduous and expensive process; and the VDECS are expensive.

CARB provides several responses to concerns of improper operating and plugging VDECS. CARB notes that nine Level 3 emission control devices have been verified for non-yard truck applications and that at least 77 VDECS have been installed on a wide-variety of vehicle applications. CARB understands that while excess soot may plug some VDECS there is strong evidence to suggest that fleet owners are not properly performing manual regeneration or that improper sizing of VDECS with engines may be occurring. This coupled with a lack of concrete information and data from the commenters causes CARB to suggest that a showing of infeasibility had not been shown.

CARB also notes that to the extent the use of VDECS is not available its compliance extension provisions provide ample opportunity for fleet operators to comply with the CHE regulations. CARB responds to the commenters' suggestion that the compliance extension provisions are ambiguous (extensions are granted by CARB if the VDECS are “not available” and “not feasible”) by pointing to its initial request to EPA for a waiver and authorization where CARB discussed compliance flexibility and relief. 38 CARB maintains that nothing in the comments contradicts CARB's reasons for the provisions or that the terms of the provisions are illusory. CARB notes that to date SSAT has never requested an extension and Ports America has requested and received an extension. CARB also provides an accounting of 88 compliance extension requests it has received with no indication of any problems. In addition, CARB provides a detailed explanation of its administrative process for handling such requests.

Based on the lack of concrete evidence from the commenters that it has incurred unreasonable delays or other difficulties making its compliance with the CHE regulations infeasible, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based on the infeasibility of CARB's compliance provisions.

Finally, with regard to the costs associated with VDECS the commenters note “The cost of [VDECS] typically cost 40k each dropped 50% on `some' systems when the economy took a down turn. We are looking at spending millions of dollars to one or two vendors who charge whatever they feel they can get away with.” CARB replies by noting that nowhere do the commenters assert that the costs make the CHE regulation infeasible. CARB notes that the nature or port terminals and intermodal railroads make them multimillion-dollar businesses with highly polluting equipment. Without hard evidence from the commenters as to why the costs render the regulations infeasible, CARB suggests that costs are a policy question for CARB to consider when adopting the regulation and that EPA should follow its historical practice of deference.

EPA notes that it is required to closely examine costs when making a determination of whether there is evidence in the record to support a finding that CARB's regulations are technologically infeasible. In this instance there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate why the costs of VDECS are inappropriately high when compared to the costs of the underlying vehicles or why the costs are otherwise inappropriately prohibitive. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot make a finding that CARB's CHE regulations are inconsistent with section 202(a) based on considerations of costs.

As noted above, EPA's consideration of the consistency with section 202(a) includes a review of whether California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with federal test procedures. Because CARB's test procedures are incorporated in previously waived and authorized regulations (e.g., the Tier 4 nonroad standards and the 2007 heavy-duty diesel engine regulations) and such regulations harmonize their test procedures with applicable federal test procedures CARB maintains there is no test procedure inconsistency. We have received no comments presented otherwise; therefore, based on the record before me I cannot deny CARB's request based on a lack of test procedure consistency.

EPA's analysis finds that the criteria for granting a full authorization and a full waiver of preemption have been met for CARB's CHE regulations.

The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a section 209(b) waiver to enforce its own emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines and to grant California a section 209(e) authorization to enforce its own emission standards for nonroad engines and equipment to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. Having given consideration to all the material submitted for this record, and other relevant information, I find that I cannot make the determinations required for a denial of a waiver request pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act nor can I make the determination required for a denial of an authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. Therefore I grant both a waiver of preemption and authorization to the State of California with respect to its CHE regulations as set for the above.

My decision will affect not only persons in California but also manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce engines for sale in California. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by April 23, 2012. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission'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 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.

Collection Title: Demographic Information on Applicants.

OMB Control No.: 3046-0046.

Description of Affected Public: Individuals submitting applications for federal employment.

Number of Responses: 26,854,281.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 1,342,714 [(26,854,281 × 3)/60].

Number of Forms: One.

Federal Cost: None.

Abstract: Under section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Commission is charged with reviewing and approving federal agencies' plans to affirmatively address potential discrimination before it occurs. Pursuant to such oversight responsibilities, the Commission has established systems to monitor compliance with Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act by requiring federal agencies to evaluate their employment practices through the collection and analysis of data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability status of applicants for both permanent and temporary employment.

While several federal agencies (or components of such agencies) have obtained OMB approval for the use of forms collecting data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability status of applicants, it is not an efficient use of government resources for each federal agency to separately seek OMB approval. Accordingly, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and a proliferation of forms, the EEOC seeks approval of a form that may be used by all (?) federal agencies.

Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained will be used by federal agencies only for evaluating whether an agency's recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race, national origin, sex, or disability status. The voluntary responses are treated in a highly confidential manner and play no part in the job selection process. The information is not provided to any panel rating the applications, to selecting officials, to anyone who can affect the application, or to the public. Rather, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organization area. No information from the form is entered into an official personnel file.

Burden Statement: In fiscal year 2011, the EEOC gathered data on the number of applicants during fiscal year 2010 from the 59 federal agencies required to collect applicant data. Based on the agency responses, we expect that 26,854,281 applicants will be asked to complete the form.

Because of the predominant use of online application systems, which require only pointing and clicking on the selected responses, and because the form requests only eight questions regarding basic information, the EEOC estimates that an applicant can complete the form in approximately 3 minutes or less.